Would Eliminating Qualified Immunity Substantially Deter Police Misconduct?

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the proposal that eliminating or substantially reducing the qualified immunity currently enjoyed by police officers would address racism and police brutality. Although the idea has lately garnered some bipartisan support and could potentially have some benefit, Dorf describes two reasons to be skeptical of the suggestion. He concludes that for all of its flaws, qualified immunity may actually facilitate the progressive development of constitutional rights.

Read More

LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties

Citation: 2020-Ohio-3196

Opinion Date: June 9, 2020

Judge: Fischer

Areas of Law: Contracts, Landlord - Tenant, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that B.E.B. Properties reserved the right to receive future rental payments for leased land underneath a cell tower when it conveyed the property, holding that the deed did not contain such a reservation. B.E.B. Properties leased a portion of commercial property it owned to a cellular telephone company, and a cellular tower was erected on the site. B.E.B. subsequently sold the property to Keith Baker and Joseph Cyvas. Thereafter, two of the general partners in B.E.B. sold their interests in the partnership to Bruce and Sheila Bird, who believed this transaction included the assignment of the right to receive rental payments for the tower. When LRC Realty, Inc. acquired the property it sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to the annual rental payments. The trial court granted summary judgment for LRC Realty. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the Birds were entitled to rental payments based on the language contained in the deed transferring the property from B.E.B. to Baker and Cyvas. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) absent a reservation in the deed conveying the property, the right to receive rents runs with the land; and (2) the deed here did not create such a reservation.

State v. Howard

Citation: 2020-Ohio-3195

Opinion Date: June 9, 2020

Judge: Maureen O'Connor

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court revoking Defendant's community control and imposing the prison sentence that it had notified Defendant of at his initial sentencing hearing, holding that consecutive sentences were not properly imposed in this case. The court of appeals concluded (1) because the trial court had notified Defendant at his initial sentencing hearing of the specific prison terms that the court could impose if Defendant were to violate his community-control conditions, it was not required to repeat that notification before it imposed the prison terms at a second revocation hearing; and (2) the trial court had not been required to make consecutive-sentences findings required under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.14(c) when it revoked Defendant's community control and imposed consecutive prison terms. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court provided Defendant sufficient notice of the specific prison terms he could receive if his community control were to be revoked; but (2) a trial court must make statutorily required consecutive-sentences findings when it imposes consecutive sentences following the revocation of community control.

State ex rel. Municipal Construction Equipment Operators' Labor Council v. City of Cleveland

Citation: 2020-Ohio-3197

Opinion Date: June 9, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying as moot a complaint for a writ of mandamus filed by the Municipal Construction Equipment Operators' Labor Council (the union) seeking to compel the city of Cleveland and its Civil Service Commission (collectively, Cleveland) to release public records relating to a job posting, holding that because the requested records were provided, the mandamus claim was moot. The court of appeals concluded that Cleveland had produced all records responsive to the union's request and denied the mandamus action as moot. Further, the court ordered each side to pay its own costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the union did not establish that Cleveland failed to comply with its duties under Ohio Rev. Code 149.43(B)(7)(a) or 149.43(B)(6); and (2) the union did not establish that Cleveland failed to promptly release records in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 149.43(B)(1).