Follow Legally Speaking Ohio
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Marianna Brown Bettman
Marianna Brown Bettman is Distinguished Teaching Professor and Professor of Practice Emerita at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, where she taught torts, legal ethics, and a seminar on the Supreme Court of Ohio. She is also a former Ohio state court of appeals judge. Professor Bettman is a frequent presenter on Supreme Court of Ohio cases at Continuing Legal and Judicial Education seminars and conferences including the Ohio Judicial Conference. She also provides appellate consulting services to attorneys.
Category Archives: What’s On Their Minds?
What’s On Their Minds: Validity of Permanent Surrender Agreement in Adoption Case. In re: (C.C.S.), (C.L.S.) v. Adoption by Gentle Care.
“I’m just looking for any basis at all to say that the social worker is a fiduciary in this situation.” Justice French, to counsel for C.L.S.
On August 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the … Continue reading
What’s On Their Minds: Interpreting the Meaning of “Transacts Business” under R.C. 4117.13(D). Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority v. State Employment Relations Board et al.
Update: On November 2, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the case as improvidently allowed.
“You don’t run busses in Franklin County. You don’t have bus stops, you don’t have parking lots, you don’t have any of the … Continue reading
What’s On Their Minds: Permissibility of Disparate Treatment for Capital Defendants in Postconviction Review of Applications for DNA Testing. State v. Noling.
“A non-capital defendant is afforded an appellate review that is not discretionary. The appellate court has to do that. In a capital case, they (capital defendants) get a bite at the apple of appellate review, at the supreme court, but … Continue reading
What’s On Their Minds: Fleshing Out the Tort of Negligent Misidentification. Foley v. Univ. of Dayton.
Update: On November 3 2016, the court handed down a merit decision in this case. Read the analysis here.
“So they (Petitioners) purposefully identified these people-they didn’t negligently identify them.” Chief Justice O’Connor, to counsel for Petitioners.
On July … Continue reading
What’s On Their Minds: Is an Officer’s Bodycam Footage a Public Record? State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters.
On June 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Deters. At issue in this original action in mandamus is whether a prosecutor’s office must release police … Continue reading
What’s On Their Minds: How Many Times Can A Criminal Defendant Be Re-Tried? State of Ohio v. Christopher L. Anderson
Update: On September 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in this case. Read the analysis here.
How much is too much? Is there ever such a thing? … At what point does a … Continue reading
On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio was to hear oral argument in the case of State of Ohio v. Dominic Jackson, 2015-1137. At issue in the case is whether a defendant has a right to allocution … Continue reading
What’s On Their Minds: Is an Order Compelling Production of Allegedly Privileged Information a Final Appealable Order? Darlene Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, et al.
“We have an incident report on the date, time, location and the witnesses who observed an alleged slip and fall. What’s privileged about that… How would we prevent all discovery from getting locked up in a ‘privileged’ category?” Justice O’Donnell, … Continue reading
What’s On Their Minds: Constitutionality of the Mandatory Juvenile Transfer Statutes. State of Ohio v. Matthew Aalim
“Even though as you said the legislature sets the rules, the court can say your rules are too extreme. And we can do that here.” Chief Justice O’Connor, to the Chief Deputy Solicitor.
“Don’t states have the right to determine … Continue reading
What’s On Their Minds: Does R.C. 2307.60 Independently Authorize a Civil Action for Criminal Acts? Jessica Jacobson v. Ellen Kaforey et al.
“Would you say that any criminal act gives rise to civil recovery?” Chief Justice O’Connor, to plaintiff’s counsel.