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 13, 2005

Today's topics:  administrative claims: futility, complaint: alternate pleading, ERISA: fiduciary duty, ERISA: fiduciary status, manifest weight of evidence, Miranda warning, personal injury, trustee: instructions, wills.

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. Gassett (May 13, 2005) (2005-Ohio-2340)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-2340.pdf 
Myron Y. Davis, Jr., appellant; Scott M. Heenan, Asst. Pros. Atty., appellee
Crim. Miscellaneous: A conviction for intimidation of a crime witness was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, when three witnesses testified that the defendant had gone to the victim's home and threatened to shoot her if she testified against him. AFFIRMED.

State v. Neely (May 13, 2005) (2005-Ohio-2342)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-2342.pdf 
Chris McEvilley, appellant; James M. Keeling, Asst. Pros. Atty., appellee
Miranda: The trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress his statements to police: the rule that prevents police from initiating further interrogation of a suspect once the suspect has requested an attorney does not apply when the suspect is not in continuous custody, and especially when there is a significant temporal break in custody (a break of five months is more than sufficient to make the rule inapplicable). AFFIRMED.

Wood v. U.S. Bank (May 13, 2005) (2005-Ohio-2341)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-2341.pdf 
William H. Blessing, appellant; Timothy C. Sullivan (Taft Stettinius & Hollister), appellee
Wills/Trusts - Instructions: A trustee has the duty to diversify the assets of a trust unless special circumstances are present; language that permits a trustee to retain its own stock (to avoid problems with the Rule of Undivided Loyalty) does not affect the trustee's duty to diversify unless the language of the trust specifically provides otherwise. General language in a trust instrument that permitted the corporate trustee to retain its own stock in the trust was insufficient, as a matter of law, to abrogate the trustee's duty to diversify. The trial court erred by giving a jury instruction that incorrectly defined the standard governing a corporate trustee's duty to diversify: by making the exercise of the duty subject only to the trustee's discretion, the court ignored the appropriate legal standard under which, in the absence of specific trust language to the contrary, the duty to diversify can be diminished only in the presence of special circumstances. REVERSED.

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

No opinions.
 

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

Hill v. Blue Cross of Mich. (May 13, 2005) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0216p-06.pdf 
The plaintiffs sued the third-party administrator of their employer's health insurance benefits for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The district court granted Blue Cross' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative claims. REVERSED in part, because fiduciary-duty claims were improperly recast as unexhausted individual benefits claims, and AFFIRMED in part.

McDonald v. Petree (May 13, 2005) (Appeal from W.D. Tenn.)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0215p-06.pdf 
McDonald was riding in Hudspeth's car when Petree rear-ended it.  McDonald sued (diversity action) both Hudspeth and Petree for injuries and the district court granted Hudspeth's motion for summary judgment.  A jury returned a verdict for Petree, and both Hudspeth and Petree were awarded costs. McDonald appealed the summary judgment and the award of costs. AFFIRMED, because McDonald did not allege negligence on Hudspeth's part but reserved right to recover should either Hudspeth or Petree be shown to have caused the injuries, and court did not err in allowing Petree to show evidence of Hudspeth's negligence, even though she had been dismissed from case.

Daily Case Updates