Powered by TypePad

« One dated(?) view of one(?) law school's problems | Main | Additional (optional) readings on residency restrictions »

March 4, 2008

Additional information and filings in Hyle v. Porter

After re-reading Hyle v. Porter, No. 2008-Ohio-542 (Ohio S. Ct. Feb. 20, 2008) (available here), for the fourth time, I still had lots of unanswered questions about the case.  Helpfully, the Ohio Supreme Court's website provides access at this link to a lot of the case documents (including all the briefs filed in the Ohio Supreme Court).

The ruling below coming from the First District in this case is available here, and it provides additional interesting background information.  I found this passage from that ruling especially noteworthy:

In the summer of 2005, Hyle had discovered that Porter's home of 14 years was within 983 feet of St. Jude Elementary School.  Hyle then sued under the rule, requesting that the court enjoin Porter from remaining in his home.

St. Jude is not visible from Porter's property.  And it is impossible to walk to the school in a straight line without averting obstacles, hurdling hedges, traversing trellises, or otherwise encroaching on neighbors' property.  Despite the fact that the meandering path to St. Jude would have required that Porter travel “over the river and through the woods,” the legislature and the court below decided that the 1,000 feet is measured as the crow flies.  Although Porter is not a crow and cannot fly, the trial court found that Porter was a registered sex offender whose back yard was within the 1,000-foot radius extending from St. Jude.  So Porter was evicted.

March 4, 2008 in Interesting statutes and cases | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c8ccf53ef00e550ab3ab68834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Additional information and filings in Hyle v. Porter:

Comments

http://ohio.esorn.net/results.php?AgencyID=53991&SubmitAddrSearch=1&AddrStreet=1595%20N.%20High%20Street&AddrCity=Columbus&AddrState=36&AddrZip=43201&AddrZipPlus=

Posted by: Miranda Leppla | Mar 5, 2008 2:21:12 PM

I found this to be a bit disturbing. Looks like Mr. Porter only got probation for his most recent offense.
http://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp?casenumber=B%209901472

Prof. Berman-in a case like this are restraining orders available to keep the father away from his kids? Would it only be available if the mom requested it?

Posted by: Nathan | Mar 5, 2008 4:32:48 PM

Here is the address for a blog from the almighty harvard on this case. There is a Columbus dispatch article linked on it that I thought was particularly interesting. It helps to fill in some of the hmmmmsss in this case. Such as why Iowa is filing an amicus brief for an Ohio case, why Porter moved out of his house (someone burned it down..ooopss), and where all the sex offenders are going.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2007/10/07/ohio-high-court-to-hear-sex-offender-retroactivity-case-this-week/

Posted by: Christina | Mar 6, 2008 4:22:32 PM

The good thing about your information is that it is explicit enough for students to grasp. Thanks for your efforts in spreading academic knowledge.

Posted by: term paper writing | Aug 13, 2009 5:33:58 AM

Post a comment