Sagers Speaks on Apple Case in New York, Chicago, and Case Western Reserve University

Professor Chris Sagers

Professor Chris Sagers

In February, C|M|LAW’s James A. Thomas Distinguished Professor of Law Chris Sagers was invited to discuss his work on the Justice Department’s price-fixing lawsuit against Apple, United States v. Apple, Inc., before the Antitrust Section of the New York State Bar Association.  In January, he spoke about the case as a guest speaker before the Case Western Reserve University’s faculty of law.

Sagers will also speak on the topic again later this week as one of four speakers at the Loyola University of Chicago’s 2014 Consumer Antitrust Colloquium, one of the best attended annual conferences in antitrust.

Sagers has been quoted on the case frequently in the media, and has spoken on it several times previously.

 

 

Robertson Writes in Crain’s on Ohio Supreme Court Oral Argument regarding Local Attempts to Regulate Zoning of Shale Wells

Professor Heidi Gorovitz Robertson

Professor Heidi Gorovitz Robertson

C|M|LAW Professor and Associate Dean Heidi Gorovitz Robertson published Awaiting the court’s word on validity of local zoning control of well locations, in Crain’s Cleveland Business’ Energy Report on April 4, 2014.  In this post, Robertson notes that many Ohio communities hope to exercise some control over the shale oil and gas activities that will take place within their jurisdictions. Monroe Falls, in particular, would prohibit drilling in residentially zoned space and impose some other local requirements.

If the Ohio Court of Appeals was the end of the line, Monroe Falls’ zoning ordinance would be dead in the water, along with other local efforts to enact similar ordinances affecting the location of wells.  But Monroe Falls appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio  and on February 26, 2014, the  Court heard oral argument on two specific issues. First, it considered whether the state statutes concerning oil and gas drilling deprive municipalities such as Monroe Falls of their Ohio Constitutional home rule authority to enact and enforce zoning laws (such as prohibiting shale drilling in residential zones).  The second issue was whether Monroe Falls’ ordinances, some of which required oil and gas drillers to submit information to Monroe Falls conflict with the state’s oil and gas law when the driller has already secured a drilling permit from ODNR.

Ohio and the affected driller, Beck Energy, argued that if the court allows localities to create their own rules, even zoning rules, the practice would undermine the state’s ability to carry out the Legislature’s statutory directives.  Monroe Falls, however, argued that local land-use regulation could operate in harmony with the state’s control of drilling operations and would not, therefore be pre-empted by the state law.

A couple of justices expressed serious doubts that ODNR really has “sole and exclusive authority” to preclude all local oversight with no administrative appeal. At least one seemed bothered that the statute does not expressly state a preclusion for municipal zoning authority, whereas the Legislature has shown that it knows how to do this in other statutes.  Justice Paul Pfeifer focused on the fact that under Ohio’s oil and gas statute, a driller can appeal a denied drilling request to the state agency, but a landowner has no opportunity to appeal the state’s decision to grant a driller’s permit request.

Only a few of the justices spoke up substantially at the oral arguments. We’ll have to wait to hear from the others when the opinion is released.  In the meantime, localities across the state will be watching to learn whether they will be able to decide where shale oil and gas drilling may occur within their borders.

To read the full post in Crain’s, click here:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140404/BLOGS05/140409906/awaiting-the-courts-word-on-validity-of-local-zoning-control-of-well

 

Mika Writes on Increased Importance of Appearance of Contracts

Legal Writing Professor Karin Mika

Legal Writing Professor Karin Mika

C|M|LAW Legal Writing Professor Karin Mika recently published Visual clarity in contract drafting in Clarity, a journal published twice a year by Clarity-international, an international association promoting plain legal language.  The article discusses how the appearance of contracts (including font, paragraphing, and white space) contribute to the quality and user-friendly nature of the contract.  The article emphasizes how contracts must be usable instruments for those entering into a bargain and also suggests that people have become quicker readers so more visual cues are needed in written works to enhance people’s understanding of content.

Here is a link to the article:

http://clarity.shuttlepod.org/Resources/Documents/Clarity%2070..pdf​

 

Sterio Discusses the Future of the International Criminal Court at the ASIL Annual Meeting

C|M|LAW’s Calfee Halter & Griswold Professor Milena Sterio participated in a panel discussion entitled “The Future of the International Criminal Court,” on April 10, 2014, at the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting in Washington D.C..  Professor Sterio joined several other well-known panelists, including Judge Hans Peter Kaul of the International Criminal Court, Professor Jane Stromseth of Georgetown Law School (currently working in the Office of Global Criminal Justice in the State Department), and Professor Dire Tladi (University of Pretoria, South Africa).  The panel was conducted in a roundtable format, with the moderator, Professor David Kaye of UC Irvine School of Law asking “unscripted” questions.  The questions centered on the role of the Security Council referral in ICC investigations, the politics of the ICC, recent cases of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, and the overall legacy of the ad hoc tribunals.

To see a “cable” about this event, published on the American Society of International Law website, click here:

http://www.asil.org/blogs/future-international-criminal-law

In addition, Professor Sterio wrote a brief book review, also in “cable” format, which was published on the same website a few days before the conference. The book related to maritime piracy.  To see the book review, click here:

http://www.asil.org/blogs/book-comment-law-and-practice-piracy-sea-european-and-international-perspectives-panos

 

Kerber Helps Judge4Yourself Vet Judicial Candidates

C|M|LAW Legal Writing Professor Sandra Kerber participated in Judge4Yourself.com’s interviews of judicial candidates running in the May 6th, 2014 Ohio Primary Election.  Judge4Yourself.com’s ratings are made by four cooperating bar associations, with the help of dozens of experienced lawyers, including Professor Kerber.

To learn more about Judge4Yourself’s ratings, see http://www.judge4yourself.com/

Sterio Debates Militarized Humanitarian Intervention at International Affairs Symposium

 

Professor Milena Sterio

Professor Milena Sterio

C|M|LAW’s Calfee Halter & Griswold Professor of Law Milena Sterio participated in the 52nd International Affairs Symposium at Lewis and Clark College on April 8, 2014.  Professor Sterio’s panel was entitled “Militarized Humanitarian Intervention: Guns for Good?”.  The panel was conducted in a debate format in which Professor Sterio argued the pro-militarized humanitarian intervention position. The other participants included law professors, international affairs/political science professors, and several retired officers of the Army and Air Force.  One of the debaters was Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and then the CIA (during the Bush administration). Livening up the proceedings were many student protesters outside of the auditorium with signs like “don’t spy on me” and “the Constitution isn’t dead.” 

Cherry Speaks on Maternal Orthodoxy and the Criminalization of Women’s Behaviors

Professor April Cherry spoke at C|M|LAW’s Journal of Law and Health Conference on March 7, 2014.  Her talk was entitled: “Self-Harm, Fetal-Harm and the Ideology of the Good Mother.” It explored the connection between the “compelling state interest in the fetus” rhetoric, feticide statutes, and the image of maternal orthodoxy that leads us to criminalize behavior of pregnant women that results in fetal harm, regardless of the mental illness or mental health status of the pregnant woman.

Sterio Writes about Crimean Secession on IntLawGrrls.com

C|M|LAW’s Charles R. Emrick, Jr.- Calfee Halter & Griswold Professor of Law Milena Sterio has posted On Crimean Secession, Fairness, and Self-Determination on IntLawGrrls.com, a blog on international law, policy, and practice.  She argues that “the Crimean issue is complex, and that instead of simply proclaiming that Ukraine is right and Russia is wrong, we need to step back and analyze the region’s history, as well as to take into account its population’s true desires.”

To read her thoughts on Crimean secession, click here:

On Crimean Secession, Fairness, and Self-Determination

Witmer-Rich Comments on Fox 8 News on County Prosecutors’ Reenactment of 2012 Shooting

Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich

Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich

On March 7, 2014, C|M|LAW Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich commented on Fox 8 News regarding the re-enactment, organized y Cuyahoga County prosecutors, of a fatal 2012 police shooting.

Witmer-Rich said re-enactments can be helpful.  He noted that “[i]t might be the case it will be helpful for the grand jury to see things as they happened in real time.”  He also said that re-enactments do shed light on how events might have transpired and even escalated.

“How would a reasonable officer react in these circumstances?” said Witmer-Rich, “Seeing it happen in real time might really give the grand jury a better sense of how to draw conclusions of how a reasonable officer would’ve behaved.”

Watch here:

What Really Happened? Shooting Re-enactment May be Helpful

Falk Cited by the Supreme Court of Canada

Professor Patricia J. Falk

Professor Patricia J. Falk

C|M|LAW Professor Patricia J. Falk’s 1998 article Rape by Fraud and Rape by Coercion, 64 Brook. L. Rev. 39 (1998) was cited on March 8, 2014, in a much anticipated decision by The Supreme Court of Canada. The decision involved a sexual assault case in which the man intentionally perforated a condom and was convicted of sexual assault.  The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction.

Writing about “the distinction made in U.S. criminal and tort law between deceptions going to the fact (“fraud in the factum”) which vitiate consent for the purposes of rape and battery and other deceptions that act as inducements (“fraud in the inducement”) which do not”, on pages 33-34 of the opinion, the court says:

“A further example is the distinction made in U.S. criminal and tort law
between deceptions going to the fact (“fraud in the factum”) which vitiate consent for
the purposes of rape and battery and other deceptions that act as inducements (“fraud
in the inducement”) which do not. As expressed by one leading text, the rule is that
“if the deception relates not to the thing done but merely to some collateral matter”
the consent is valid: R. M. Perkins and R. N. Boyce, Criminal Law (3rd ed. 1982), at
p. 1079. No matter how beguiling it appears at first, the distinction has proved
unworkable. It is not helpful in differentiating between legally effective and
ineffective consent and where it attempts to draw the line has no basis in principle:

see, e.g., P. J. Falk, “Rape by Fraud and Rape by Coercion” (1998), 64 Brook. L. Rev.
39, at p. 159-61.”

Here is a link to the decision – http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13511/index.do   The reference to Professor Falk’s article is not visible on the html page, but you may view it by clicking on the small PDF icon in the right hand corner of the gray box at the top of the page.  The list of references appears on page 10.