International Criminal Court Lacks Authority to Proceed Against Israel

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, GEORGE BOGDEN

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and JD candidate George Bogden, PhD, comment on a recent filing by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) asking the court to exercise jurisdiction and grant permission to pursue an investigation of alleged war crimes in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Estreicher and Bogden argue that because Israel is not a state party to the action and Palestine is not a state recognized by international law, the ICC lacks territorial jurisdiction under the Rome Statute.

Read More

Vossman v. AirNet Systems, Inc.

Citation: 2020-Ohio-872

Opinion Date: March 12, 2020

Judge: DeWine

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court awarding Appellee costs to recover the cost of procuring deposition transcripts after an discrimination lawsuit was resolved on summary judgment, holding that Ohio Rev. Code 2303.21 does not provide statutory authority for a party to recover the cost of deposition transcripts used in support of a motion for summary judgment. Appellant sued Appellee for age discrimination. Over the course of litigation the parties took five depositions. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment citing to the transcripts of the depositions in support of its motion. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, Appellee moved to recover the cost of procuring the deposition transcripts pursuant to section 2303.21. The trial court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute does not allow the expense of procuring deposition transcripts to be taxed as a cost.

Green v. Shoop

Citation: 2020-Ohio-873

Opinion Date: March 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the Chillicothe Correctional Institution, holding that the court of appeals correctly granted the warden's motion to dismiss. In dismissing the petition, the court of appeals concluded that Appellant's claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus and that res judicata barred Appellant's successive habeas corpus petition. Appellant appealed the dismissal and also filed a motion to strike the warden's brief for lack of a valid certificate of service. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals and denied the motion to strike, holding that the court of appeals' analysis was correct in both respects and that Appellant presented no evidence to support his motion to strike.

State ex rel. Holman v. Collins

Citation: 2020-Ohio-874

Opinion Date: March 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting summary judgment to the warden of the Pickaway Correctional Institutional and dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals correctly granted summary judgment to the warden and dismissed Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant, an inmate, filed a complaint for writ of habeas corpus asking the court to order his release from prison. In his complaint, Appellant challenged the actions of the Adult Parole Authority and alleged that because he had not been considered for parole since the completion of his sentence the warden was unlawfully restraining him. The court of appeals granted summary judgment for the warden. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's arguments rested on his mistaken belief that his sentence expired upon the completion of his minimum sentence and that Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus was correctly dismissed.

State ex rel. Russell v. Klatt

Citation: 2020-Ohio-875

Opinion Date: March 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Appellees, a court of appeals judge and the court of appeals, to correct alleged factual errors in a decision rendered in 2004, holding the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim in mandamus. In 2003, Appellant was convicted of murder. In 2004, the court of appeals affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentence. In 2019, Appellant filed his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Appellees to correct "untruthful factual findings" in the 2004 decision.The court of appeals dismissed the petition, concluding that Appellant was not entitled to mandamus relief because he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy at law to challenge the alleged inaccuracies.