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!

April 30th - May 5th, 2009

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

TOPICS:
- Writ of mandamus
- Taxation / Franchise tax / Statute of limitations
- Habeas corpus
- Attorney Misconduct
- Wrongful death actions / Saving statute
- Political subdivision immunity
- Workers' Compensation
- Sentencing entrapment
- Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 706
- Interlocutory appeal / Federal Rule of Evidence / Hearsay
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Martin v. Woods (Slip Opinion)(April 30, 2009)(2009-Ohio-1928)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-1928.pdf
-  Appeal from dismissal of complaint for writ of mandamus - Application of R.C. 2731.04 and 2969.21 to 2969.27 - Judgment affirmed.

Nestle R&D Ctr., Inc. v. Levin (Slip Opinion)(April 30, 2009)(2009-Ohio-1929)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-1929.pdf
-  Taxation - Franchise tax - Tax credit for creating new jobs - R.C. 122.17 and 5733.0610 - Statute of limitations - Three-year limitations period in R.C. 5733.12(B) begins to run when Department of Development issues certificate verifying the amount of credit.

Bogan v. Hall (Slip Opinion)(April 30, 2009)(2009-Ohio-1930)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-1930.pdf
-  Habeas corpus - Failure to attach copies of commitment papers to petition - Dismissal of petition affirmed.

Dayton Bar Assn. v. Schram (Slip Opinion)(April 30, 2009)(2009-Ohio-1931)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-1931.pdf
-  Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Failure to withhold and pay taxes of employees - Failure to file income tax returns - Disbarment.

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Parrish (Slip Opinion)(May 5, 2009)(2009-Ohio-1969)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-1969.pdf
-  Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules, including engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude - Disbarment.

Eppley v. Tri-Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Slip Opinion)(May 5, 2009)(2009-Ohio-1970)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-1970.pdf
-  Wrongful-death actions - R.C. 2125.04 - Saving statute - The saving statute for wrongful-death actions, R.C. 2125.04, does not violate the right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

Sullivan v. Anderson Twp. (Slip Opinion)(May 5, 2009)(2009-Ohio-1971)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-1971.pdf
-  R.C. 2744.02(C) permits a political subdivision to appeal a trial court order that denies it the benefit of an alleged immunity from liability under R.C. Chapter 2744, even when the order makes no determination pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B).
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
Michael Rutherford vs. Adecco USA, Inc., et al. (May 1, 2009)(2009-Ohio-2046)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-2046.pdf
-  The trial court’s judgment overturning the allowance of a claim for a back injury was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: both the treating doctor and another expert testified that the plaintiff had not injured his back when he fell as he was getting off a forklift. Judgment AFFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
       

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

 

USA v. Guest  (May 4, 2009) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0163p-06.pdf
-  Kent Guest was convicted and sentenced for crossing state lines with the intent to engage in sexually illicit conduct. His advisory Guidelines range was 151 months to 188 months in prison. The district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison, and Guest now argues for a remand in light of Gall and Kimbrough. Because there is no indication in the record that the district court felt in any way constrained by the standard of appellate review prior to Gall and Kimbrough, we affirm.

USA v. Garrett Johnson (May 5, 2009) (Appeal from E.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0164p-06.pdf
-  Garrett Johnson pled guilty to the charge of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. He faced a 240-month mandatory minimum sentence, as required by statute, but the government moved the district court to grant a lower sentence based on Johnson’s substantial assistance. The court granted the government’s motion and sentenced Johnson to 108 months’ imprisonment. Johnson subsequently filed a motion for a further reduction in his sentence based on the retroactive revisions to the United States Sentencing Guidelines regarding crack-cocaine convictions. The district court denied Johnson’s motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider this new ground because the sentence was imposed pursuant to the statutory mandatory minimum for Johnson’s offense, not the subsequently amended Guidelines. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

USA v. Francisco Rodriguez-Lopez (May 6, 2009) (Appeal from W.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0165p-06.pdf
-  The United States brings this interlocutory appeal to challenge the district court’s order excluding evidence of calls made to the defendant’s cellular telephone shortly after his arrest. The district court determined that the calls were hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) and that they did not fit within any exception to Rule 802’s general preclusion of hearsay. We hold that because the government did not seek to prove the truth of any matter asserted by the callers, the district court erred in excluding evidence of the calls.