Which Laws Apply to Broker-Dealers? Federal Laws? State Laws? Both? General Principles Leading to an Answer

TAMAR FRANKEL

BU Law emerita professor Tamar Frankel explains the law of preemption as it pertains to broker-dealers and their investor clients. She predicts, among other things, that either the clients will demand that broker-dealers adhere to a fiduciary duty, or else that states will impose that duty on them.

Read More

State ex rel. Ware v. Walsh

Citation: 2020-Ohio-769

Opinion Date: March 5, 2020

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 alleging that the prosecuting attorney failed properly to respond to a public-records request, holding that Appellant did not comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A). Appellant, an inmate, filed with his complaint an affidavit listing six civil actions he had filed within the previous five years. The court of appeals concluded that Appellant did not comply with section 2969.25(A)(4) because the affidavit did not provide any information describing the outcome of the actions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the complaint because Appellant did not strictly comply with section 2969.25.

State v. Nettles

Citation: 2020-Ohio-768

Opinion Date: March 5, 2020

Judge: DeWine

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for multiple counts of drug trafficking, holding that the warrant issued by a Sandusky County judge that allowed Drug Enforcement Agency agents sitting in Toledo (Lucas County) to listen to cell-phone calls of an alleged drug trafficker who was based in Sandusky County was valid because the government properly obtained the interception warrant in the Sandusky County Common Pleas Court. On appeal, Defendant argued that the warrant was invalid because the calls were intercepted in Toledo when the agents listened to them, and therefore, the warrant was issued by a judge in the wrong county. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) interception occurs both at the place where agents are listening and at the place where the phone is used and (2) Defendant's calls were intercepted - captured and redirected - by law enforcement in Sandusky County where Defendant used his cell phone to facilitate drug trafficking, and therefore, the interception warrant was properly obtained in Sandusky County.