A mildly interesting opinion from the Ohio Court of Appeals, in City of Cleveland v. Fulton (handed down yesterday).
Is it normal for an appellate court to explicitly state "The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal" at the end of a ruling in favor of the appellant, where the propriety of the appeal was mentioned nowhere else in the opinion? I'm wondering if that's standard, or just an idiosyncrasy of this court or judge. Seems like something that would be obvious from the fact that the appellant won.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
Why bother even having charges, trials, lawyers, and all that stuff? Why can't we just have judges speculate on whether people would have been convicted or not? And if he thinks they would have, let's punish them.