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!

March 11, 2005

Today's topics:  Administrative Procedure Act, place of incarceration, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, sentencing
** 1st District sentencing decision partially overrules previous case and splits with other districts **

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 v. Brown (March 11, 2005)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2003/C-030867.doc
Brown appealed convictions and sentences for murder and robbery. Affirmed convictions, but remanded for resentencing because trial court failed to make necessary findings on the record.

State v. Montgomery (March 11, 2005)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2004/C-040190.doc
Montgomery pled and was convicted for trafficking in cocaine. He appealed his non-minimum sentence, arguing that the trial court should have given him the minimum. Affirmed conviction, modifying sentence to minimum. PARTLY OVERRULING State v. Eckstein, and holding that the statutory maximum for an offender with no previous prison terms is the minimum allowed by law for the offense.

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

Kocak v. Community Health Partners of Ohio (March 11, 2005) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0127p-06.pdf
Kocak resigned from a position with the defendant because of pregnancy complications, and then sought to be re-hired in two different positions. She was allegedly asked about whether she was going to have more children or was currently pregnant. She did not get the job, and filed an EEOC charge based on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (42 USC § 2000e(k)). The district court granted the defendant summary judgment. Affirmed, but the district court was incorrect when it considered whether Kocak was or was not pregnant, rather than her "capacity to become pregnant".

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

Dismas Charities v. Department of Justice (March 11, 2005) (Appeal from W.D. Ky.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0128p-06.pdf
Dismas runs community corrections centers and the Federal Bureau of Prisons changed its policy on which prisoners were eligible to work at them. Dismas sued for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed the suit, for lack of standing. Affirmed, because Dismas was not in the "zone of interests protected" by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).

Daily Case Updates