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!

Jan. 10, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Sixth Amendment - right to counsel
- Property - groundwater
- Jurisdiction
- Election Law

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

King v. Bobby  (January 10, 2005) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0006p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner Samuel King appeals from the district court's denial of
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. King pleaded guilty in Ohio
state court to a number of state charges. King was not accompanied by an
attorney during the plea negotiation, plea hearing, or sentencing
hearing, and he claims he was unconstitutionally denied his right to
counsel. We find that he did execute a valid waiver of his Sixth
Amendment right to counsel, and therefore we AFFIRM.
 
Hensley v. Columbus (January 10, 2005) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0007p-06.pdf
-  This case involves a federal takings claim arising from dewatering
activities conducted by the City of Columbus. In our review of the
district court's judgment, we requested that the Supreme Court of Ohio
answer an important question of first impression. Does an Ohio homeowner
have a property interest in so much of the groundwater located beneath
the land owner's property as is necessary to the use and enjoyment of
the owner's home? The Supreme Court of Ohio has now answered that
question in the affirmative, holding that "Ohio homeowners have a
property interest in the groundwater underlying their land and
governmental interference with that right can constitute an
unconstitutional taking.  The judgment is REVERSED and the case REMANDED
to the district court for trial.
 
State of Ohio v. John Doe (January 10, 2005) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0009p-06.pdf
-  Defendant-Appellant John Doe, a/k/a Beth Goldstein Lewis, a/k/a Beth
Lewis Trimmer (hereinafter "Lewis"), appeals the decision of the
district court ordering her to respond to any Ohio grand jury subpoena
served on her that seeks to compel disclosure of information regarding
the 1999 disappearance of nine-year-old Erica Baker. For the reasons set
forth below, we conclude that the district court did not have removal
jurisdiction over this matter, and we VACATE the decision of the
district court and REMAND this case to state court. 

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

Nader v. Land (January 10, 2005) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0008p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiffs brought this declaratory action requesting that the court
find that during the Presidential Election in 2004, the Michigan
Secretary of State had a duty to certify one faction of the Reform
Party's candidates for President. The district court dismissed
Plaintiffs' case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure
to prosecute and because Plaintiff Nader elected to appear on the ballot
as an independent candidate. We AFFIRM the district court's order
dismissing Plaintiffs' case.  We REVERSE the district court's dismissal,
with prejudice, of counts 6 and 7  of the Plaintiffs' complaint and
REMAND to the district court with instructions to grant appellant's
request that claims 6 and 7 be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

Daily Case Updates