It is preferable that the prevailing party include supporting documentation. Mikaloff v. Walsh, No. 5:06-96, 2009 WL 901860, at *11 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 30, 2009). III.ANALYSIS
It is preferable that the prevailing party include supporting documentation. Mikaloff v. Walsh, No. 5:06-96, 2009 WL 901860, at *11 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 30, 2009).
In her objections, Plaintiff cites two cases in this circuit wherein courts awarded fees for time billed in tenths of an hour. See Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531, 553-54 (6th Cir. 2008); Mikaloff v. Walsh, No. 5:06-96, 2009 WL 901860, at *11 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 30, 2009). But in those cases, the plaintiffs sought compensation for an amount of time actually expended on the case, which they billed in increments of one-tenth of an hour.
{ΒΆ 6} Additionally, the trial court determined that Senate Bill 10 is an unconstitutional ex post facto law. The trial court placed heavy reliance on Mikaloff v. Walsh (N.D. Ohio), No. 5:06-CV-96, 2007 WL 2572268, wherein the federal district court found that the requirement that an offender not live within 1000 feet of a school, daycare center, or preschool violates the ex post facto clause. Despite the Ohio Supreme Court's finding in Cook that Megan's law was not punitive in intent or effect, and that it therefore did not violated the ex post facto clause, the trial court found Senate Bill 10 to be punitive.
We note that courts in four other states have found that the application of similar statutes to sex offenders violated prohibitions on Ex Post Facto laws ( See F.R. v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Department, 301 S.W.3d 56 [Missouri 2010]; Commonwealth v. Baker, supra.; State v. Pollard, 908 N.E.2d 1145 [Indiana 2009]; and Mikaloff v. Walsh, 2007 WL 2572268 [N.D. Ohio 2007] ). Since the Ex Post Facto issue is dispositive of the proceeding, we do not reach petitioner's remaining arguments.
In conclusion, the court finds that the statute as applied to petitioner violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. We note that courts in four other states have found that the application of similar statutes to sex offenders violated prohibitions on ex post facto laws ( see F.R. v St. Charles County Sheriff's Dept, 301 SW3d 56 [Mo 2010]; Commonwealth v Baker, supra; State v Pollard, 908 NE2d 1145 [Ind 2009]; and Mikaloff v Walsh, 2007 WL 2572268, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 65076 [ND Ohio 2007]). Since the ex post facto issue is dispositive of the proceeding, we do not reach petitioner's remaining arguments.