|
|
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.
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!
February 4, 2005
Today's topics: bankruptcy, class action, criminal, death penalty,
employment, Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), motion to suppress, national
origin discrimination, nondischargeable debt, promoter liability, securities
fraud, union, wrongful discharge
- Ohio Supreme Court
- No opinions.
- First District Court of Appeals
- Ramudit v. Fifth Third Bank (February 4, 2005)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2003/C-030941.doc
Ramudit filed a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, alleging
national origin discrimination. The commission issued a finding that the
claim was not probable and dismissed the case. Ramudit then filed a
wrongful discharge suit, which combined a count appealing the decision of the
Commission. The trial court granted summary judgment on the wrongful
discharge count, and dismissed the second count for lack of jurisdiction, with
prejudice. The trial court also denied Ramudit's motion for leave to
file an amended complaint. Reversed summary judgment and
remanded.
State v. Bruce (February 4, 2005)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2004/C-040421.doc
Bruce appealed conviction on manslaughter. Trial court
sentenced to maximum finding that Bruce had committed "worst form of the
offense", a finding the jury had not made. Affirmed with sentence
modification to 9 years based on
U.S. v. Booker.
State v. England (February 4, 2005)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2004/C-040253.doc
The state appealed the trial court's granting of England's motion to
suppress evidence, on grounds that affidavits supporting the warrants were
insufficient to establish probable cause. Reversed and remanded.
State v. Were (February 4, 2005)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2003/C-030485.doc
Were was involved in a prison riot that resulted in the death of a guard.
He was convicted and sentenced to death but his conviction was overturned by
the Ohio Supreme Court (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2002/2002-ohio-481.pdf)
for failure to have a competency hearing. Were was retried, convicted,
and sentenced to death penalty. Affirmed.
- U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals - Ohio Cases
- In re Blaszak (Commonwealth Land Title v. Blaszak) (February 4, 2005)
(Appeal from Bankruptcy, N.D. Ohio)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0051p-06.pdf
Commonwealth sought determination that debt was nondischargeable under
11 USC § 523. Bankruptcy court found nondischargeable.
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. Affirmed.
- U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals - Other States Cases
- City of Monroe Employees Ret. Sys. v. Bridgestone Corp. (February 4,
2005) (Appeal from M.D. Tenn.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0052a-06.pdf
District court dismissed with prejudice a class action securities fraud
case filed by investors in Bridgestone, on various grounds including lack of
personal jurisdiction over an executive and failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. Affirmed dismissal based on lack of
personal jurisdiction, but reversed and remanded for consideration whether the
five elements required to withstand a
Rule 12(b)(6)
motion were met.
Higgins v. Int'l Union, Security, Police, Fire Prof. of America (SPFPA)
(February 4, 2005) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0050p-06.pdf
Employees, covered by a collective bargaining agreement, sued their union
and employer, Daimler Chrysler, for making allegedly economic changes to the
agreement (hybrid action). The district court granted the defendants
summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs were outside the statute of
limitations, had failed to show breach of contract or breach of duty of fair
representation. Affirmed.
|
Daily Case Updates
|