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. 24, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
- Clean Water Act
- County Ordinance 830.5 ("Ordinance") unconstitutional
- Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a)
 

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

 

Reeb v. OH Dept Rehab  (January 24, 2006) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0034p-06.pdf
-  Four named female employees of the Belmont Correctional Institution ("Belmont"), a prison operated by the State of Ohio, filed a class action against Belmont and certain officials under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that female corrections officers have been treated differently from similarly situated male corrections officers and accordingly have been denied promotions, denied leave and overtime, given undesirable positions, and replaced by men. The plaintiffs specifically requested money damages and an injunction, though they did not specify the conduct they sought to have enjoined. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio certified the plaintiff class, finding that the plaintiffs had shown the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) had been met, and refused to certify the class under subdivision (b)(3). Reeb v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 203 F.R.D. 315 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (hereinafter Reeb I). We granted an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) and reversed the grant of certification, finding that the record did not demonstrate that the district court had engaged in the rigorous analysis required to determine whether the Rule 23(a) requirements had been met. Reeb v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 81 Fed. Appx. 550 (6th Cir. 2003) (hereinafter Reeb II). Upon remand, the district court received no new evidence and re-certified the plaintiff class, again finding the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) met and declining to certify the class under subdivision (b)(3). Reeb v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 221 F.R.D. 464, 469 (S.D. Ohio 2004) (hereinafter Reeb III). We again permitted Belmont's appeal. Because the district court did not follow our instructions and conduct a "rigorous analysis" of the requirements of Rule 23(a), and because Title VII cases in which plaintiffs seek individual compensatory damages are not appropriately brought as class actions under Rule 23(b)(2) because such individual claims for money damages will always predominate over requested injunctive or declaratory relief, we VACATE the district court's grant of class certification and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings.
 
City of Olmsted v. EPA (January 24, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0036p-06.pdf
-  This suit stems from a challenge to a "dredge and fill" permit issued by Corps Defendants1 pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Title 33 U.S.C. § 1344 (Section 404) by the City of Olmsted, a down-river municipality, and a private citizen who opposed the City of Cleveland's expansion of Hopkins International Airport. The expansion project called for a new runway, which required the filling and culverting of "5,400 linear feet of Abram Creek, the filling of 2,500 linear feet of Abram Creek tributaries, and the filling of 87.85 acres of wetlands." Joint Appendix at 321 (J.A.) The Clean Water Act not only requires a permit from Corps Defendants, it also requires a certification from the state involved, in this case, Ohio, that the state's environmental requirements have been met. The City of Cleveland had, therefore, applied to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) for state certification as required by Title 33 U.S.C. § 1341 (Section 401). In other litigation, the City of Cleveland was dealing with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the OEPA on matters relating to permits for run-off from the existing airport as well as other issues related to the expansion.

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

 

Natl Solid Wastes v. Daviess Cnty KY (January 24, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Kentucky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0035p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Daviess County, Kentucky appeals the November 19, 2004 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granting summary judgment for Plaintiff National Solid Wastes Management Association ("NSWMA"), declaring proposed Daviess County Ordinance 830.5 ("Ordinance") unconstitutional, and enjoining the County from enforcing the terms of the Ordinance. For the reasons set forth below, this Court AFFIRMS the district court order.
 
USA v. Blood AND USA v. Crittenden (January 24, 2006) (Appeal from M.D. Tennessee)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0037p-06.pdf
-  This case presents a question of first impression for this court: the meaning of the phrase "with intent to deceive another" found in 18 U.S.C. § 513(a), which prohibits possession of counterfeit and forged securities with this deceptive intent. The Defendants-Appellants George Blood and Stephen Crittenden appeal their convictions and sentences for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a) on a number of grounds. Defendant Blood appeals his conviction based on insufficiency of the evidence, improper jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias, and outrageous government conduct, and his sentence in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Defendant Crittenden appeals his conviction based on insufficiency of the evidence and a faulty jury charge, as well as his sentence under Booker. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the convictions on all grounds, VACATE the Defendants' sentences, and REMAND for resentencing of both Defendants consistent with Booker.

Daily Case Updates