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 22, 2005

Today's topics:   attorney fees, bankruptcy, civil procedure: appeal of final order, class action, ineffective assistance of counsel, products liability, settlement

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

Ohio Supreme Court

No opinions.

Norwood v. Horney
Norwood v. Gamble (February 22, 2005) (Motion for injunctive relief)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-ohio-669.pdf
Granted, enjoining Norwood from destroying or altering property pending further order.
 

First District Court of Appeals

No opinions.
 

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

In re:  Sulzer Orthopedics (February 22, 2005) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
Weitz & Luxenburg v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc.
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0082p-06.pdf
Sulzer recalled its hip replacements and more than 1300 suits were filed against it.  Sulzer settled the class action in Ohio, including an award of attorney fees as 32% of the overall settlement, and additional $50 million reserved for "common benefit" attorney fees.  Plaintiff law firms sought fees from the "common benefit" reserve.  The district court awarded both firms attorneys fees and provided a summary calculation, which used a uniform hourly rate.  Plaintiff's appealed the award.  Affirmed.

In re:  Sulzer Orthopedics and Knee Prosthesis Product Liability Litigation (February 22, 2005) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
Butler v. Certified Class
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0083p-06.pdf
One of the class in the Sulzer case (see above for more details) appealed the award of attorneys fees from the "common benefit" reserve, rather than from the settlement, which was the source for attorneys fees for individual plaintiffs, as ordered by the district court.  Affirmed, because appeal is time-barred.

In re:  Sulzer Orthopedics and Knee Prosthesis Product Liability Litigation (February 22, 2005) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
Certified Class  v. Sulzer Medica
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0084p-06.pdf
Certain plaintiffs from the certified class challenged the Special Master's findings in regard to their entitlement to benefits from the class action settlement (see above).  The district court refused jurisdiction over the challenge.  Affirmed, because the settlement agreement does not allow for the challenge.
 

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

Tinley v. Million (February 22, 2005) (Appeal from E.D. Ky.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0085p-06.pdf
Tinsley sought a writ of habeas corpus after his murder conviction.  The district court denied his petition and he appealed.  Affirmed except as to the ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to give an opening statement and closing argument at the penalty phase.  Remanded to consider ineffective assistance of counsel, and whether it was properly exhausted or properly raised in habeas petition.

Daily Case Updates