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 3rd, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Attorney Misconduct
- Taxation - Proper address on valuation complaint
- Insurance * Uninsured motorists
- Judges Misconduct
- Real Property / Tax
- Evidence / Motion to Suppress / Sentencing
- Notice of lis pendens / Restraint on substitute assets
- Sufficiency of Evidence / Double Jeopardy /  Voir Dire - Peremptory challenges
- Civil Rights Act / Employment Discrimination / Single-motive and Mixed-motive claims
- Land use ordinance / Warrantless Search of Property / Qualified immunity
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ramos (Slip Opinion)(July 3, 2008)(2008-Ohio-3235)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-3235.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Neglect of an entrusted legal matter * Commingling * Failure to render account for client funds * Probation and six-month stayed suspension.
 
In re Application of Mitchell (Slip Opinion)(July 3, 2008)(2008-Ohio-3236)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-3236.pdf
-  Attorneys * Character and fitness * Applicant lodged questionable accusations and legal claims while appearing pro se in litigation * Applicant may apply to take the February 2009 bar examination.
 
In re Application of Rogers (Slip Opinion)(July 3, 2008)(2008-Ohio-3191)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-3191.pdf
-  Attorneys at law*Character-and-fitness review*Permission to take July 2008 bar examination denied.
 
Knickerbocker Properties Inc. XLII v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)(July 3, 2008)(2008-Ohio-3192)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-3192.pdf
-  Taxation * R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19 * Complainant’s failure to use proper address on a valuation complaint does not deprive Board of Review of jurisdiction over complaint.
 
Angel v. Reed (Slip Opinion)(July 3, 2008)(2008-Ohio-3193)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-3193.pdf
-  Insurance * Uninsured motorists * Policy providing that claim must be brought within two years enforceable despite insured’s failure to discover uninsured status of tortfeasor until two years had elapsed * Insured could have discovered tortfeasor’s lack of coverage within two years had she exercised reasonable care.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoskins (Slip Opinion)(July 3, 2008)(2008-Ohio-3193)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-3194.pdf
-  Judges * Misconduct * Discipline * Conflict of interest * Attempt to benefit from illegally acquired funds of another * Failure to step aside in cases where judge had personal interest or where he may be unduly influenced * Improper comment on pending case * Mishandling of estates * Excessive fees * Disbarment.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Little Silver, L.L.C. v. Rhodes (July 3, 2008)(2008-Ohio-3325)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-3325.pdf
-  When real property has been the subject of a recent, arm's-length sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller, the sale price of the property is its true value for taxation purposes: Absent a showing that the sale was the product of economic duress or represented the purchase of assets in addition to the property itself, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to set the value of the property at the amount of the sale price. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
 

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

 

USA v. Pearce AND USA v. Johnson (July 3, 2008)(Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0240p-06.pdf
-  In this consolidated appeal, Defendants, Carl Pearce (“Pearce”) and Curtis Johnson (“Johnson”), challenge, on Fourth Amendment grounds, their convictions for possession of firearms and ammunition while having previously been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). In particular, Defendants contest the district court’s denial of their motions to suppress evidence seized following a stop of Johnson for which the police allegedly lacked reasonable suspicion. Pearce also disputes the procedural reasonableness of his 235-month sentence. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s suppression ruling as well as Defendants’ convictions and sentences.
 
USA v. Parrett (July 3, 2008)(Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0244p-06.pdf
-  A grand jury indicted Rebecca S. Parrett, and six others, on numerous counts of conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and concealment of money laundering. The indictment stated that, if convicted, Parrett would be held jointly and severally liable with fellow co-defendants for the amount involved in any offenses of conviction and would be required to forfeit any property directly or indirectly traceable to those offenses pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. § 982, and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). After the indictment, the federal government filed a notice of lis pendens1 on two properties that it considered to be substitute assets. Substitute assets, as defined by 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), are not directly traceable to the underlying offenses for which Parrett was indicted, but could be used to satisfy a judgment under certain circumstances (detailed in the statute). Parrett filed a motion asking the district court to order the federal government to remove the notices of lis pendens; she argued that the federal government did not have authority to impose a restraint on substitute assets prior to a conviction. The district court granted Parrett’s motion, holding that, under United States v. Ford, 64 F. App’x 976 (6th Cir. 2003) (unpublished), “21 U.S.C. § 853 does not authorize the pretrial restraint of substitute assets.” United States v. Parrett, 469 F. Supp. 2d 489, 493 (S.D. Ohio 2007). The district court concluded that, because the federal statute did not authorize the federal government to file a notice of lis pendens, the court did not need to consider whether the federal government had met the requirements for filing a notice of lis pendens under Arizona and Ohio law. Id. at 493-94. On appeal, the federal government argues that the district court erred because it failed to understand that the federal government derived its authority to file a notice of lis pendens on substitute assets from the law of the state in which the property was located, not from 21 U.S.C. § 853. While the federal government’s appeal was pending in our court, a jury convicted Parrett on all counts; the jury found her jointly and severally liable for a $1.9 billion judgment. As of the writing of this opinion, a forfeiture order has not yet been entered by the district court. Although Parrett’s attorney suggested in a letter to this court that the case had become moot after Parrett’s conviction, we disagree. Because the federal government may have authority under state law to file notices of lis pendens against substitute assets prior to entry of an order of forfeiture, we VACATE the district court’s judgment that the federal government lacks any authority to file a notice of lis pendens against substitute assets prior to entry of an order of forfeiture, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
 

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

 

USA v. Kimbrel (July 3, 2008)(Appeal from W.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0241p-06.pdf
-  Memphis police officers stopped Kimbrel for driving a car with expired registration tags. After discovering marijuana in the car, the officers arrested Kimbrel, and while conducting a safety federal grand jury indicted Kimbrel for being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and for possession of a firearm with obliterated serial numbers, see id. § 922(k). During voir dire, defense counsel exercised peremptory strikes against several potential jurors, all but one of whom were white. When defense counsel moved to strike another white juror, Lori Anne Goetz, the government raised an objection under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). After hearing from the parties, the court sustained the objection, finding that the government had established a prima facie case of discrimination and that Kimbrel, “the party with the burden of persuasion regarding a nondiscriminatory basis[,] ha[d] failed” to produce a facially neutral justification for striking Goetz. JA 219. The jury convicted Kimbrel on both counts, and the court subsequently sentenced him to 262 months of incarceration and five years of supervised release.
 
White v. Baxter Healthcare (July 3, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0242p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff, Todd A. White (“White”), an African-American, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Baxter Healthcare Corporation (“Baxter”), on White’s employment discrimination claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (2000), Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000), and Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (the “Elliot- Larsen Act”), Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101 et seq. (2002). In particular, White contends that he has presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race when Baxter (1) failed to promote him, and (2) downgraded his 2004 performance evaluation. We agree, and, for the reasons that follow, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of Baxter’s motion for summary judgment and REMAND the case for trial.
 
Jacob v. West Bloomfield (July 3, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0243p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Michael Killian, a land ordinance enforcement officer employed by the Township of West Bloomfield (“Township”), appeals the decision of the district court denying him summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff William Jacob’s claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 According to Plaintiff, Defendant violated his Fourth Amendment rights when Defendant entered Plaintiff’s property without a warrant to inspect the property for criminal violations of a land use ordinance. Defendant claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity against Plaintiff’s claim, but the district court denied this assertion of immunity. Because it is clearly established that a criminal investigation must be conducted within the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.