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!

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