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!

Feb. 3, 2006

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

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Brosch v. Mariemont City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (February 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-453)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-453.pdf
-  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reversing the decision of a board of education and vacating the board's disciplinary measures against two high school students who had consumed alcohol on a school-sponsored exchange trip to Germany:  The trial court properly held that the school's administration had not clarified an exception to the school's code of conduct that permitted alcohol consumption under limited circumstances, and given that the school had not clearly delineated the exception, the trial court's decision to vacate the disciplinary measures was not unreasonable. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Plum v. W. Am. Ins. Co. (February 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-452)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-452.pdf
-  The language of an insurance policy was clear and unambiguous:  It specifically excluded from coverage partnerships not named as an insured, and, therefore, a partnership in which the insured was a partner was not entitled to coverage as a matter of law. Application of a "manifestation trigger" to an occurrence-based policy would have rendered coverage illusory, and a "continuous coverage" trigger therefore applied; because issues of fact existed as to what extent the damage occurred while the policy was in effect, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the insurance company .  Judgment AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED.
 
State v. Ladson (February 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-451)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-451.pdf
-  The defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court imposed on the defendant, who had not previously served a prison term, more than the minimum prison term for two second-degree felonies:  The court improperly based the sentence on the nature and circumstances of the offenses rather than on the defendant's criminal history.  [But, see, DISSENT:  The trial court's statement that the defendant had a felony record was, notwithstanding its other findings, sufficient to justify the imposition of more than the minimum sentence.]  SENTENCE VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED.
 
Smith v. Leis (February 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-450)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-450.pdf
-   Habeas corpus is the proper method of securing relief for excessive pretrial bail under Section 9, Article I of the Ohio Constitution; the trial court abused its discretion by setting a bail of "$500,000, no 10%" after it was held on appeal that all evidence against the defendant should have been suppressed. Appropriate bail would have been the defendant's release upon his own recognizance while the state appeals the suppression of the evidence to the Ohio Supreme Court:  Under Crim.R. 12(K), defendants not accused of capital crimes must be released upon their own recognizance when the state appeals a trial court's suppression of evidence; and because there is a direct analogy to suppression of evidence at the appellate level, the defendant is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus providing for his release upon his own recognizance.  [But, see, DISSENT:  The rule governing bail in suppression cases decided in the trial court does not apply to suppression rulings made on appeal; therefore, the bond of $50,000 set in an earlier decision was reasonable and should not be modified, given that the defendant is charged with serious felonies and that he has a prior conviction for manslaughter.] Judgment WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED.
 

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

 

Todd v. Cincinnati  (February 3, 2006) (Appeal from S.D. of Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0046p-06.pdf
-  This is a factual "disability" case arising under the "beingregarded- as-having-such-an-impairment" provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C). The Act prohibits a "covered entity," including a municipality, from discriminating "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to . . . hiring, advancement . . . and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The Act defines "disability" in non-obvious ways, including as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits . . . the major life activities of such individual," and as "being regarded as having such an impairment" by the employer. § 12102(2). . . . Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

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

 

No Opinions.

Daily Case Updates