Update: On November 20, 2012, the Supreme Court handed down a merit decision in this case.  Read the analysis here.

Read the analysis of the oral argument in this case here.

On April 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of Angel L. Horvath et. al. v. David

Update: On December 6, 2012, the Supreme Court handed down a merit decision in this case.  Read the analysis here.

Read the analysis of the oral argument here.

On April 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of Tracy Ruther, Individually and Administrator of the Estate of Timothy

Read an anlysis of the Court’s summary disposition of this case here.

Read the analysis of the oral argument in this case here.

 On April 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of Ronald Luri v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., 2011-1120. The issue in this case

Read an anlysis of the Court’s summary disposition of this case here.

Read the analysis of the oral argument in this case here.

 On April 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of Ronald Luri v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., 2011-1120. The issue in this case

Update: On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states cannot impose a mandatory life sentence with no possiblity of parole upon juvenile offenders involved in  homicide offenses.  The 5-to-4 decision came in the companion cases of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs. This decision follows the 2010  precedent  in  Graham

Cincinnati attorney Matthew Fellerhoff, who recently joined the law firm of Strauss and Troy, has authored this guest post on possible ramifications of the recent decision in Clifton v. Blanchester, slip opinion No. 2012-Ohio-780.  Read the  analysis of the merits  decision in the Clifton case here.

Here’s Matt’s guest post

Attorneys who practice

On April 4, 2012 the Supreme Court of Ohio decided Schwering v. TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., 2012-Ohio-1481.  In this 7-0 decision written by Justice Lanzinger, the Court held that a plaintiff may not voluntarily dismiss a claim without prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) when a trial court declares a mistrial after the jury