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. 26, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Jurisdiction - State or Federal law - taxes
- Suppress evidence
 

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

 

Mikulski v. Centerior Energy (January 26, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0039p-06.pdf
-  This appeal arises from four state court actions against the defendants that were separately removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The four cases were later consolidated to address the defendants' separately-filed motions for judgment on the pleadings after the court denied the separate motions to remand. The true questions at issue in the case involve fraud and misreporting to shareholders, both of which claims are governed by state statutes. For this reason, federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the case under the substantial federal question doctrine.  While this court finds that these cases should have been remanded to the state court, we do not express any opinion on the merits of the claims under the laws of Ohio. The decision is REVERSED and REMANDED.
 

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

 

USA v. Morgan (January 26, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Kentucky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0038p-06.pdf
-  Morgan entered a conditional guilty plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), which prohibits possessing images depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Morgan appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of child pornography that resulted from a search of a computer in his home because he argues that his wife did not have the requisite authority to consent to the search. Also before us is whether Morgan's sentence violated the Sixth Amendment in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the denial of the motion to suppress, but VACATE Morgan's sentence and REMAND for resentencing.

Daily Case Updates