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. 18, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Criminal law
- State ex rel. York Internatl. Corp. v. Indus. Comm.
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Prosecutor  misconduct
- Insufficient evidence
- Spousal immigration petition
- Section 1983
- Labor arbitration dispute

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Hand (January 18, 2006) (2006-Ohio-18)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-18.pdf
-  Criminal law - Aggravated murder - Death penalty upheld.
 
State ex rel. York Internatl. Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (January 18, 2006) (2006-Ohio-17)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-17.pdf
-  Workers' compensation - Mandamus - Adequate remedy at law - O.R.C. 4123.522 - Due process - Failure to receive written notice of hearing and order does not violate due process when employer failed to seek relief under O.R.C. 4123.522.

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
***  Judgment Entries ***

State v. Madaris (January 18, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050157;%20C-050158.pdf
-  Madaris alleges that the court erred in failing to grant him community control for his fourth-degree and fifth-degree felony and imposing maximum sentences for his convictions for possession of cocaine and drug possession. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Clark (January 18, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050187.pdf
-  Clark alleges that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument, the trial court erred in issuing a jury instruction regarding voluntary intoxication, and his conviction was not supported by the sufficiency or the weight of the evidence.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Franklin (January 18, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050311.pdf
-  Franklin argues that the trial court should have placed him on community control instead of imposing a prison term and utilized unconstitutional sentencing procedures.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Thompson (January 18, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050343.pdf
-  Thompson appeals her conviction of two charges of assault.  She argues that the convictions were based upon insufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment AFFIRMED.

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

Bangura v. Hansen (January 18, 2006) (Appeal from the S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0020p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiffs Abass and Isatu Bangura appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissing their complaint against Defendants Mark Hansen, the District Director of the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Deportation Officer Todd Smith, and then-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Thomas Ridge for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' denial of Plaintiff Abass Bangura's spousal immigration petition, as well as Defendants' denial of Don Chisley's spousal immigration petition made on behalf of Plaintiff Isatu Bangura, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and were contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims.
 
Kottmyer v. Maas (January 18, 2006) (Appeal from the S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0021p-06.pdf
-  Marlena and Robert Kottmyer appeal the district court's order denying their motion for leave to amend their complaint and granting the defendants's motions to dismiss in this section 1983 case. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the district court's decision.
 
 Intl Union v. Cummins Engine Co (January 18, 2006) (Appeal from the N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0022p-06.pdf
-  In this labor arbitration dispute, the primary issue is whether the suit to compel arbitration filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and its Local 336 (collectively, the Union) was barred by the statute of limitations. This appeal also raises issues as to whether the underlying dispute was arbitrable and whether the Union's suit was barred by laches. The Union was the recognized collective bargaining agent for employees at the Atlas Crankshaft Factory in Fostoria, Ohio for many years. Cummins, Inc. owned the Atlas plant until 1999, when it was sold to Krupp Hoesch Automotive of America, Inc. The Union and Cummins negotiated a Plant Sale Agreement (PSA) that obligated Cummins to fund "Plan B," a pension plan benefitting former hourly employees who had worked at the Atlas plant and hourly employees who would continue to work there after the sale to Krupp. The PSA provided that Plan B was not to be amended or terminated without the mutual consent of the Union and Cummins. In late 1999, Cummins determined that Plan B was underfunded, and it notified the Union that it was considering merging Plan B into Cummins's well-funded Plan A for its other employees. This merger occurred in October of 2001. In December of 2001, the Union notified Cummins that, in its view, the merger violated the "no termination/no amendment" clause of the PSA, and it filed a grievance. Over the next two-and-a-half years, the Union and Cummins corresponded regarding the arbitrability of the grievance, culminating in the Union filing suit to compel arbitration in March of 2004. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, holding that the Union's action to compel arbitration was timely, that the dispute was arbitrable, and that Cummins's laches defense was inapplicable. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for referral to arbitration.

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

 

No Opinions.

Daily Case Updates