Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , 2011.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

July 17th, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Medicaid Act
- Immigration - adjustment of status - drug conviction
- Constitutional Law - Fourth Amendment - enter without warrant
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

No Opinions.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

Westside Mothers v. Olszewski  (July 17, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0247p-06.pdf
-  This suit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleges that the State of Michigan has failed to provide services required by the Medicaid program. Plaintiffs, Westside Mothers, other advocacy and professional organizations, and five named individuals, allege that Janet Olszewski, director of the Michigan Department of Community Health, and Paul Reinhart, deputy director of the Michigan Medical Services Administration, did not provide the early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment ("EPSDT") services mandated by the Medicaid Act.
 
Pickering v. Gonzales  (July 17, 2006) (Appeal from Board of Immigration Appeals )
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0248p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner Christopher Pickering seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order permanently barring him from the United States, based on a Canadian conviction for a drug offense, for which he was later pardoned pursuant to Canadian law, and which was later quashed by a Canadian appellate court. Finding prejudicial error, we grant the Petition for Review.
 
USA v. Harness (July 17, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0249p-06.pdf
-  In this appeal, Terry Harness raises two arguments: (1) that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his house without a warrant and found guns there and (2) that his 44-month sentence is unreasonable. Because the officers had probable cause to arrest Harness, because they permissibly followed Harness into his house after they had placed him in custody and because the officers observed the guns in plain view inside the house, the district court did not err in denying the suppression motion. And because the court properly calculated Harness's sentencing guidelines range and permissibly applied the § 3553(a) factors to Harness in giving him a within-guidelines sentence, the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. We affirm.