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!

April 22, 2005

Today's topics:  administrative law, Batson challenge, damages: collateral source, insurance, negligence: duty, negligence: "open and obvious doctrine", obstructing, settlement enforcement, sentencing, tort, trespass

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]

Cincinnati School District. v. Ohio Dept. of Ed. (April 22, 2005) (2005-Ohio-1876)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-1876.pdf 
David C. DiMuzio, appellant; James G. Tassie (Sr. Asst. Atty General), appellee
The trial court did not err in dismissing a school board's action to stay the state administrative process on a proposed transfer of certain households from one school district to another: the board's argument that the state administrative process was required to await the resolution of a federal action, filed after the state administrative proceedings had been initiated but before even a preliminary decision had been reached, was incorrectly premised on case law that had been eclipsed by subsequent developments in desegregation and by the expansion of Younger abstention to state administrative proceedings.

Ellery v. The Ridge Club (April 22, 2005) (2005-Ohio-1873)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-1873.pdf 
Daruice Ellery, pro se; Scott A. Rubenstein (Rubenstein & Thurman), appellant
Where golf balls hit and damaged two vehicles belonging to the owner of property abutting a golf course, the duty of the owner/operator of the golf course to the neighboring property owner was separate from and not dependent upon any duty owed by the golfers who actually hit the balls onto the neighboring property. The liability of the owner/operator of a golf course to a neighboring property owner is to be resolved under the rules applicable to the owners and occupiers of land, following general principles of negligence and nuisance. Generally, the owner/operator of a golf course has a duty to use reasonable care in light of all the circumstances to protect a neighboring property owner from the golf course's operations: The factors to be considered in determining whether a golf course owner/operator is liable for damage or injury to an adjacent or abutting property and its owner include (1) whether the abutting property owner knew of the existence of the golf course at the time he purchased or moved to the property; (2) the number of balls invading the neighboring property; (3) the proximity of the property and people to the golf course; (4) the steps taken to alleviate the problem; and (5) the reasonableness of the steps taken in light of the risks. The owner of a golf course was entitled to judgment in an action brought by a neighboring property owner after golf balls had hit two vehicles on her property, when the evidence showed that the owner knew that the golf course was fully operational at the time she moved into her home, and that, apart from the two golf balls that had damaged the vehicles, there were only four occasions over a twenty-year period when stray golf balls had damaged the property, and when there was no evidence about what steps could have been taken to alleviate the problem or about what corrective measures, if any, were reasonable in light of the risks.

Lamp v. Goettle, Inc. (April 22, 2005) (2005-Ohio-1877)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-1877.pdf 
James W. Patton, appellants; Roger W. Healey (Buechner Haffer O'Connell Meyers and Healey), appellee
The trial court erred in granting a defendant's motion to enforce a settlement agreement where the plaintiffs had filed a Civ.R. 41(A) notice of dismissal of all their claims: To enforce a settlement after an entry of dismissal, the terms of the settlement must be embodied in an order of dismissal or the order must contain a provision for the court's continuing jurisdiction over disputes that may arise out of the settlement; when the plaintiffs' notice of dismissal was unconditional and did not embody any settlement agreement, and the existence of cross-claims among the defendants had no effect on the plaintiffs, the court had no jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement against the plaintiffs.

Robinson v. Bates (April 22, 2005) (2005-Ohio-1879)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-1879.pdf 
Scott A. Best, for appellant; Timothy E. McKay (Trenz McKay & Knabe), appellee
The open-and-obvious doctrine does not abrogate a landlord's statutory duty to keep leased premises in a fit and habitable condition. Under the collateral-source rule in Ohio, a plaintiff's recovery of the reasonable value of her medical treatment is not limited to the amount paid by her insurance; the plaintiff may recover, among other things, an amount written-off a medical bill as a result of negotiations between the plaintiff's insurer and the health-care provider.

State v. Jeter (April 22, 2005) (2005-Ohio-1872)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-1872.pdf 
Edell Gray, appellant; Kristen Cosgrove Eatmon (Asst. City Pros.), appellee
Sufficient evidence supported a conviction for obstructing official business, where the defendant yelled at a potential customer in a sting operation against prostitution, thereby revealing an undercover police officer's status, exposing her to danger, and forcing the shutdown of the police investigation. A verbal statement alone can constitute an act within the meaning of the obstructing statute, and the state was not required to prove that the defendant's conduct had actually prevented the arrest of a person violating the law.

State v. Logsdon (April 22, 2005) (2005-Ohio-1875)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-1875.pdf 
Thomas W. Condit, appellant; Keith C. Forman (Asst. City Pros.), appellee
A conviction for criminal trespass was not supported by sufficient evidence, when the defendant, a protestor at an abortion clinic, had a privilege to enter the clinic's property to retrieve a sign that had been taken from him; a person is privileged to enter another's land to peaceably reclaim personal property that is on the land without the person's consent and not due to the person's negligence or fault.

State v. Washington (April 22, 2005) (2005-Ohio-1878)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-1878.pdf 
A. Norman Aubin, appellant; Judith Anton Lapp (Hamilton Co. Pros. Atty.), State
In a prosecution for trafficking in marijuana, the trial court did not err in finding, after the defendant's challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, that the state had presented adequate race-neutral reasons for using a peremptory challenge on a young African-American potential juror, where the juror had numerous acquaintances who had used marijuana and where she stated that young persons "tend[ed] to be a little less for guilt when it comes to marijuana usage.' Any error that occurred when the trial court allowed the jury to be informed that the defendant had promised after his arrest to help the police with future drug investigations, but had failed to follow through on that promise, was harmless, even though the information should not have been admitted as other-acts evidence; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial after the state and one of the witnesses mentioned that the defendant had previously been incarcerated, because the court adequately instructed the jury not to consider that fact in its deliberations. The defendant's conviction for trafficking in marijuana was not against the sufficiency or the manifest weight of the evidence, where the record showed that the defendant aggressively asked two undercover officers if they wanted to buy marijuana and assured them that he had the marijuana on him, even though no marijuana was ever found.

Tenhundfeld v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (April 22, 2005) (2005-Ohio-1874)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-1874.pdf 
Steven D. Halper, Philip A. Logan (Katzman Logan Halper & Bennett), appellants; Thomas L. Eagen, Jr., Christine Carey Steele (Eagen Wykoff & Healy), appellee State Farm; Jeffrey A. Kaleda (Markesbery & Richardson), appellee Victoria Insurance
Summary judgment was properly granted for an insurer where the language of the automobile policies in question validly prohibited the stacking of uninsured-motorist coverage; and where each policy clearly listed the decedent's mother as the named insured, there was no need to resort to extrinsic evidence to reject the claim that one policy was actually the decedent's. The trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest from the date of the initiation of the lawsuit, where the prevailing party's claim was based on an insurance policy, and where the damages suffered exceeded the policy's coverage limit.
 

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

No opinions.
 

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

United States v. Hudson (April 22, 2005) (Appeal from M.D. Tenn.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0188p-06.pdf 
Hudson was convicted of felony in possession of a firearm and cocaine possession, and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the two searches, one for the gun and one for the drugs. Reversed denial of motion as to drugs because "hunch" wasn't sufficiently "specific and articulable" for search, but affirmed denial of motion on gun because "apparent" girlfriend had "apparent authority" to consent to search of Hudson's house.

United States v. Smith (April 22, 2005) (Appeal from W.D. Tenn.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0189p-06.pdf
Smith appealed his sentence, arguing it violated his 6th Amendment rights. Vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with US v. Booker.

Daily Case Updates