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 24, 2005

Today's topics:  arrest, assignment, bankruptcy, constitutional, civil rights, complete defense, criminal, due process, habeas corpus, juvenile, immigration, indictment, inhumane treatment, motion to dismiss, OMVI, operating motor vehicle while intoxicated,  right to confrontation, sufficient specificity

Ohio Supreme Court

No Opinions

First District Court of Appeals

No Opinions

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

Miskel v. Karnes (January 24, 2005) (appeal from S.D. Ohio)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0037p-06.pdf
Miskel was charged and convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (OMVI).  Miskel filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the court's decision to prohibit cross-examination and expert testimony related to breath testing machine was violation of constitutional rights.  District court denied writ.  Affirmed.

Valentine v. Konteh (January 24, 2005) (appeal from N.D. Ohio)

http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0035p-06.pdf

Valentine convicted in Ohio state court of 40 counts of sexual abuse, based on an indictment with 20 "carbon copy" counts of child rape and felonious sexual penetration.  Valentine petitioned district court for writ of habeas corpus, which it granted on grounds that the indictment and conviction violated due process.  Affirmed district court on sufficient specificity grounds, reversing district court's judgment on Valentines convictions, and remand with instructions to grant the writ unless State vacates inappropriate convictions and re-sentences in accordance with opinion.
 

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

Daniels v. Woodside (January 24, 2005) (appeal from E.D. Mich.)

http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0034p-06.pdf

Consolidated appeals of Daniels in §1983 actions against Macomb County Sheriff and Anchor Bay School District.  Daniels alleged constitutional rights violations in relation to arrest and detention, as well as due process violations by the school district.  District court granted summary judgment to school district and denied summary judgment for the sheriff.  Affirmed summary judgment for school district, reversed denial of summary judgment for sheriff, and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for sheriff.

Hooper v. Wolfe (January 24, 2005) (appeal from W.D. Tenn.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0036p-06.pdf
The district court dismissed Hooper's diversity claim relating to purchase of property and sharing of interest in the property, for failure to to join an necessary and indispensable party.  Reversed and remanded with instructions to consider the feasibility of joining all remaining partners of the defendant corporation as defendants.
 

Mostafa v. Ashcroft (January 24, 2005) (appeal from Board of Immigration Appeals)

http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0033p-06.pdf

The Board of Immigration denied the appellants' claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, finding that the appellant was not more likely than not to face torture upon returning to Iran.  Vacated, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion.

Weingarten Nostat, Inc. v. Service Merchandise Co. (January 24, 2005) (appeal from M.D. Tenn.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0038p-06.pdf
Service Merchandise assigned its lease, after entering bankruptcy, to a third party.  The assignment was approved by the bankruptcy court.  Weingarten Nostat, the landlord, sued Service Merchandise and assignment was upheld by district court.  Weingarten Nostat appealed both assignment ruling as well as district court's denial of stay pending appeal.  Service Merchandise filed a motion to dismiss because appeal is moot.  Motion to dismiss granted.

Daily Case Updates