Thursday, September 11, 2014

Ohio Supreme Court on the move

Court News Ohio reports that the Supreme Court of Ohio is once again on the move - this time hearing cases from Ravenna High School in Portage County on September 24. During this session the Court will hear three appeals which students from eleven local high schools will have the opportunity to watch.

The Court holds these off-site sessions twice a year, giving Ohio students an opportunity to learn about the justice system. Directly prior to the hearings the students will be able to meet the justices and ask them questions. After the arguments are completed they will be able to discuss the cases with the attorneys and learn more about the legal issues presented.

The cases to be heard in this session are:

Johnson v. State - The appellant is challenging his drug conviction because he asserts that evidence used against him at trial was improperly obtained. Specifically, he alleges that police placing a GPS unit on his vehicle without a warrant amounted to an unlawful search under the 4th Amendment. The State asserts that the officer acted in good faith,so the evidence collected as a result of this search did not need to be excluded.  The appellant argues that the good faith exception only applies in circumstances where binding precedent from an appellate court dictates, and that no such precedent exists here.

Ganley Chevrolet v. Felix - The appellant (a car dealership) is challenging the lower court's decision to certify the case against it as a class action. The case involves the legality of an arbitration clause in a contract to purchase a vehicle, and the class is all customers who have signed agreements with that clause. The appellant argues that the case should not have been certified as a class action because individuals who did not suffer harm or damages cannot be part of the class, and very few others took issue with the arbitration clause.

Chen v. Smith - The appellant (medical practice) in a medical malpractice claim is challenging the lower court's order that a surveillance video must be disclosed to the appellee (patient) before trial. The video in question shows the patient who is suing the practice for injuries related to a back surgery. The appellant argues that the video amounts to attorney work product and the appellee has not shown good cause as to why it is discoverable.

No comments: