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!

December 22nd, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Constitutional Law - Criminal - Prosecutor
- Complicity - Homicide - Assault - Sentencing
- Procedure - Rules - Contracts
- Burglary - B&E - Trespassing - Criminal Misc.
- Employment - Separation Agreement and Release of Claims
- Breach of contract - implied warranty, fraud, and revocation
- Employment - collective bargaining agreement
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Sargent (Dec. 22, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050565.pdf
-  The defendant was deprived of a fair trial where the state attempted
to use the defendant's pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence of
his guilt during closing argument, and where the state argued that the
defendant should have provided the jury with an alternative version of
the events surrounding the alleged offenses. The trial court abused its
discretion and violated the defendant's due-process rights in
overruling the defendant's motion to appoint an
eyewitness-identification expert:  the crux of the state's case was
the reliability of the victim's eyewitness identification of the
defendant, and the state had virtually no other evidence tying the
defendant to the charged offenses.  Brady v. Maryland did not require
the police to prepare a written report memorializing their finding that
a recovered fingerprint did not belong to the defendant; and there was
no Brady violation when the prosecution actually disclosed what was
material to the defendant:  that his fingerprint was not on the gun
seized by the police. Judgment RERVERSED and Cause REMANDED.

State v. Russ (Dec. 22, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050797.pdf
-  The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions
for voluntary manslaughter, attempted voluntary manslaughter, and
felonious assault:  The state's evidence showed that the defendant,
following a confrontation with the victims in a bar, had aided and
abetted others in shooting both victims by arranging an ambush and
initiating or participating in the shootings. The trial court erred in
sentencing the defendant on multiple firearm specifications, when the
specifications arose from a single criminal adventure involving one
continuous sequence of events connected in time and space,
notwithstanding that there were two victims, and when the offenses were
therefore committed as part of the same act or transaction. Judgment
AFFIRMED in part, Sentence VACATED in part, and Cause REMANDED.

Dunkelman, et al. v. The Cincinnati Bengals  (Dec. 22, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050814.pdf
-  The trial court erred as matter of law in certifying a class of
Cincinnati Bengals club-seat ticket holders to pursue a claim under the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, when there was no indication that the
requirements of R.C. 1345.09(B) had been met, and when there was no
prior rule or court decision that would have entitled the ticket holders
to pursue relief under R.C. 1345.09(B). The trial court abused its
discretion in certifying a class of Cincinnati Bengals club-seat ticket
holders to pursue claims for a declaratory judgment, fraud and negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement to enter into a contract, and
violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Act, when the court provided no
analysis to address the complex issues concerning whether the Civ.R. 23
prerequisites for class certification had been met, and when it
articulated no rationale to support meaningful appellate review of its
decision.  [But, see, DISSENT:  No rigorous analysis of the Civ.R. 23
class-action requirements was needed when the record was replete with
evidence that, due to representation deficiencies that included a
conflict of interest, there was, as a matter of law, no basis to certify
a class for any of the plaintiffs' claims.]  The trial court properly
granted summary judgment on a declaratory-judgment claim brought by
various Cincinnati Bengals club-seat ticket holders, where the governing
contract between the ticket holders and the Bengals contained clear and
unambiguous language that the ticket holders had a unilateral right to
cancel their ticket licenses by not purchasing club-seat season tickets
for a given year.  [But, see, DISSENT:  Due to the uncertainty over
whether any of the claims should receive class certification, the merits
of the declaratory-judgment claim should not be addressed on appeal; but
if it were appropriate to address the claim, the Bengals would be
entitled to relief under the contract between the parties, when that
contract bound the ticket holders to continue to purchase season tickets
for a specified number of years, when forfeiture of the ticket
holders' rights was not the exclusive remedy for a breach of their
purchase obligations, and when the Bengals were not otherwise
contractually precluded from attempting to enforce ticket purchases for
the number of years a given ticket holder had selected.]  Judgment
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and Cause REMANDED.

In Re: Higgins (Dec. 22, 2006)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060050,%20060051.pdf
- The juvenile court erred in accepting an admission to charges of
improperly handling a firearm and fleeing and eluding without addressing
the elements contained in Juv.R. 29(D)(2):  a juvenile cannot knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily waive his constitutional rights if he is
not informed of what they are before the court accepts the juvenile's
admission. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.

State v. Allen (Dec. 22, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060239.pdf
-  The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction
for aggravated burglary:  The state's evidence showed that the
defendant had entered the victims' house through a window, pointed a
gun at her, threatened to kill her and her children, and taken a bucket
of change and fled; and the evidence further showed that the victim's
boyfriend had chased the defendant, that the defendant was identified by
the victim and her boyfriend, that the police had found change strewn
about the defendant's car, and that the change bucket had been found
in the defendant's apartment storage bin. The defendant's conviction
for aggravated burglary was not against the manifest weight of the
evidence, when the defendant's testimony that the offense had been
committed by another individual who had borrowed his car was not
credible. That the jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated
burglary but not guilty of accompanying firearm specifications did not
invalidate the guilty verdict:  The uncertainty regarding the jury's
arguably inconsistent findings did not mean that the jury was not
convinced of the defendant's guilt on the principal charge. Judgment
AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

Kellogg Co v. Sabhlok (Dec. 22, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0466p-06.pdf
-  Jatinder P. Sabhlok, defendant and counter-plaintiff, appeals from
the entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of his former employer,
plaintiff and counter-defendant The Kellogg Company. The district court
found, on cross-motions for summary judgment, that the Separation
Agreement and Release of Claims Form and the subsequent Amendment
thereto unambiguously released and barred the breach of contract and age
discrimination claims that Sabhlok threatened to bring against Kellogg.
Kellogg cross-appeals from the district court's further finding that
Sabhlok was not liable under the terms of the agreements for attorney
fees and costs that Kellogg incurred in this litigation. After review of
the record and the arguments presented on appeal, we affirm the district
court in all respects.

Alternative Aviation v. Meggitt, et al (Dec. 22, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0467p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff Alternative Aviation Services, Inc., a Michigan-based
aviation equipment installation company, brought suit against defendants
Meggitt [UK] Ltd. (a British-based company doing business as Meggitt
Avionics), Meggitt PLC, and Vibro- Meter, Inc. (formerly known as
Meggitt Aviation, Inc). The suit against Meggitt PLC was subsequently
dismissed. Alternative alleged breach of express and implied warranty,
fraud, and revocation of acceptance in connection with equipment it
purchased from Meggitt. Meggitt counterclaimed for breach of contract in
order to receive the remaining amount owed on the equipment. Meggitt
moved for summary judgment on all of Alternative's claims. Alternative
moved for partial summary judgment on its breach of express and implied
warranty claims. The district court granted Meggitt's motion for
summary judgment, denied Alternative's partial motion for summary
judgment, and granted summary judgment as to Meggitt's counterclaim.
For the reasons below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

White v. Detroit Edison Co (Dec. 22, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0468p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff Darryl White, a former Detroit Edison employee and member
of the utility workers' union at the Detroit Edison power plant in
River Rouge, Michigan, appeals from the district court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of Detroit Edison, his local union, and the
union's national affiliate. White seeks to resuscitate his action
against the local and national unions for their breach of the duty of
fair representation, and against Detroit Edison for terminating him
without cause in violation of the union's collective bargaining
agreement. For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM the decision of
the district court.