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 28, 2005

Today's topics:  criminal law: suggestiveness of line-up, jurisdiction: Federal Claims and contracts

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]
No opinions.
 

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

No opinions.
 

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

B&B Trucking, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv. (April 28, 2005) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0195p-06.pdf 
Trucking companies hauling mail for the Postal Service sued for violation of their Fifth Amendment property rights, among others. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the claims were essentially contractual and the Court of Federal Claims was the appropriate jurisdiction. Affirmed, because contractual changes related to fuel purchases between the USPS and trucking companies were the basis of the Fifth Amendment claims, and contractual claims belong in front of the Federal Claims court.

Howard v. Bouchard (April 28, 2005) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0196p-06.pdf 
Howard sought a writ of habeas corpus. He claimed that the participation of three witnesses in procedural hearings at which he was present, who later picked him in a line-up, was prejudicially suggestive. The district court denied Howard's petition. Affirmed, because line-up was not impermissibly suggestive.

Daily Case Updates