Contention of Drilling Rights vs. Home Rule Jurisdiction

 In its hearing  State ex rel. Munroe Falls v. Beck Energy Corporation last Wednesday, a Cleveland Plain Dealer article professes the Ohio Supreme Court not only decides oil and gas drilling rights in the Summit County community of Munroe Falls, but larger consequences for the rest of the state.

  “At issue,” the Plain Dealer relates, “is whether zoning rules and other laws enacted by communities are trumped by an Ohio law that gives the state exclusive rights to regulate oil and gas drilling to ensure uniform regulation. (But) a half dozen other communities, including Broadview Heights, Euclid and North Royalton, have filed briefs with the court in support of Munroe Falls and its assertion of home-rule rights under the state constitution." ( See Court’s docket )

  “It’s not about fracking and it’s not about gas wells. It’s about home rule,” Munroe Falls Mayor Frank Larson told an interview Tuesday. “It’s not about oil and gas. It’d be simple if it was.”

  Munroe Falls sued in Summit County Common Pleas Court after the state issued Beck Energy Corp. a drilling permit, the city contending that Beck was violating local laws -- a zoning ordinance and four drilling provisions – that conflicted with the state statute. The Summit County court sided with the city in 2011, the article reported,  but Beck Energy got that ruling overturned on appeal -- The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals holding that the local zoning rules conflicted with the state statute, which gives the state “sole and exclusive authority” over oil and gas drilling across Ohio. ( District Court's ruling ) Munroe Falls appealed that ruling. (Memorandum in support of jurisdiction )

  On the other side of the case are Beck Energy and a local property owner who leased drilling rights to Beck. Joining them, are the state of Ohio, a host of oil and gas related organizations and business groups, including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. (Memorandum in response )

 See also Court News Ohio’s recording of oral arguments here. 

Public Comment Sought on Amended Rules & Forms Concerning Judicial Consent to Minor’s Abortion

 The Ohio Supreme Court’s new service last Friday announced that “amendments are being proposed to rules and forms concerning judicial consent to an abortion by a minor without notification of a parent, guardian, or custodian.

   The changes will bring the rules in line with recent legislative changes, more specifically:

• Am. H.B. 63, passed Nov. 4, 2011, becoming effective Feb. 3, 2012, and requiring courts to find by “clear and convincing evidence” whether a minor is sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide intelligently whether to have an abortion and whether the abortion is in the best interests of the minor. The new evidentiary standard being added to Sup.R. 23.1, Form 23.1-A, and Form 23.1-B. (See Legislative Service’s final analysis)

• Sub. H.B. 247, passed Dec. 12, 2012, and becoming effective Mar. 22, 2013, eliminating a juvenile’s ability to file a petition or application for an abortion in the juvenile court in the county where the abortion will be performed, the option being deleted from the instructions for Sup.R. 23 and Form 23-A, Sup.R. 23.1  and Form 23.1-A, and Sup.R. 24 and Forms 24-A and 24-B.  (See Legislative Service’s final analysis)

  Amendments to the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio cover Sup.R. 23-25 and Forms 23-A through 25-A and can be viewed here.

  The Court will accept public comments until April 2, 2014, submitted in writing to:

                         John VanNorman, Senior Policy & Research                         Counsel
Supreme Court of Ohio
65 South Front Street, 7th Floor
                       Columbus, Ohio  43215-3431
or john.vannorman@sc.ohio.gov 
(include your full name and mailing                                       address in any comments submitted by                                  e-mail.

Ohio Supreme Court seeking comments on amendments to disciplinary rules & regulations

  The Supreme Court’s news service, Court News Ohio, Tuesday posted that “following a year-long review of disciplinary procedure rules and regulations of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline, the board submitted proposed amendments to the Ohio Supreme Court for consideration. After reviewing the changes and voting to publish them, the Supreme Court will accept public comment on amendments to Gov.Bar R. V and the regulations until May 5.”

  In addition to clarifying and modernizing case-related procedures, several significant changes to the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio have been proposed, including:

•  Updating the terminology relative to mental illness, mental disorders, and substance use disorders to reflect current, accepted medical standards;

• Allowing for the imposition of an interim suspension where a lawyer or judge is suffering from a medically recognized disorder that substantially impairs the performance of professional duties;

•Adopting a single standard of “confidential” as that term applies to the investigation of grievances and applying to disciplinary case documents the standards of public access that are applicable to trial and appellate courts

 A complete list of all amendments is available here.

 Comments should be submitted in writing by May 5, 2014 to:

Richard A. Dove,                                                                                     Secretary Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline Ohio Supreme Court 65 South Front Street, Fifth Floor Columbus, OH 43215

or  rick.dove@sc.ohio.gov


The CNO also earlier reported that “The Court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline, which investigates and prosecutes complaints of misconduct by Ohio’s attorneys and judges, substantially reduced its active pending caseload for the second consecutive year according to a 2013 annual report released on Feb. 13th.”  Copies of that report are available here.