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 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

January 14, 2005

Today's topics:  civil rights, constitution, employment discrimination, family medical leave act (FMLA), fourth amendment, jurisdiction, privacy

Ohio Supreme Court

No Opinions

First District Court of Appeals

No Opinions

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

Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls (January 14, 2005) (appeal from N.D. Ohio)

http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0024p-06.pdf

Radvansky filed a §1983 suit alleging constitutional violations against the City of Olmsted Falls after being arrested for burglary.  He had broken into the house in which he had been renting a room but was involved with a dispute with the landlord.  The city prosecutor later dropped the charge.  The district court granted the city summary judgment for Radvansky's claims.  Reversed with respect to Fourth Amendment claims and affirmed in all other respects on other grounds.
 

Sorrel v. Rinker Mat'ls Corp. (January 14, 2005) (appeal from N.D. Ohio)

http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0026p-06.pdf

Sorrel sued Rinker under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the district court granted summary judgment, finding that Sorrel had relinquished his position prior to requesting FMLA leave and was not entitled to the same, or a similar, position upon his return.  Sorrel appealed and Rinker cross-appealed.  Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
 

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

Schmitt v. City of Detroit (January 14, 2005) (appeal from E.D. Mich.)

http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0023p-06.pdf

A vendor used by the City sent mail to Schmitt, on the outside of which was printed Schmitt's Social Security Number.  Schmitt sued under the Federal Privacy Act on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals.  The City agreed to included disclosure notices in future communications and the district court granted declaratory relief under the Privacy Act and dismissed all other claims.  Reversed as to declaratory relief - the Privacy Act applies only to Federal agencies - and affirmed in all other respects.  Remanded with directions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
 

Roddy v. Grand Trunk West. Railroad (January 14, 2005) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)

http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0025p-06.pdf

Roddy was arrested for misdemeanor possession of marijuana.  Employee's of Grand Trunk, Roddy's employer, kept track of his arrest, and eventually there was an investigation and Roddy was terminated.  The misdemeanor charges of possession were eventually dropped.  Roddy sued in state court and Grand Trunk removed the case to Federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.   The district court denied Roddy's motion for remand, and granted summary judgment to Grand Trunk.  Roddy appealed the decision.  Reversed denial of motion to remand, vacated the order for summary judgment, and remanded with instructions for remanding the entire case to state court.

Daily Case Updates