Author: Maxel Moreland, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to “take” protected migratory birds. However, using two methods of statutory interpretation, a circuit split has developed over different definitions of “take” under the MBTA. The first, narrower interpretation from the Fifth Circuit must involve the intentional killings of migratory birds. The Fifth Circuit’s analysis is the most recent interpretation of the MBTA and is the more persuasive analysis to define “take.” Continue reading “Migratory Bird Act: What Does Taking Mean?”
Author: Chris Tieke, Contributing Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review
The Ohio Supreme Court sets a common approach to interpreting statutorily created torts and immunities: Smith v. Landfair, Horvath v. Ish, and Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials, N.A., Inc.
Today, state legislatures play an increasingly important role in creating and implementing statutes that define, and sometimes limit, tort liability. In tension with this increased activism by legislatures is the traditional role of courts in creating common law principles and traditions of recovery for tort claims. With legislatures willing to become more involved in determining when actions may give rise to civil liability, much of a court’s work has shifted to applying rules of statutory interpretation. Knowing that a court uses rules of statutory construction to interpret statutes is Law School 101. More important, however, is to understand which rules the court applies and the manner in which the court applies them to cases when a particular statute is at issue. The recent Ohio Supreme Court cases of Smith v. Landfair, Horvath v. Ish, and Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials, N.A., Inc. have clarified the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation with regard to statutory torts and immunities. 
Continue reading “No More Horsing Around with the Ohio Revised Code”