Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

U.S. Supreme Court Reed Decision: Direct Impacts on Local Sign Regulation

Client Alert
September 15, 2015

Speaking at today’s Northeast Ohio Law Directors Association monthly meeting, Robert A. Hager, member of the firm Brennan, Manna & Diamond in Akron, will be participating on a panel of experts presenting and analyzing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, wherein the Court struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment the Town’s sign ordinance based on it not being content neutral and, therefore, not surviving strict scrutiny under the Court’s test for non-content neutral regulations. This decision will have major impacts upon local sign ordinances. As part of the panel discussion, Mr. Hager, who represents the City in Wagner v. Garfield Heights, a recent political sign case where the City prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case back to the 6th Circuit after the Reed decision for reconsideration by the 6th Circuit in light of the Reed, will be addressing the ruling and its affects going forward.

Today’s meeting is being held at the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, One Cleveland Center, 1375 East 9th Street, Floor 2, Cleveland, Ohio.

For more information about the panel discussion, please contact Robert Hager at rahager@bmdllc.com.

Northeast Ohio Law Directors AssociationU.S. Supreme CourtLocal Sign RegulationReed v. Town of GilbertU.S. Court of Appeals
Client Alert

Yard Sign Do’s and Don’ts: How to Avoid Legal Challenges to Municipal Sign Codes this Election Season

September 8, 2020As the nation heads into the tail end of the 2020 general election, municipalities will inevitably face challenges as they seek to regulate the seasonal proliferation of yard signs on residential property. While the matter may seem trifling, a seemingly benign yet content-based sign ordinance can result in significant legal exposure for municipalities that have not heeded recent Supreme Court decisions on content neutrality.Client Alert

Time to Update Your HIPAA Compliance Plan for Telehealth Policies and Procedures

September 8, 2020The delivery of healthcare in this country may be forever changed following the COVID-19 pandemic. Providing services through telehealth technologies initially allowed providers to connect with patients in a safe and socially distant manner and helped keep vital hospital beds free for COVID-19 care. Now, while still a safe, socially distant option, telehealth allows patients to access healthcare services in an efficient manner, decreases the likelihood of cancellations, and expands access to services that do not require an in-person encounter (i.e., surgery, procedure, or test). Telehealth is now widely reimbursed by both federal and commercial payors and more provider types are able to provide telehealth services within their licensed scope of practice.Client Alert

The SEC Amends Accredited Investor and Qualified Institutional Buyer Definitions

September 2, 2020The SEC Amends Accredited Investor and Qualified Institutional Buyer DefinitionsClient Alert

Landlord Alert: CDC Issues Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions

September 2, 2020On September 1 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued a nationwide temporary halt on all residential evictions through December 31, 2020. With the July 24, 2020 expiration of the prior moratorium established under the CARES Act, the CDC based the new moratorium on the need to protect public health and the likely increase in the spread of COVID-19 if mass evictions take place.Client Alert

BMD Obtains Supreme Court Victory on Behalf of Sterilite of Ohio, LLC

August 28, 2020Columbus, Ohio – On August 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, LLC, Slip Op. No. 2020-Ohio-4193. The Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision reversed an Ohio Court of Appeals ruling that had reinstated a putative class action against Sterilite brought by a group of current and former employees claiming that Sterilite’s use of “direct observation” urinalysis screening violated their common law right to privacy.
Older posts
Newer posts