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!

Dec. 22nd & 23rd, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Insurance / Sherman Act
- Collective bargaining agreement / Statute of limitations
- Evidence / Suppress / Legality of the Stop
- Bankruptcy / Mootness / Recusal / Pro hac vice admission
- Insurance / Coverage / Water Damage
 

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

 

Total Benefits Planning Agency v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shi (Dec. 22, 2008)(Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0453p-06.pdf
-  Total Benefits Planning Agency and four of its insurance agents (collectively “Total Benefits”) appeal a dismissal of their amended complaint for failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Total Benefits maintained contracts with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield; Anthem Life Insurance Company, Inc.; Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc.; Anthem Insurance Company, Inc. (collectively “Anthem”); and Cornerstone Broker Insurance Services Agency (“Cornerstone”) for the sale of group life and health insurance policies in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky. Total Benefits allege Anthem conspired to boycott and blacklist Total Benefits in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition to appealing the dismissal, Total Benefits also appeal the district court’s failure to sua sponte permit them to file a second amended complaint before dismissing their case. The district court, after originally denying the motion to dismiss, dismissed the amended complaint after finding Plaintiffs failed to allege a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act under either the per se analysis or the rule-of-reason test. The court was persuaded in part by two Supreme Court decisions handed down after the district court’s original ruling: Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007); and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the dismissal.

Warehouse Production and Maint v. Zenith Logistics, Inc.  (Dec. 23, 2008)(Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0455p-06.pdf
-  Warehouse, Production, Maintenance and Miscellaneous Employees, Furniture, Piano and Express Drivers and Helpers Local Union 661 (“Union”) appeals the dismissal of its complaint against The Kroger Company and Kroger Limited Partnership I (collectively, “Kroger”). The complaint sought to compel Kroger’s participation in an arbitration conducted pursuant to the Union’s collective bargaining agreement with another company, Zenith Logistics, Inc. (“Zenith”). The district court determined the complaint was filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. We agree, and affirm.
 

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

 

USA v. Gross AND
USA v. Wilkins  (Dec. 22, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0454p-06.pdf
-  Defendants-Appellants Michael Gross and Shamone Wilkins appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to suppress evidence obtained by law-enforcement officers during a traffic stop. The defendants were traveling northbound on Interstate 75 through Hamilton County, Tennessee, when their vehicle, driven by Gross, was pulled over for allegedly straddling lanes in violation of Tennessee law. After obtaining Gross’s consent, the officers searched the vehicle and found a brick of powder cocaine in the trunk, leading to the defendants’ arrest and indictment on drug charges. Each defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained during the search, and the district court denied the motions, finding that the stop was neither unlawful at its incepnably prolonged. The defendants subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, but reserved the right to appeal the denial of the motions to suppress. On appeal, Gross and Wilkins argue that the district court erred in denying their motions to suppress because the search was unlawful for two alternate and independent reasons: (1) the initial stop was not supported by probable cause and (2) consent to search the vehicle was obtained unlawfully because the stop was unreasonably prolonged. Because we conclude that the initial stop was unlawful, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In re: Randall J. Hake v.  (Dec. 22, 2008)(Appeal from U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Youngstown )
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08b0022p-06.pdf
-  Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd. (“Buckeye”) and its counsel, F. Dean Armstrong (“Armstrong”), appeal an order of the bankruptcy court denying their motion to withdraw the court's order to appear and show cause why the admission pro hac vice of Armstrong should not be revoked as moot, or in the alternative motion to recuse, and revoking the admission pro hac vice of Armstrong. For the following reasons, the order of the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.

Iroquois on the Beach, Inc. v. General Star Indemnity Company (Dec. 23, 2008)(Appeal from W.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0456p-06.pdf
-  Appellant Iroquois on the Beach, Inc. (“Iroquois”), a seasonal hotel insured under an “all risk” policy, appeals from the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment dismissing its claims against General Star Indemnity Company (“General Star”) for water and wind damage losses sustained to its building. The district court determined that exclusion B.2.f. of the insurance policy applied to preclude insurance coverage. The record without dispute established that continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a period of at least fourteen days caused the damages to the insured hotel and that this cause came within the above exclusion. We affirm.