Legal Research

Two Ohio Supreme Court Decisions of Note

Rule Bars Evidence of Oral Promises That Contradict Written Contract in Suits Under Consumer Practices Act

From the site: "2008-1337.  Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-3554.

Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-3554.pdf

(July 28, 2009) The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that a provision of Ohio's Administrative Code, O.A.C. 109:4-3-16(B)(22), is unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it allows state courts to consider "parol evidence" of alleged oral promises or representations made by a vendor to a consumer that are contrary to the terms of a written contract signed by the parties."

Read full text

Court Holds Resentencing Guidelines Set in 2006 Decision Do Not Violate Offenders' Constitutional Rights

From the site: "2007-0475.  State v. Elmore, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-3478.

Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-3478.pdf

(July 28, 2009) The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that the resentencing of criminal offenders pursuant to the Court's February 27, 2006  decision in State v. Foster for crimes committed before that date does not violate offenders' Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial or their rights under the Ex Post Facto or Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution."

Read full text

Both items from:

Source: The Supreme Court of Ohio,  28 July 2009

Full post as published by Stark County Law Library Blawg on July 29, 2009 (boomark / email).