Latest 3 Cases: Phoenix Lighting Group, LLC v. Genlyte Thomas Group, LLC (Business Law), Ayers v. Cleveland (Civil Rights), State ex rel. Kerr v. ...

Is Retribution Worth the Cost?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb discusses the four purported goals of the criminal justice system—deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation—and argues that retribution may preclude rehabilitation. Colb considers whether restorative justice—wherein a victim has a conversation with the offender and talks about what he did to her and why it was wrong—might better serve the rehabilitative purpose than long prison sentences do.

Read More

The Other Epidemic

KATHRYN ROBB

Kathryn Robb, executive director of CHILD USAdvocacy, comments on a public-health crisis that is getting relatively less attention right now: the scourge of child sex abuse. To address this crisis, Robb calls for greater public awareness, stronger laws protecting children, and legislative action

Read More

Phoenix Lighting Group, LLC v. Genlyte Thomas Group, LLC

Citation: 2020-Ohio-1056

Opinion Date: March 25, 2020

Judge: Stewart

Areas of Law: Business Law

In this appeal concerning the trial court's award of $3,983,014 in attorney fees the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the award of attorney fees, holding that the "lodestar" reflected a reasonable fee based on the prevailing market rate for the services rendered by Appellees' attorneys, and therefore, the trial court's enhancement to the lodestar was in error. Appellees were awarded a jury verdict against Appellant for compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages, prejudgment interest, and litigation costs and expenses. In determining attorney fees, the trial court established a lodestar - the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the number of hours worked - of $1,991,507. Then court then doubled the attorney fees due to the complexity and length of the case and the "highly favorable outcome" obtained by the attorneys. The court of appeals affirmed the award. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellees' attorneys were reasonably compensated, so there should have been no enhancement to the lodestar.

Ayers v. Cleveland

Citation: 2020-Ohio-1047

Opinion Date: March 25, 2020

Judge: Fischer

Areas of Law: Civil Rights

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that Appellant, a judgment creditor, did not have standing to bring a private cause of action against a city to enforce the city's obligations to its employees, holding that the right to indemnification set forth in Ohio Rev. Code 2744.07(A)(2) may be asserted only by an employee of a political subdivision. Appellant filed a complaint in federal district court asserted civil rights violations against the City of Cleveland and two of its police detectives. The court granted summary judgment for Cleveland but found that the detectives had violated Appellant's constitutional rights. The court entered a judgment against the detectives in the amount of $13,210,000. Appellant later filed this action against the City asserting, inter alia, claims of statutory indemnification under section 2744.07(B). The common pleas court concluded that the statute required the City to indemnify the officers and pay the judgment. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a judgment creditor may not proceed directly against a political subdivision under section 2744.07(B).

State ex rel. Kerr v. Kelsey

Citation: 2020-Ohio-1057

Opinion Date: March 25, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of prohibition to vacate judgments in two civil cases, holding that Appellant's claim was barred by res judicata. Appellant previously tried to vacate the civil judgments at issue in this case by filing a mandamus claim. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the mandamus complaint operated as an adjudication on the merits. The Supreme Court held that because Appellant's prior lawsuit attacking the validity of the same underlying judgments had been adjudicated on the merits, Appellant's current claim was barred by res judicata.