State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, No. 97-2419.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 715 NE 2d 1062,86 Ohio St.3d 451 |
| Decision Date | 16 August 1999 |
| Parties | THE STATE EX REL. OHIO ACADEMY OF TRIAL LAWYERS ET AL. v. SHEWARD, JUDGE, ET AL. |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2419. |
86 Ohio St.3d 451
715 NE 2d 1062
v.
SHEWARD, JUDGE, ET AL
No. 97-2419.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted September 29, 1998.
Decided August 16, 1999.
Stewart R. Jaffy & Assoc. Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc Jaffy, for relators Ohio AFL-CIO and William A. Burga.
Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeffrey L. Glasgow, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents Judge Richard S. Sheward and Judge Dale A. Crawford.
Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, Chris R. Van Schaik and Walter F. Ruf Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondents Judge John W. Kessler and Judge Jeffrey E. Froelich.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Carol Shockley and Robert E. Matyjasik, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondents Judge Richard J. McMonagle and Judge Nancy A. Fuerst.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Arthur J. Marziale, Jr., Judith L. French and Stephen P. Carney, Assistant Attorneys General, for intervening respondent Ohio Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery.
Spater, Gittes, Schulte & Kolman and Frederick M. Gittes, urging the granting of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amici curiae Ohio Employment
Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., and James T. Murray, urging the granting of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amicus curiae Ohio Citizen Action.
Manley, Burke, Lipton & Cook, Andrew S. Lipton and Johnathan M. Holifield, urging the granting of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amici curiae Ohio Conference of Branches for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Cincinnati, Columbus, and Dayton Branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc.
Hermanies, Major, Castelli & Goodman and Ronald D. Major, urging the granting of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amicus curiae Ohio State UAW-CAP Council, John F. Burke, Jr., and Vernon L. Traster.
Blaugrund, Herbert & Martin Incorporated, Steven A. Martin, Teri G. Rasmussen, Christopher T. Cline and Stephen P. Postalakis, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amicus curiae Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., John C. Elam and Duke W. Thomas, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amicus curiae Owens Corning.
Crowell & Moring, L.L.P., Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A. Behrens and Jeffrey A. Spector, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amici curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, and American Tort Reform Association.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P., and Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amicus curiae American Council of Life Insurance.
Arter & Hadden, L.L.P., and Irene C. Keyse-Walker, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amici curiae Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys and Defense Research Institute.
Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, Mark Landes and Paul A. MacKenzie, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amici curiae County Commissioners' Association of Ohio, Ohio Municipal League, Ohio Township Association, and Public Children Services Association.
Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn and Roger L. Sabo, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amici curiae American Institute of Architects (Ohio), Associated General Contractors of Ohio, National Electric Contractors Association (Ohio Chapter), Ohio Association of Consulting Engineers, Ohio
Larry R. Gearhardt, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amici curiae Ohio Farm Bureau, National Federation of Independent Businesses, and Ohio Small Business Council.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., Robin G. Weaver and Thomas G. Kovach, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amici curiae Chemical Manufacturers Association and Ohio Chemical Council.
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Randolph C. Wiseman and Kurtis A. Tunnell, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amici curiae Fowler Products, Inc. et al.
Fredric J. Entin and James A Henderson; Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., James J. Hughes, Jr., and Catherine M. Ballard; Hahn, Loeser & Parks, L.L.P., Terri-Lynne B. Smiles and Richard W. Cline, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amici curiae American Hospital Association et al.
Thomas L. Froehle, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amicus curiae Ohio Manufacturers' Association.
Spengler Nathanson, P.L.L., and Truman A. Greenwood, urging denial of writs of prohibition and mandamus for amicus curiae American Legislative Exchange Council.
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J.
I
Am.Sub.H.B. No. 350 Converts the Drive for Civil Justice Reform into an Attack on the Judiciary as a Coordinate Branch of Government
For more than a decade, Ohio has been home to an ongoing conflict over the necessity and propriety of transforming the civil justice system. In its most elementary form, this conflict reflects a power struggle between those who seek to limit their liability and financial exposure for civil wrongs and those who seek compensation for their injuries. Research indicates that there is a vast amount of scholarly analysis available on either side of virtually every conceivable aspect of this debate.1 All arguments going to the soundness of legislative policy
Am.Sub.H.B. No. 350 is the latest effort at civil justice reform and, to be sure, the most comprehensive and multifarious legislative measure thus far.4 More
It Is the Constitutional Duty of the Supreme Court of Ohio to Preserve the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary and Ensure that the Judicial Power of the State Remains Vested in the Courts
As detailed in footnote 7 and below, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 350 intrudes upon judicial power by declaring itself constitutional, by reenacting legislation struck down as unconstitutional, and by interfering with this court's power to regulate court procedure. To appreciate the importance of separation of powers we need look no further than Ohio's own history.
"[T]he people possessing all governmental power, adopted constitutions, completely distributing it to appropriate departments." Hale v. State (1896), 55 Ohio St. 210, 214, 45 N.E. 199, 200. They vested the legislative power of the state in the General Assembly (Section 1, Article II, Ohio Constitution), the executive power in the Governor (Section 5, Article III, Ohio Constitution), and the judicial power in the courts (Section 1, Article IV, Ohio Constitution). They also specified that "[t]he general assembly shall [not] * * * exercise any judicial power, not herein expressly conferred." Section 32, Article II, Ohio Constitution.
The power and duty of the judiciary to determine the constitutionality and, therefore, the validity of the acts of the other branches of government have been firmly established as an essential feature of the Ohio system of separation of powers. See, e.g., Beagle v. Walden (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 59, 62, 676 N.E.2d 506, 508 ("[i]nterpretation of the state and federal Constitutions is a role exclusive to the judicial branch"). However, this was not always so, and a major part of our history involves a continuing effort to establish and secure this power as intrinsic to the judiciary and, indeed, to establish the judiciary as a viable and coequal branch of our government.
On April 30, 1802, Congress approved an "Act to enable the people of the Eastern division of the territory northwest of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Becerra v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty., E070545
...Judiciary v. State (1984) 209 Mont. 105, 679 P.2d 1223, 1226 ; see also State ex rel. Ohio Acad. of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999) 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 1062, 1103-1104 ["this court will entertain a public action ‘ "under circumstances when the public injury by its refusal will be ......
-
State v. Foster, 2004-1568.
...of a bill that violated the one-subject Page 497 rule); but, see, State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 500, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (severance rejected as tantamount to judicial legislation); State ex rel. Maurer v. Sheward (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 513, 523......
-
Verba v. Ghaphery, 27464
...N.H. 50, 587 A.2d 1232 (1991); Arneson v. Olson, 270 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 1978); State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St. 3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (1999); Lakin v. Senco Prods., Inc., 329 Or. 62, 987 P.2d 463 (1999); In re Certification of Questions of Law from United ......
-
In re Barkley, Bankruptcy No. 00-14344. Adversary No. 00-1395.
...statutes that violate the one-subject mandate. See, e.g., Goff, supra; State ex rel. Ohio Acad. of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (1999); Voinovich, supra; Hoover v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 19 Ohio St.3d 1, 482 N.E.2d 575 (1985). The Ohio Supreme Court When ther......
-
Verba v. Ghaphery, No. 27464.
...Payne v. Gundy, 196 W.Va. 82, 468 S.E.2d 335 (1996). In the recent opinion of State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (1999), the Ohio Supreme Court struck down a group of Ohio statutes limiting damages, finding that it violated the state's......
-
People ex rel. Becerra v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty., E070545
...Judiciary v. State (1984) 209 Mont. 105, 679 P.2d 1223, 1226 ; see also State ex rel. Ohio Acad. of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999) 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 1062, 1103-1104 ["this court will entertain a public action ‘ "under circumstances when the public injury by its refusal will be ......
-
Pickaway Cty. Skilled Gaming v. Cordray, No. 08AP-1032.
...such latitude as to include in one act blatantly unrelated matters." State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 498, 715 N.E.2d 1062. {¶ 20} In In re Nowak, 104 Ohio St.3d 466, 2004-Ohio-6777, 820 N.E.2d 335, ¶ 54, the Supreme Court of Ohio articulated......
-
State v. Foster, No. 2004-1568.
...of a bill that violated the one-subject Page 497 rule); but, see, State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 500, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (severance rejected as tantamount to judicial legislation); State ex rel. Maurer v. Sheward (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 513, 523......