<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ohio Lakefront Group &#187; Legal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/category/legal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com</link>
	<description>Representing the rights of waterfront property owners</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:01:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Progress of Lawsuit since Supreme Court Decision?</title>
		<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/progress-of-lawsuit-since-supreme-court-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/progress-of-lawsuit-since-supreme-court-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:01:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>klkemmerer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/?p=674</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What is happening with the Supreme Court remand to Judge Lucci&#8217;s Common Pleas Court? On December 13th, Judge Lucci issued an order requiring our attorneys and the state to discuss resolving or narrowing the remaining outstanding issues after the Supreme Court decision. A 60 day window was set to complete this process. Our attorneys provided [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/progress-of-lawsuit-since-supreme-court-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Statements Filed  to Judge Lucci&#8217;s Court</title>
		<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/statements-filed-to-judge-luccis-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/statements-filed-to-judge-luccis-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:47:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>klkemmerer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/?p=641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The OLG brief presented two important issues: 1. Based on the Appeal Court and Supreme Court decision, the description of the boundary should be changed to read: “The natural shoreline is a moving boundary located at the line where the water would be on any given day, between the ordinary high and low water marks, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/statements-filed-to-judge-luccis-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ohio Lakefront Group Files Motion for Attorney’s Fees in Wake of Supreme Court’s 7-0 Decision</title>
		<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/ohio-lakefront-group-files-motion-for-attorney%e2%80%99s-fees-in-wake-of-supreme-court%e2%80%99s-7-0-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/ohio-lakefront-group-files-motion-for-attorney%e2%80%99s-fees-in-wake-of-supreme-court%e2%80%99s-7-0-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:31:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>klkemmerer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/?p=620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ODNR Forced Home Owners to Sue to Protect Property Rights, Ignored Lower Court Rulings The Ohio Lakefront Group (OLG), representing 7,000 Ohioans owning property along Lake Erie and other waterways, today filed a motion asking for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to compensate them for the $578,244 spent on defending their property rights [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/ohio-lakefront-group-files-motion-for-attorney%e2%80%99s-fees-in-wake-of-supreme-court%e2%80%99s-7-0-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ohio Supreme Court Decision Sustains Private Property Rights</title>
		<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/ohio-supreme-court-decision-sustains-private-property-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/ohio-supreme-court-decision-sustains-private-property-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:37:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>klkemmerer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/?p=609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We won our Property Rights &#8220;This court has a history of protecting property rights, and our decision today continues that long-standing precedent.&#8221; In what was a very long awaited decision, the Ohio Supreme Court released its decision in our 7 year battle for our property rights. There were actually 3 questions before the court from [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/ohio-supreme-court-decision-sustains-private-property-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ohio Supreme Court Decision Awaited</title>
		<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/ohio-supreme-court-decision-awaited/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/ohio-supreme-court-decision-awaited/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jun 2011 20:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>klkemmerer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/?p=605</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We continue to await the decision in the State&#8217;s Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. Since our annual meeting there have been a number of local newspaper articles on the case. The Plain Dealer ran a story based on a reporters account who attended the annual meeting as well as interviews with OLG President Tony [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/ohio-supreme-court-decision-awaited/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reply Merit Brief filed  by co-plaintiff Homer S. Taft</title>
		<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/reply-merit-brief-filed-by-co-plaintiff-homer-s-taft/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/reply-merit-brief-filed-by-co-plaintiff-homer-s-taft/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:27:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>klkemmerer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/?p=570</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the final brief  to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of property owners, co-plaintiff Homer Taft raises  separate issues and makes persuasive argument against the State and Intervening  defendants National Wildlife Federation and Ohio Environmental Council. Taft&#8217;s first proposition regarding the boundary between private property and the public trust is: The furthest landward boundary [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/reply-merit-brief-filed-by-co-plaintiff-homer-s-taft/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Round of Briefs are Filed by The State of Ohio &#8211; NWF/OEC &#8211; ODNR</title>
		<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/second-round-of-briefs-are-filed-by-the-state-of-ohio-nwfoec-odnr/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/second-round-of-briefs-are-filed-by-the-state-of-ohio-nwfoec-odnr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>klkemmerer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/?p=538</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These briefs, while all less voluminous than the initial briefs, said little more than those initially submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court. The State continues to assert State ownership landward of Lake Erie to the OHWM. The NWF/OEC continues its assertion of the more modern interpretation of the law to include walking along the dry [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/second-round-of-briefs-are-filed-by-the-state-of-ohio-nwfoec-odnr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State of Ohio AG, NWF/OEC, ODNR File Briefs with Ohio Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/state-of-ohio-ag-nwfoec-odnr-file-briefs-with-ohio-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/state-of-ohio-ag-nwfoec-odnr-file-briefs-with-ohio-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:59:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>klkemmerer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/?p=441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Briefs were filed on Monday this week. We are withholding comment at this time. To read the briefs, click the following links. State Supreme Court First Merit Brief (note this is in text format converted from the PDF which was too large to upload) NWF and OEC Supreme Court Merit Brief ODNR Supreme Court Merit [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/state-of-ohio-ag-nwfoec-odnr-file-briefs-with-ohio-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cordray Wrong About State Law in Lake Erie Shore Dispute</title>
		<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/cordray-wrong-about-state-law-in-lake-erie-shore-dispute/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/cordray-wrong-about-state-law-in-lake-erie-shore-dispute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ohio Lakefront Group</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News Release]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/?p=424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sheffield Lake, OH &#8211; The Ohio Lakefront Group, a coalition of over 7,000 Lake Erie property owners, today responded to a legal brief filed by the Ohio Attorney General in its pending case before the Ohio Supreme Court. The property owners are disputing the improper taking of deeded land. Ohio law says the state&#8217;s interest [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/cordray-wrong-about-state-law-in-lake-erie-shore-dispute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U. S. Supreme Court Rules Against Florida Oceanfront Property Owners</title>
		<link>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/u-s-supreme-court-rules-against-florida-oceanfront-property-owners/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/u-s-supreme-court-rules-against-florida-oceanfront-property-owners/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:06:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ohio Lakefront Group</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/?p=356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week, in an 8-0 decision the U.S. Supreme Court rules that land filled by the State in front of ocean front property owners is the property of the State and that no illegal taking had occurred. The case is based on a suit filed when the State re-nourished beaches in front of private property [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ohiolakefrontgroup.com/u-s-supreme-court-rules-against-florida-oceanfront-property-owners/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

