“[U]nder Ohio law, an oil and gas lease is a contract that is subject to the traditional rules of contract construction. Because the rights and remedies of the parties are controlled by the specific language of their lease agreement, we decline to answer the certified question…”“[H]ere, a close reading of the royalty provision, in light of Ohio’s contract law, leads to the conclusion that the parties’ intent was that the location for valuing the gas for purposes of computing the royalty was at t
“[U]nder Ohio law, an oil and gas lease is a contract that is subject to the traditional rules of contract construction. Because the rights and remedies of the parties are by the specific language of their lease agreement, we decline to answer the certified question…”
. This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does constitute binding precedent.
, in United States law, the constitutional guarantee that no person or group will be denied the protection under the law that is enjoyed by similar persons or In other words, persons similarly situated must be similarly treated. Equal protection is extended when the rules of law are Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
The Seventh Circuit upheld the school&aposs policy requiring students interested in participating in extracurricular activities and student drivers to undergo random drug testing. However, the court made clear in extensive discussion that it believed the drug testing policy violated the Fourth Amendment. It felt bound to uphold the policy only because of the prior case on similar facts in the same court.This is the website of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Affirming the lower court ruling, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the city policy requiring city employees to consent to a drug test before receiving a commercial driver&aposs license violated employees&apos Fourth Amendment rights. The court decided the testing scheme at issue, which did not rely on individualized suspicion, was unreasonable. Even though public safety and employee health were legitimate government interests, defendants had failed to demonstrate a special need for the particular testing scheme. That i