Ohio supreme court

Is it just me or does it seem lik eit is taking a lot longer than usual for the ohio supreme court to decide the case involving the look back period for the DMR and related issues?

Does anyone have any insight into when the decision may come or  what it will be ?

Views: 1892

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by searcherone on July 1, 2016 at 11:10am

I had a brief conversation with a lawyer about the same thing this week.  Their guess is that probably there will be several opinions handed down at one time as there are several cases before the court that all  go back to the dormant minerals.   One of them the Eisenbarth case was heard in November 2015.

Permalink Reply by deutchen on July 1, 2016 at 3:19pm

Two others, Corban v Chesapeake & Walker v Nau had oral arguments over a year ago now. These will be extremely important cases. .Bricker v Eckler, the law firm representing mineral owners in Walker, & Tribett v Shepherd that I'm involved in had predicted this would be decided 6 months ago. It's too bad there's nobody on the inside that knows when this will be decided. I'm sure the suspense is running high for a lot of people.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on July 2, 2016 at 1:29am

Interesting that Bricker and Eckler is representing several cases on dormant minerals . . .they are in the Eisenbarth case also.     Wonder which side of the issue they are on. . .lol probably  both.  

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on July 2, 2016 at 12:12am
IMHO.....in the oral arguments I heard, all parties including the justices and the presenting attorneys seemed clueless. In particular, the presenting attorneys did a poor job making sense of the complex issues concerning mineral rights.
Compounding the problem, the justices are in a no win situation. There will be definite winners and losers no matter what is decided. Since in Ohio, the justices are also politicians, they likely have re-election concerns. Therefore, delay making a decision as long as possible.
I certainly have no inside information. This is strictly speculation on my part.

BluFlame
Permalink Reply by Scott72 on July 5, 2016 at 2:02am

A previous stay on Tribett v Shepphard was lifted in February of this year. This may indicate where the Justices stood on the cases that had already been argued. Bummer for mineral owners....Anyway the articles I've read seem to think they will hand their opinions down all at once.

Permalink Reply by deutchen on July 5, 2016 at 2:26am

I hope they don't wait for Tribett v Shepherd to decide Walker v Nau. Tribett v Shepherd still hasn't scheduled oral arguments yet. As far a who will win, the chief justice definitely sided with the mineral owners during oral arguments in Walker. Of course Judge Pfeiffer sided with the surface owners so it will probably be a split decision.

Permalink Reply by Scott72 on July 5, 2016 at 2:30am

But there would be no reason to hear Tribett if they were ruling for the mineral owners on Walker.

Permalink Reply by deutchen on July 5, 2016 at 2:59am

I see your logic. I hope you are wrong but I see what you're saying.

Permalink Reply by Scott72 on July 5, 2016 at 3:10am

I hope so too.  

Permalink Reply by deutchen on July 6, 2016 at 2:10am

Yesterday a date was set for oral arguments in Tribett v Shepherd. :Tuesday Aug. 16.

Permalink Reply by Bonnie Crawford on August 26, 2016 at 5:34pm

So do you know what happened with the oral arguments? Hope it is good news for us. Bonnie

Permalink Reply by Magnetron12 on August 26, 2016 at 6:03pm

RSS

© 2025   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service