How Not to Criticize the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf responds to three broad-based objections by Republican opponents to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021: (1) that the already-recovering economy doesn’t need stimulus; (2) that many of the Act’s provisions have nothing to do with COVID-19; and (3) that there will be waste, fraud, and abuse. Professor Dorf explains why these objections ring hollow and argues that while the Act is not perfect legislation and will likely face challenges in implementation, it is a much better option than anything Republicans were offering.

Read More

State ex rel. Sanchez v. Wainwright

Citation: 2021-Ohio-747

Opinion Date: March 16, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the habeas petition for failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A). Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking in cocaine and one count or engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate prison sentence of fourteen years. Appellant later filed his habeas petition alleging that his sentences were void because the trial court failed to make the findings required under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive prison sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition was properly dismissed.

State ex rel. Sands v. Kelly

Citation: 2021-Ohio-769

Opinion Date: March 16, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Lake County Clerk of Courts to provide him with a record related to his criminal case, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2929.25(A). In affirming the judgment, the Supreme Court noted that it was undisputed that Appellant was an inmate and that the Clerk of Courts was a government employee. Therefore, Appellant was required to comply with section 2969.25(A). The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals was correct in finding that Appellant's affidavit failed to provide the information required by section 2969.25(A)(1).

Erickson v. Morrison

Citation: 2021-Ohio-746

Opinion Date: March 16, 2021

Judge: Sharon L. Kennedy

Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the trial court declaring that Appellants owned certain mineral rights and quieting title to the rights in their favor, holding that the reservation of mineral rights in this case was preserved by Ohio Rev. Code 5301.49(A). At issue was whether a reference to a reservation of mineral rights in a surface landowner's root of title and in subsequently recorded title transactions was sufficiently specific to preserve the reservation of the mineral rights under Ohio's Marketable Title Act when the reference does not name the record owner of the rights. The Supreme Court held (1) in enacting section 5301.49(A), the Legislature did not require a reference to an interest predating the root of title to name the interest's owner in order to preserve the interest; and (2) in this case, notwithstanding the failure to name the owner of the reserved mineral rights, the reference was sufficient to preserve the rights from being extinguished under the Act.