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 25, 2005

Today's topics:   § 1983, adequate medical care, attorney fees, community control sanctions, divorce, guardianship, Prison Litigation Reform Act, search and seizure, sentencing enhancement applicability (Booker)

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

Ohio Supreme Court

 No opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]

State ex rel. Downs v. Panioto (February 25, 2005)
../../firstdistrict/2004/C-040784.doc
Stephanie Downs was given emergency guardianship of her mother, Linda, by the probate court, but her mother was found to be incompetent, due to a mental impairment prior to her being created permanent guardian  Linda's husband sought divorce at the same time, and served only Linda, not Stephanie.  Linda answered and counterclaimed.  The divorce continued for 5 years and the husband sought to dismiss the action because of Linda's incompetency.  The domestic relations court denied the husband's request.  The husband petitioned for a writ of prohibition and the domestic relations court sought summary judgment.  Denied the writ of prohibition and grant alternative writ, halting the court from proceeding on substantive motions until the parties have straightened out the record in both the probate and domestic relations courts.
 

State v. McClure (February 25, 2005)
../../firstdistrict/2004/C-040099.doc
McClure attempted to kill herself and her children but changed her mind.  She pled to 2 counts of felonious assault and was sentenced to five years community control.  She appealed, asserting that it was unlawful because it amounted to termination of parental rights.  Affirmed.
 

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

Fisher v. Harden (February 25, 2005) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0096p-06.pdf
Fisher sued Harden, Morrow County Sheriff, and his deputies for allegedly violating his rights against unreasonable search and seizure, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983.  Defendants filed for summary judgment, which was granted based on qualified immunity and no genuine issue of material fact.  Fisher appealed immunity.  Reversed in part, affirmed in part, finding summary judgment improper on constitutional claim against 2 deputies.

Johnson v. Karnes (February 25, 2005) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0097p-06.pdf
Johnson, a juvenile, was injured prior to being detained by Sheriff Karnes in the Franklin County Jail.  He sued, under § 1983, alleging constitutional violations by failing to provide adequate medical care.  The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants.  Affirmed, as to Franklin County, EMSA Correctional Care, and the sheriff, but reversed and remanded as to the medical doctor.

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

Hadix v. Johnson (February 25, 2005) (Appeal from W.D. Mich.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0095p-06.pdf
Inmates filed suit and, under a consent decree, plaintiff's attorneys monitored situation.  They sought payment of fees at the amount authorized by the Judicial Confrence but were awarded fees at the "actual" rate lawyers were being paid, which was lower due to budget constraints.  Reversed and remanded, that the amount should be the rate authorized by the Judicial Conference

Humphress v. United States (February 25, 2005) (Appeal from M.D. Tenn.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0094p-06.pdf
Humphress was convicted of conspiracy to murder and he moved to vacate or set aside conviction due to ineffective counsel..  The district court denied his motion.  Humphress appealed, and then supplemented his appeal arguing that his sentence was enhanced.  Affirmed, because Booker does not apply to cases already final on direct review and because no reasonable probability that Humphress would have pled guilty but for alleged ineffective counsel.

Daily Case Updates