<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/res/preview.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Ohio Constitution - Pending Ohio Supreme Court Cases</title>
    <link>http://www.law.csuohio.edu/lawlibrary/resources/lawpubs/ohioconlaw/OhioConstitution-OhioSupremeCourtCases.html</link>
    <description><![CDATA[Cases pending before the Ohio Supreme Court dealing with the Ohio Constitution.]]></description>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:23:33 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>Feed43 Proxy/1.0 (www.feed43.com)</generator>
    <ttl>360</ttl>

<item>
<guid isPermaLink="false">6b26860c5b17f6ee3753c07d3004c3fb</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<em><strong>State v. Hamilton</strong></em>, Case nos. 2009-1878 and 2009-1958. Whether amending the indictment to<br /> include the mens rea of &quot;recklessly&quot; violated the constitutional right to grand jury review under Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Appeal by prosecutor Oral argument June 8, 2010. <a href="http://www.ohiochannel.org/media_archives/supreme_court/media.cfm?file_id=125960&amp;">Argument video</a>. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/10/0608/0608.asp">Oral Argument Preview</a>. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&amp;year=2009&amp;number=1878&amp;myPage=searchbycasenumber.asp">Docket and Briefs</a><p><sub><i>-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service</i></sub></p>
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<guid isPermaLink="false">4c3c99190f2811b40f32202bb923b28b</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<em><strong>Doe v. Ronan</strong></em>, Case no. 2009-2104. Did 2007 state legislation that required non-licensed public school staff to submit to a criminal background check, and required school districts to terminate any employees found to have past convictions for certain offenses, violate the Ohio Constitution's prohibition against retroactive laws that impair a vested substantive right of an individual or interfere with the obligations of a pre-existing contract? <a href="http://www.ohiochannel.org/media_archives/supreme_court/media.cfm?file_id=125961&amp;">Argument video</a>. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/10/0608/0608.asp">Oral Argument Preview</a>. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&amp;year=2009&amp;number=2104&amp;myPage=searchbycasenumber.asp">Docket and Briefs</a>.<p><sub><i>-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service</i></sub></p>
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<guid isPermaLink="false">f17d97c2b8cbf5a9585f17e7fb1dd897</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<strong><em>Ohio Apartment Association and Greenwich Apartments, Ltd. v. Wilkins</em></strong>. Case no. 2009-0213. Oral Argument May 24, 2010. Are state tax rules adopted in 2005 (H.B. 66) that grant a 10 percent rollback in property taxes for real property occupied by single-family, two-family or three-family dwellings but not for property occupied by four or more residential units &ldquo;unreasonable&rdquo; because they violate provisions of the Ohio Constitution that require uniform taxation of real property and equal protection of the laws? <a href="http://www.ohiochannel.org/media_archives/supreme_court/media.cfm?file_id=125709&amp;"> Argument Video.</a> <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/10/0525/0525.asp">Oral Argument Preview</a>. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&amp;year=2009&amp;number=0213&amp;myPage=searchbycasenumber.asp">Docket and Briefs </a>.<p><sub><i>-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service</i></sub></p>
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<guid isPermaLink="false">78fa8c968632870b660485f573e3a08c</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<em><strong>Board of Trustees of the Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Foundation v. Boyce</strong></em> . Case no. 2010-0118. Oral argument July 6, 2010. Whether 2008 legislation in which the General Assembly withdrew proceeds of Ohio&rsquo;s Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Endowment Fund and appropriated those funds to pay for non-tobacco related expenditures violated the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution and/or the contracts clauses of the U.S. and state constitutions? <a href="http://www.ohiochannel.org/media_archives/supreme_court/media.cfm?file_id=126214&amp;">Oral Argument</a>. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/10/0706/0706.asp">Oral Argument Preview.</a> <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&amp;year=2010&amp;number=0118&amp;myPage=searchbycasenumber.asp">Docket and Briefs</a>.<p><sub><i>-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service</i></sub></p>
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<guid isPermaLink="false">6985fe30181295019f47830b63f1cb56</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<br /> <br /><p><sub><i>-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service</i></sub></p>
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<guid isPermaLink="false">8ed410d52b17357eb65791883f2e6073</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p><strong><em>Cleveland v. State</em></strong>, Case No. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&amp;year=2009&amp;number=2280&amp;myPage=searchbycasenumber.asp">2009-2280</a>.<a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&amp;year=2009&amp;number=2280&amp;myPage=searchbycasenumber.asp"> Docket. </a>Appeal of Cuyahoga App. No. 92663, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-ohio-5968.pdf">2009-Ohio-5968</a>. The 8th Dist found Ohio Revised Code 9.68 (requiring uniform laws across the state concerning firearms) to be unconstitutional and reversed the trial court&rsquo;s judgment in favor of the State.&nbsp; The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review of the State&rsquo;s appeal.&nbsp; Case involves the home rule amendments to the Ohio Constitution. </p><p><sub><i>-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service</i></sub></p>
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<guid isPermaLink="false">4a28ee7257254668b53a1accd88cd1a9</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<strong><em>State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources </em></strong>. Case No. 2009-1806. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&amp;year=2009&amp;number=1806&amp;myPage=searchbycasenumber.asp">Docket</a>. Appeal of Summit App. No. 2008-L-007, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2009/2009-ohio-4256.pdf">2009-Ohio-4256</a>. Per the Plaindealer, 3/6/2010: &quot;The 11th District Court of Appeals had ruled last August that the public owns any land beneath the lake water at any given moment, while lakefront property owners own the dry land above the water line. That ruling upheld a Lake County Common Pleas Court decision from December 2007 on a case filed against the Ohio Lakefront Group by then Attorney General Marc Dann.&quot; Constitutional issues concerning the standing of the state of Ohio as well as takings issues.<p><sub><i>-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service</i></sub></p>
]]></description>
</item>


  </channel>
</rss>
