In a unanimous decision, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court finding “the officers’ constitutional right to privacy supersedes Ohio’s public-records laws”. The newspaper argued that the officers did not face credible threat of physical violence, however, the Court decided otherwise. The Court found “The evidence established that the release of the identities of the wounded police officers would place them at risk of serious bodily harm and possibly even death from a perceived likely threat …”

To read the entire article please view the following link:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/05/10/police-supreme-court.html

To read the Court’s decision please view the following link:

The Court will be making its ruling on the health care issue and the Arizona immigration law before the fall election. It is thought that the Court will overrule part if not all of the health care law which will be detrimental to Obama’s campaign for obvious reasons. Unfortunately for Romney, he would do well to gloss over the whole issue as he helped push through a similar individual mandate while Governor of Massachusetts that was a model for Obama’s plan. If the Court overturns health care law it will put the health care issue back on the political agenda which would be a political advantage for democrats since that issue has been a winning issue in the past.

The Court will also be ruling on an Arizona immigration law that would allow police to check the legal status of individuals stopped for other reasons. The Obama administration opposes the law and a favorable decision by the Court would be a huge boost for his campaign. Romney again would do well to largely ignore this issue so as not to pit his Republican base against the hispanic vote needed in key states.

Obama, a former constitutional law professor, delivered what some considered a misleading warning to the court regarding the health care law.”

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” the president said. “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example.”

“White House spokesmen tried to explain that Obama recognizes the court’s power to review laws passed by Congress. His point, said spokesman Jay Carney, is that the Supreme Court traditionally has ‘deferred to Congress’ authority in matters of national economic importance.’”

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/supreme_court_moves_to_center.html

Of those polled, most Republicans felt that the Court would make its ruling based on the law while most Democrats felt that the Court would rule based on political persuasion. Half of the Independents polled felt that the decision would be based on political predispositions.

A meager 39% of those polled would like to see the Health Care Law upheld in its entirety. Thirty-eight percent would like to see the Court throw the law out completely and 29% would like the Court to remove the mandate requiring the purchase of health care insurance.

To read the article in its entirety please view the link provided below. An additional link details the viewpoint of Paul Keckley, health research chief for Deloitte, a major benefits consultant who feels that the Court may have misunderstood the insurance purchase requirement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-half-of-americans-expect-supreme-courts-health-care-decision-to-be-political/2012/04/10/gIQAOoqW9S_story.html?hpid=z1

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/supreme-court-misunderstanding-on-health-overhaul/a50c3a2973e14fce8c7444699190b86e

On Monday procedural issues were discussed and then on Tuesday the Court discussed the central issue, that of the individual mandate. On Wednesday, the Court discussed what would happen if the individual mandate was found to be unconstitutional as the mandate is the “key funding mechanism” of the law. Attorneys on both sides of the issue faced off in the Courtroom and were questioned thoroughly by the Justices.

The White House is confident that the law will stand while CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin stated: “I think the individual mandate is gone, based on the questioning…it sure looks like there are at least five votes to get rid of … the individual mandate.” Toobin stated that if the mandate were gone than the law would not stand. This was reiterated by Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who said “the entire measure falls apart if the Supreme Court invalidates the individual mandate. The individual mandate would be the funding stream that makes all of the rest of the act work. If it gets ruled unconstitutional, then who pays for all the other provisions in the 2,700-page bill?”

While the Court seemed to harbor serious concerns regarding the mandate, the majority did not seem ready to abolish the law in its entirety. However, the issue of severability would be moot if the Court finds that the mandate is constitutional. The issue is now in the hands of the Court and the nation is eagarly awaiting its decision as evidenced by the enormous turnout at the Court to hear the proceedings. 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/scotus-health-care/index.html?section=cnn_latest

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_20274815/document-supreme-court-health-care-arguments-transcripts-days

One of the employees stated “There is no office policy against wearing orange shirts. We had no warning. We got no severance, no package, no nothing…I feel so violated.” Unfortunately for these employees, Florida is an at-will employment state which means employers can terminate a non-contract employee “for a good reason, for a bad reason or even for the wrong reason, as long as it’s not an unlawful reason,” according to Eric K. Gabrielle, a labor and employment lawyer at Stearns Weaver. The irony of the situation is that if the employees had actually been wearing the clothing as a form of protest, it would have been illegal to fire them for engaging in a protected activity. 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/law-firm-fires-14-employees-wearing-orange-shirts-181404912.html

When contracting with Centex to build the new houses, the couples each signed an agreement with Centex that limited what the builder would be required to fix. By signing the agreement, the couples agreed to waive any claims for repairs not “specifically mentioned in a separate document.”  The document was available for the couple’s inspection, however, it was at a different location and not before or at the time of purchase.

Apparently the steel joists in the two houses had become magnetized at some point, possibly while the houses were under construction. Centex refused to make the repairs citing the limited warranty.

The couples sued Centex in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court in 2007. The Common Pleas Court found in favor of Centex in 2009 and the Franklin County Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in 2010.

The matter was brought before the Ohio Supreme Court and the Court overturned the lower court’s finding. The Court determined that the couples had not waived their right to sue Centex. The Court unanimously ruled that all Ohio home-builders are required to build in a “workmanlike manner using ordinary care.”

The ruling is a win for homeowners. But for the couples who purchased their new homes in 2004, the win was a long time in coming.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/03/14/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-homeowners.html

Those in favor of the amendment allege that minors lack the maturity necessary to fully understand the consequences of not having legal representation. In the eyes of the ACLU and the Ohio Public Defender, the proposed amendment would serve to protect the civil rights of juvenile offenders. Those opposed to the amendment argue that the cost would be too great for some cash strapped counties that would have to pay for such a service for those offenders who could not afford legal counsel. In addition, the opponents allege that judges are more than capable of determining whether a juvenile had the maturity and necessary understanding to intelligently waive their right to counsel.

As it stands, the 2007 ruling requires juvenile offenders to consult with a parent or guardian prior to waiving the right to a lawyer. Proponents of the amendment allege that the current rule is not sufficient because in many counties there simply are no lawyers available to represent offenders for initial court appearances. Further, some  parents waive their child’s right to counsel merely to save time as a new hearing would be required if a juvenile requested counsel when one was not readily available. Those in favor of the amendment contend that since the juvenile is the one who must deal with the consequences of such a decision, the decision should not be left solely to the juvenile’s parent or guardian without access to legal counsel.

Unless the General Assembly intervenes, the new rule will take effect on July 1, 2012.

The couple cancelled their plans to marry in January of 2005 due to the fact that Mr. Ormsby’s divorce had not occurred. In March of that same year, the couple had an argument which led to Ms. Williams leaving the residence. At that time Mr. Ormsby also filed a restraining order against Ms. Williams. Later that month, the couple agreed in writing that the house be sold immediately and the first $324,000 of the selling price be paid to Mr. Ormsby with the remainder paid to Ms. Williams.

A plan to reconcile occurred two months after the signing of the March agreement. In accordance with Ms. Williams’s demand to be granted an undivided one half interest in the house prior to resuming the relationship the couple signed a new agreement in June of 2005 which stated that the couple were to be “equal partners” with regards to the residence and provided for the division of the property should the relationship end. The couple sought counseling, but eventually the relationship ended in September of 2007. Both parties remained in the residence and lived in separate areas of the house until Mr. Ormsby left in April of 2008. Both parties filed suit against one another. Mr. Ormsby maintained that both the March and June agreements were not enforceable contracts as they lacked consideration. Ms. Williams maintained that the June agreement was a novation of the March agreement.

Of note, the June 2005 agreement used the term “for valuable consideration” but failed to specify what constituted consideration. A trial court first heard the case and found that the March agreement was a binding contract, but that the June agreement lacked consideration and was thus unenforceable. Ms. Williams appealed the decision and the appellate court reviewed the facts of the case and legal precedents on related matters and determined that Ms. Williams’s act of returning to the house and resuming the relationship constituted sufficient legal consideration thus making the June agreement an enforceable contract under Ohio law.

Mr. Ormsby appealed the appellate court’s decision and the case was brought before the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court reviewed the appellate court’s decision and the precedents the appellate court relied on for its decision. The Court found that the appellate court had erred in its interpretation of the cases and in its interpretation of the facts of the case at hand.

The Court stated “…Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the only consideration offered by Amber for the June 2005 agreement was her resumption of a romantic relationship with Frederick. There is no detriment to Amber in the June 2005 document, only benefit. Essentially, this agreement amounts to a gratuitous promise by Frederick to give Amber an interest in property based solely on the consideration of her love and affection. Therefore, the June 2005 document is not an enforceable contract because it fails for want of consideration.”According to Ohio law, a return to a romantic relationship is not recognized as sufficient legal consideration to form a contract between unmarried persons.

For more information about the case and to read the full Opinion see:

2010-1946.  Williams v. Ormsby, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-690.
Medina App. No. 09CA0085-M, 190 Ohio App.3d 815, 2010-Ohio-4664.  The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.
O’Connor, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
O’Donnell, J., concurs in judgment only.
Pfeifer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2012/2012-Ohio-690.pdf

Click on the following links to view recent articles about this case.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318501 

http://www.kvia.com/news/30311679/detail.html

For non-tipped employees the rate will increase from $7.40 to $7.70 per hour. For tipped employees the rate will increase from $3.70 to $3.85 per hour.

This increase in wages applies to employers grossing more than $283,000 per year. For employers grossing less than this amount, the state minimum wage rate of $7.25 would apply. The state minimum wage also applies for workers aged 14 and 15. The state minimum wage is linked to the federal minimum wage and can only be changed by an act of Congress and the President of the United States signature.

To view the Congressional Amendment regarding the minimum wage increase, please see §34a Minimum Wage of the Ohio Constitution at: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf

To view the Ohio Minimum Wage poster please visit: http://www.com.ohio.gov/laws/docs/dico_MinimumWagePoster2012.pdf

As with any rule, there are exceptions.   

Please seek professional assistance with any questions or specific situations. 

 ADVERTISING MATERIAL ONLY: If you need legal services, please seek professional counsel.