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!

May 5, 2005

Today's topics:  attorney fees, class actions, class action publicity, putative class members: notice, testimony: background/other crimes, "use" defined: firearms-for-drugs-exchange.

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

 

Guy v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Doe v. Miller (May 5, 2005) (Appeal from E.D. Ky.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0206p-06.pdf 
Three class action suits were filed, in some cases settled, and dismissed against the County because of alleged sexual molestation by an
organization receiving funding from them. The appellants appealed, arguing that failure to provide notice to putative class members was
prejudicial, because it led to their claims being dismissed as time-barred, and awarding the county attorney fees when the plaintiff's
motion to compel was denied was inappropriate. REVERSED IN PART, adopting rule followed by other circuits, that rule 23(e) (notice of settlement/compromise) applies in pre-certification context when putative members are likely to be prejudiced, and finding award of fees was abuse of discretion, and REMANDED, DISMISSING other issues as MOOT.

United States v. Frederick (May 5, 2005) (Appeal from W.D. Mich.)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0205p-06.pdf 
Frederick appealed his felony convictions and sentence, arguing that evidence of testimony of other crimes should have been excluded, and
that the judge's comments while instructing the jury were improper.  AFFIRMED, finding testimony to be "background", and comments, while appearing to be improper, were "cured", and that an instruction that found a nexus between acquisition of a firearm and exchange of drugs was proper, but VACATED sentence, and REMANDED for resentencing.

Daily Case Updates