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. 23, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Fifth Amendment - psychiatric evaluation
- Internal Revenue Service - corporate-owned life insurance
 

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

 

Linscott v. Rose (January 23, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0033p-06.pdf
-  Linscott, an Ohio state prisoner convicted of two counts of gross sexual imposition, appeals the district court decision denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Linscott's petition challenges the use of a court-ordered, pretrial psychiatric evaluation at sentencing. Linscott claims the use of the psychiatric evaluation violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The district court held that Linscott's claim was barred under the one-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). As explained below, we find that Linscott's petition was timely. Nonetheless, after reviewing the merits of Linscott's petition, we affirm the district court's decision to deny the petition.

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

 

Dow Chem Co v. USA  (January 23, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0032p-06.pdf
-  In 1988 and 1991, Plaintiff-Appellee The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") purchased corporate-owned life insurance ("COLI") policies on the lives of thousands of its employees. In the taxable years 1989 to 1991, Dow claimed deductions for interest incurred on loans used to pay the COLI premiums and for fees related to the administration of the policies. The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") disallowed these deductions and assessed tax deficiencies and interest, which Dow paid under protest and attempted to recover by suing for a refund. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled that the IRS had improperly disallowed the deductions and ordered judgment in Dow's favor.

Daily Case Updates