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. 8, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Workers' compensation
- Property-tax
- Tax - "For storage only" exception
- Appeal with no errors
- Evidence - competent, credible
- Evidence - suppress
- Sentencing
- Tax liability
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

State ex rel. Sherry v. Indus. Comm. (February 8, 2006) (2006-Ohio-249)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-249.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * Temporary total disability compensation * Payment for services precludes temporary total disability compensation regardless of whether the recipient's enterprise earns a profit * Judgment affirmed.
 
Strongsville Bd. of Edn. v. Wilkins (February 8, 2006) (2006-Ohio-248)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-248.pdf
-  Property-tax exemption * O.R.C. 5713.08 * The Tax Commissioner has no jurisdiction to consider an application for exemption from property taxes unless county treasurer's certificate evidencing compliance with R.C. 5713.08 is attached to the taxpayer's initial filing.
 
State ex rel. Meris v. Indus. Comm. (February 8, 2006) (2006-Ohio-247)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-247.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * R.C. 4123.52 * Continuing jurisdiction of Industrial Commission * Motion for reconsideration based on mistake of fact.
 
Fichtel & Sachs Industries, Inc. v. Wilkins (February 8, 2006) (2006-Ohio-246)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-246.pdf
-  R.C. 5701.08 and 5711.22 * "For storage only" exception * Packaging separate clutch parts into a single box labeled a "clutch kit" does not constitute processing, and thus, the taxpayer's inventory of clutch kits qualifies for the for-storage-only exception.
 
Wood v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol (February 8, 2006) (2006-Ohio-245)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-245.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * Definition of "injury" * Statutory exclusion of mental injuries from compensability * Court of appeals' judgment affirmed on the authority of McCrone v. Bank One Corp.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** Judgment Entries ***
 
State v. Wright (February 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-040828.pdf
-  Wright appeals his conviction of attempted trafficking in cocaine.  No prejudicial errors that would warrant the reversal of the judgment.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Cleary v. City of Cincinnati (February 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050101.pdf
-  Cleary contends that the trial court erred when it affirmed the magistrate's decision that he should not receive any damages because the building had "zero value."  He argues that the trial court's damage award was not supported by competent, credible evidence. Judgment REVERSED and remanded to determine a value for the building based on the evidence presented.
 
City of Cincinnati v. Ash (February 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050164,%20C-050165.pdf
-  City of Cincinnati contends that the trial court erred in granting Ash motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Whitehead (February 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050248.pdf
-  Whitehead appeals convictions for trafficking in cocaine under O.R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and possession of cocaine under O.R.C. 2925.11(A).  He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress cocaine discovered on his person.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Franjonnie (February 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050356.pdf
-  Franjonnie pleaded guilty to theft for diverting $52,889 in funds that belonged to her former employer.  She argues that the trial court erred in imposing a prison sentence for a fourth-degree felony.  The court found that community-control sanctions would not be successful and that prison was consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. She argues the trial court erred in ordering restitution in the amount of $60,000. Judgment is AFFIRMED modifying the amount of restitution to the sum of $52,889.
 
State v. Ford (February 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050423.pdf
-  Ford appeals the sentence of incarceration imposed by the trial court.  Because the trial court failed to inform Ford that he will be subject to post-release control following his release from prison, we VACATE Ford's sentence and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. 
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

USA v. Foreman (February 8, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0049p-06.pdf
-  Marco Foreman appeals his sentence for the crime of possession of a firearm by a felon. Foreman raises a Booker challenge to his sentence and the United States does not contest this appeal. Foreman also challenges the district court's ruling that a prior conviction for fleeing and eluding in the fourth degree is a crime of violence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. For the reasons below, we VACATE Foreman's sentence and REMAND the case for resentencing.
 
Chrysler Corp v. CIR (February 8, 2006) (Appeal from U.S. Tax Court)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0050p-06.pdf
-  Chrysler Corporation appeals from three adverse Tax Court rulings that granted partial summary judgment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The disputed tax computations stem from the early to mid-1980s and involve substantial sums of potential tax liability. These rulings present the following questions: 1) Under the accrual accounting method used by Chrysler, was the company permitted to deduct anticipated warranty expenses in the year that it sold warranted motor vehicles to its dealers even though warranty claims had not necessarily been made? 2) Was Chrysler barred by the ten-year statutory limitations period from altering certain foreign tax credit elections? 3) Did costs associated with the redemption of Chrysler's Employee Stock Option Plan ("ESOP") constitute deductible capital expenditures? This case essentially involves three discrete appeals. For that reason, we will abandon our usual practice of beginning our opinion with a generalized background section in favor of treating each issue individually, providing the necessary factual context in conjunction with our legal analysis.
 

Daily Case Updates