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!

May 19th & 20th, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Motor vehicle insurance
- Judicial misconduct
- Landlord-tenant disputes
- Jury Instructions
- Bankruptcy / Property / Future-rent damages
- Ordinance / Sexually Oriented Business / Preliminary injunction / Attorney Fees
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Wohl v. Swinney (Slip Opinion)(May 20, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2334)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2334.pdf
-  Motor vehicle insurance*Uninsured-motorist coverage*Definition of “insured” construed*Persons insured under other insurance policies excluded.
 
Advent v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Slip Opinion)(May 20, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2333)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2333.pdf
-  Motor vehicle insurance*Uninsured-motorist coverage*Modifications within two-year guaranteed-renewal period*Change in limits of coverage*R.C. 3937.18 and 3937.31.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Sargeant (Slip Opinion)(May 20, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2330)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2330.pdf
-  Judicial misconduct*Failure to decide cases timely*Public reprimand.
 
Klein v. Moutz (Slip Opinion)(May 20, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2329)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2329.pdf
-  Landlord-tenant disputes * R.C. 5321.16 * Attorney fees * Trial courts are authorized to tax as costs under R.C. 5321.16 attorney fees incurred at appellate level.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Phar-Mor, Inc. (May 19, 2008)(Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0187p-06.pdf
-  This is an appeal from the district court’s review of a bankruptcy-court order in a Chapter 11 proceeding. Giant Eagle, as lessor, appeals the decision disallowing its claim for future-rent damages arising from a bankrupt lessee’s rejection of a lease for personal property, which was disallowed on the basis that a substitute lease for that property, if fulfilled, would have mitigated the claimed damages. Phar-Mor, as lessee, appeals the decision granting the lessor administrative expenses in the form of post-petition rent payments, from the petition date until the lease-rejection date. Ultimately, we REVERSE with respect to the disallowance of future rent and REMAND to the district court, for further remand to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. We AFFIRM the order granting as an administrative expense the post-petition rent due for the period from the petition date until the rejection of the lease.
 

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

 

USA v. Heath (May 19, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0186p-06.pdf
-  Kenneth Heath was charged with four counts of attempting to evade the payment of federal income taxes between 1999 and 2002, and with two counts of presenting fictitious financial instruments. Heath argues on appeal that the district court committed reversible error by (1) refusing to instruct the jury that the government was required to prove that he owed a “substantial” amount of federal income tax, (2) failing to clarify for the jury that it could not find him guilty on a particular count unless his allegedly unlawful conduct was willful as to that count, and (3) erroneously stating in the jury instructions that a fictitious financial instrument must be “free of disqualifying remarks” as opposed to “disqualifying marks.” He also asserts that the district court erred at sentencing by using the wrong standard when denying him a downward departure for diminished capacity under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 
Sensations Inc v. City of Grand Rapids (May 20, 2008)(Appeal from W.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0188p-06.pdf
-  This case concerns a consolidated appeal by Sensations, Inc. et al. (“Sensations”) and Little Red Barn Adult Theatre & Bookstore, Inc. (“Little Red Barn”) (collectively “Plaintiffs-Appellants”), from the grant of a judgment on the pleadings to the City of Grand Rapids (“Grand Rapids”) and various private citizens and citizens’ groups (collectively “Defendants”). These private citizens and citizens’ groups include Michigan Decency Action Council, Inc., Judy Rose, Dar Vander Ark, and Black Hills Citizens for a Better Community (collectively “Non-City Defendants-Appellees”). Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, seeking a preliminary injunction against an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses on the ground that the ordinance violated Plaintiffs-Appellants’ First Amendment and Due Process rights. The district court denied Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction, granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and awarded attorney fees to Non-City Defendants-Appellees to be paid by Little Red Barn.