From The Akron Beacon Journal:
Bankruptcy filings declined 5 percent in Ohio last year — the fourth consecutive year that they dropped in the state.
Ohio lagged behind the nation, though, which saw filings fall 12 percent, according to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
There were 47,892 cases filed in Ohio last year, compared to 50,641 the previous year.
Both personal and business filings declined.
There were 46,946 personal filings, down 5 percent, and 946 business filings, down 12 percent.
Reginald Jackson, a former president of the American Bankruptcy Institute and a partner at the Vorys law firm in Columbus, said the slightly improved economy and fact that there had been so many filings in previous years may explain the lower numbers.
Willa Gibson, a law professor at the University of Akron, agreed and also cited a healthier stock market and government programs that helped struggling homeowners with their mortgages.
“More people are probably employed so that has an impact as well as the ability to refinance at lower interest rates,” she said.
Medical bills and job loss are the two biggest problems that push people into bankruptcy.
The court statistics show there were:
The filings in Summit County fell 3 percent to 2,660, which includes one case filed outside the bankruptcy court’s northern district. Stark and Portage counties experienced 2 percent and 6 percent declines, respectively.
Elsewhere in the Akron area, Wayne (6 percent), Medina (3 percent) and Cuyahoga (1 percent) had increases.
Cuyahoga had the most filings in the state with 7,050, which includes seven cases filed outside the bankruptcy court’s northern district. Noble County in southeastern Ohio had the least with 24.
WASHINGTON, DC - The United States Commission on Civil Rights announces that it will hold a briefing to examine compliance with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law that requires Medicare-participating hospitals to treat emergency medical conditions of any person regardless of capacity to pay, and makes unlawful the discharge of patients prior to stabilizing any medical condition. The purpose of EMTALA is to prevent hospitals, states and/or localities from prematurely discharging indigent people in need of emergency care and transporting them to other entities, a practice colloquially called “patient dumping.” The briefing will take place on Friday, February 14, 2014 at 9:30 am ET at the Commission’s headquarters: 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. Please note that the offices are accessed on F Street NW. Interested members of the public are invited to attend and no reservation is necessary.
Of concern to the Commission is the extent to which patients with a psychiatric disability are denied adequate care and whether there has been systemic neglect of this group. Experts at the briefing will present research on how many patients across the country may have been prematurely discharged; will discuss what policies are in place to detect potential violations of the law; will report on possible links between deficiencies in federal expenditures to states and prevalence of patient dumping; and will discuss whether hospital policies governed by the Act should be revised to ensure the protection of patients’ rights. The Commission will hear from nine speakers in three panels. The government panel will be Marilyn Dahl, Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Eileen Hanrahan, Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Civil Rights; and Sandra Sands, Department of Health & Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. The advocates/practitioners panel will be Staci Pratt, ACLU; Gina Greenwood, Baker Donelson; Hernan Vera, Public Counsel; and Susan Preston, Goodell, DeVries, Leech and Dann LLP. The scholars/academics panel will be Katharine Van Tassel, The University of Akron School of Law; and Richard Elliot, Mercer University School of Medicine and School of Law.
Professor Genetin’s article on the Erie doctrine, Reassessing the Avoidance Canon in Erie Cases, 44 Akron L. Rev. 1067 (2011) (Reassessing the Avoidance Canon), has recently received significant attention. The so-called “Erie doctrine” originated in a case entitled Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). The Erie doctrine, among other things, explores the appropriate allocation of power between the federal and state governments. Professor Genetin’s article on Erie was also cited in two recent law review articles. In an article that will be included in a forthcoming 75th anniversary symposium on the Erie doctrine, Professor Allan Erbsen (University of Minnesota Law School) cited Reassessing the Avoidance Canon in his article emphasizing the need to develop “default rules” for analyzing Erie doctrine issues. Similarly, Professor Jill Fraley (Washington & Lee University School of Law) cited the article in discussing whether statutes and procedural rules should be read textually or in light of the purpose and history of the provision at issue.
Stefan Padfield’s article, Rehabilitating Concession Theory, has been published in the Oklahoma Law Review. In his article, Professor Padfiled writes that the three primary theories of the corporation are concession theory, real entity theory, and aggregate theory. This Essay argues that the reports of concession theory's demise have been greatly exaggerated and that there remains a serious role for the theory in discussions concerning the place of corporations in society. This is important because without a vibrant concession theory we are left primarily with aggregate theory and real entity theory, two theories of the corporation that both defer to private ordering over government regulation.
In November 2013, the Tennessee Supreme Court cited Professor Genetin’s article in an opinion, Cooper v. Glasser, 2013 WL 6174469 (2013), that the court stated presents a question of first impression – whether a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or state claim preclusion law would govern when a federal court dismisses supplemental state-law claims from federal court and the plaintiff later re-files the identical claims in state court.
Akron Law in the News
Professor Vacca was quoted in Law360's article "Obama IPhone Veto To Keep Essential-Patent Cases Out Of ITC" See what he has to say at http://www.law360.com/articles/460488/obama-iphone-veto-to-keep-essential-patent-cases-out-of-itc.
Professor Padfield was quoted in Law360's article "3 Takeaways From Strine's Morton's Ruling." See what he has to say at http://www.law360.com/
A recent article in the national media suggested our law school engaged in questionable practices with respect to scholarship renewals. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Here are the facts: For years (since at least 2007) we have been fully transparent about the likelihood and difficulty of maintaining our merit scholarships in all our letters to students and on our website (see https://www.uakron.edu/law/admissions/finaid/retention.dot). Widespread first-year scholarships plus relatively low tuition ($23,583 full-time tuition for 2013-14) serve our mission of keeping law school accessible and affordable. We have chosen to base continuing merit scholarships on strong performance in law school rather than on entering credentials. This strategy enables us to attract excellent students, keep law school affordable, and treat our continuing students more equitably. Our debt load upon graduation reflects this commitment: our students’ average debt is lower than 93% of all law schools and 84% of public law schools.
For the Media
Members of the media seeking faculty expertise or general information about Akron Law should contact:
Ms Laura Martinez Massie
Director of Media Relations