Top Ten Blog Hits of 2020

Every year I prepare a list of the top ten blog hits. The first three are perennial favorites, but after that, the rest are new this year. Here is the list for 2020:

1. Titles of Former and Retired Judges, Revisited. This is a perennial favorite.  I’m glad for that because I take it to mean lots of people want to be polite in addressing former and retired judges.

2. What Happened on Remand: Brandon Moore Given Fifty Year Sentence. This was number one last year, and still seems to have high readership interest. Moore was originally sentenced to 141 years in prison for being part of a horrendous criminal rampage committed when he was 15 years old. That sentence was reversed by the Seventh District Court of Appeals. A second sentence was reversed for improper judicial fact-finding. At a third mandated re-sentencing, Moore was given an aggregate sentence of 112 years. Moore appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing that sentence was tantamount to life without the possibility of parole, impermissible for juvenile offenders. Moore won that appeal. Read the analysis here. The case was again remanded for re-sentencing. This time, on April 17, 2018, Moore was sentenced to 50 years in prison. That sentence, which will make Moore eligible for release at age 62, was upheld by the Seventh District Court of Appeals on September 23, 2020.  Moore is once again seeking review in the Supreme Court of Ohio. No ruling on this yet.

 3. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, once again came in at third place, as it did last year. This one has been on the list every year since it came out, often in first place. In this case, the Court held that a Civ. R. 60(B) motion cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal on the issue of standing in a foreclosure action and cannot be used to collaterally attack the judgment. Additionally, the Court held that a court that has subject-matter jurisdiction over an action does not lose that jurisdiction because a party to the action does not have standing in that particular case. Read the analysis of the merit decision here.

4. State v. Vega. The Court held that the smell of pot justified the traffic stop in this case and the resultant search, which turned up a whole bunch of wrapped marijuana candy in sealed envelopes in the car. Read the analysis of the merit decision here.

5. In Re Adoption of P.L.H. At issue in this case is whether the putative father willfully abandoned the mother of the child so that his consent to the adoption of the child was unnecessary. The Court held there was no evidence of willful abandonment and sent the case back to the probate court with the express mandate to vacate the decree of adoption and dismiss the adoption petition.  Read the analysis of the merit decision here.

6. State v. Barnes. The issue in this case was whether a trial court’s denial of an appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw due to a conflict of interest is a final appealable order and, if so, whether the motion was properly denied in this case. Unfortunately (given the high level of interest) the case was dismissed as improvidently accepted.

7. Diana Davis, as Administrator of the Estate of Jason Barry, et al. v. Montez D. Hollins, et al. This is another case of high interest that didn’t get decided, because it was settled after the oral argument.  It was of special interest to me because it is in my field of tort law. Two people who were shopping at a Kroger store in a Columbus Shopping Center yelled at a man in a car  who they thought was driving too fast for the area. In retaliation, both shoppers were hit by the car, and one was killed.  The issue in the case was whether a premises owner has a heightened duty to warn or protect business invitees based on the occurrence of previous violent crime on those premises. You can at least read the oral argument preview of the case here.

8. State v. Smith.  In this case the Court clarifies the proper (and oft-abused) use of Evid. R. 404 (B) other-acts evidence in a criminal case.  Read the analysis of the merit decision here.

9. Bey v. Rasawehr, This case dealt with the constitutionality of the part of a civil stalking protection order enjoining any future postings about the women who sought the order. The Court struck that portion of the order as an unconstitutional prior restraint on protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. Read an analysis of the merit decision here.  

10. In re M.H.  The Court held that a child-abuse investigator who works for a county children-services agency does not need to give Miranda warnings before questioning a 13-year-old child suspected of committing child abuse, and that the admission of statements made by the child during this questioning did not violate his due process rights. Read the analysis of the merit decision here.