The statute governing forcible entry and detainer claims, often referred to as evictions, allows landlords to file complaints against their tenants for a number of different reasons, including breaching a lease agreement, failing to pay rent, or engaging in illegal drug activity. If the landlord is a corporation, that corporation is required to be represented by an attorney in filing complaints for eviction and appearing before the Court. Non-lawyers are not permitted to file legal papers or represent the interests of a corporation before a Court except under very limited circumstances which do not apply to eviction actions. See http://www.coollaw.com/blog/2016/09/claim-limits-in-ohio-small-claims-court-increase-to-6000--.shtml.
Beginning September 27, 2016, small claims courts throughout Ohio will be able to hear cases with damage claims of up to $6,000. For decades, access to small claims courts has been limited to those cases with damages of $3,000 or less. The notable 100% increase marks the first increase seen in Ohio in nearly twenty years and puts the Buckeye State more on track with the national average for small claims courts nationwide.
Did Tom Brady cheat? Is he guilty? Is Commissioner Roger Goodell a power mad dictator? I am just as curious as most sports fans to see how this soap opera plays out.
As if the lasting effects of your digital footprint were not deterrent enough, the possibility you could be destroying evidence and subjecting yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines if you delete material during existing or probable litigation should cause you pause before posting questionable material on social media outlets.
What is procedural due process? Procedural due process is a constitutionally protected interest. Due to this interest, prior to any taking of life, liberty, or property by the government, United States' citizens are entitled to notice and the opportunity to be heard.
On March 11 2014, Governor Kasich signed House Bill 170 into law. HB 170 made sweeping changes to the law in Ohio with regard to a drug known as Naxolone, used to prevent or reverse the effects of opiate overdose, including difficulty breathing, sleepiness, low blood pressure, and even death. Naxolone, brand name Narcan, can be administered as an injection or as a nasal spray. Naloxone does not reverse overdoses that are caused by non-opioid drugs, such as cocaine, benzodiazepines (e.g. Xanex, Klonopin and Valium), methamphetamines, or alcohol.
Imagine this scenario faced by many employers with exiting employees: the employer gives the exiting employee the option to contractually waive any future right to sue the employer in exchange for a lump sum, a golden (or silver) parachute. The employee has signed the severance agreement, cashed the check, and that chapter of the company's life is closed.
Coolidge Wall attorney Amy Blankenship and Dawn Frick of Surdyk, Dowd & Turner recently co-authored an article entitled The Techno-Savvy Deposition, which was featured in the December 2013 issue of the Dayton Bar Briefs. Ms. Frick and Ms. Blankenship are the Chair and Co-Chair, respectively, of the Civil Trial Practice Group of the Dayton Bar Association. To view the article, click here: Techno-Savvy Deposition.
In December the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Rochow v. Life Insurance Company of North America. Rochow, the president of a company, began experiencing short- term memory loss and other symptoms of illness in 2001 which led to him being demoted. The symptoms continued to interfere with his performance and he was forced to resign in 2002. Rochow filed a claim for long-term disability benefits and the Life Insurance Company of North America ("LINA") denied his claim and three appeals. Finally, Rochow filed a complaint in court against LINA and stated two claims under ERISA: one to recover benefits due and one to remedy the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The district court found for Rochow concluding that LINA acted arbitrarily in denying his claim for disability benefits. After the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in 2007, the district court awarded Rochow the unpaid benefits and found that LINA must disgorge of approximately $3.8 million in profits supposedly earned from the money that LINA failed to pay Rochow.
In 2013, the federal courts decided several cases that upheld arbitration clauses in commercial and employment contracts. These courts further upheld arbitration clauses that require individual as opposed to class action arbitration. Some dissenting United States Supreme Court Justices wrote that it may no longer be economically feasible for individuals to take on big corporations in arbitration.