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. 10, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Workers' compensation
- Divorce - separate property
- Foreclosure proceeding
- Ohio constitution and Ohio tort law
- Evidence
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Life insurance benefits
- Insurance coverage

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Bickers v. Western Southern Line Insurance Co., Inc. (February 10, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-572.pdf
-  The trial court erred in dismissing, for failure to state a claim, an at-will employee's complaint for wrongful discharge related to a disability covered by workers' compensation, when the Ohio Supreme Court had specifically recognized such a claim on public-policy grounds in Coolidge v. Riverdale Local School Dist., 100 Ohio St.3d 141, 2003-Ohio-5357, 797 N.E.2d 61. In Coolidge v. Riverdale Local School Dist., 100 Ohio St.3d 141, 2003-Ohio-5357, 797 N.E.2d 61, the Ohio Supreme Court held that an employer violates the public-policy embodied in R.C. 4123.90 and 4123.56 when it discharges or otherwise penalizes an employee who is receiving temporary total disability compensation. The trial court erred in dismissing an at-will employee's public-policy claim on the basis that she had an adequate remedy available pursuant to R.C. 4123.90 and thus could not meet the jeopardy element of her public-policy claim, when that ruling was contrary to the supreme court's reasoning in Coolidge. The trial court erred in ruling that an at-will employee had to comply with the procedural requirements of R.C. 4123.90 to assert an actionable claim under Coolidge, when the imposition of those requirements was inconsistent with the supreme court's reasoning in Coolidge. Judgment REVERSED IN PART AND CAUSE REMANDED
 
Abolfatzadeh v. Abolfatzadeh (February 10, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-573.pdf
-  A trial court must have discretion to do what is equitable under the facts and circumstances of each divorce case:  There was no abuse of discretion in the division of the parties' marital property, when the husband was unable to present evidence to support his claims that certain assets were not appropriated for his personal use, and that other assets should have been regarded as his own separate property. The trial court's reduction of the wife's initial property distribution by 50% was not, in effect, an improper sanction for criminal contempt; the court was instead properly exercising its equitable powers to account for the wife's fraud and other misconduct. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Fifth Third Bank v. NCS Mortgage Lending Co., et al. (February 10, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-571.pdf
-  The trial court properly denied a bank's motion to be added as a party-defendant and to file pleadings in a foreclosure proceeding:  Because it was not excusable neglect for the bank to have failed to record its purchase of a mortgage, it was not entitled to Civ.R. 60(B) relief from the default judgment entered against the previous owner of the mortgage. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Sigley v. Parma Heights  (February 10, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. of Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0056p-06.pdf
-  This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for the use of deadly force arising out of Detective Wayne Mockler's ("Mockler") fatal shooting of Daniel P. Davis, dec'd ("Davis") in the back, as he was attempting to flee an undercover drug bust. Plaintiff-Appellant Peggy Sigley ("Sigley" or "Plaintiff"), Davis' mother and the administratix of Davis' Estate, sued the City of Parma Heights and Mockler asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and supplemental claims under the Ohio constitution and Ohio tort law. After discovery, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendants holding that Mockler acted reasonably, as a matter of law. Sigley appealed. The central issue on appeal is whether the district court erred when it granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the Defendants were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. We find there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Davis posed a significant threat of death or serious injury to Mockler or others. For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's granting of summary judgment and REMAND for trial on Sigley's federal constitutional claims.
 
Nash v. Eberlin (February 10, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. of Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0057p-06.pdf
-  This is an appeal from the district court's grant
of habeas relief to Petitioner-Appellee Darell Nash, Sr. ("Nash"). Nash was convicted in Ohio state court of felonious assault, and he sought habeas relief on the basis that the manifest weight of the evidence did not support his conviction. The State argues that the district court erred in construing Nash's  manifest-weight-of-the-evidence claim as a claim for insufficiency of the evidence and that Nash is not entitled to habeas relief on the basis of insufficiency. Nash asserts that the district court correctly concluded that there was insufficient evidence that he intended to harm his wife when he fired a gun in the course of a struggle with his son. Nash also filed a renewed motion for release with this court, arguing that there is no basis for the continued stay of the district court's order. We VACATE the district court's grant of Nash's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and REMAND the case to the district court for review of the state-court trial transcript. We also DENY Nash's renewed motion for release.
 

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

 

USA v. Alford (February 10, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. of Tennessee)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0054p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Cortez Alford pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Alford to the 10-year statutory maximum. Alford appeals his sentence, alleging: (1) improper judicial factfinding in violation of United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005); (2) error in sentencing as if the Guidelines were mandatory; and (3) error in determining that two of his previous convictions were unrelated for purposes of sentencing. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
 
Morrison v. Marsh & McLennan  (February 10, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. of Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0055p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant, Christine Morrison, appeals from the district court's decision dismissing her claim for life insurance benefits and statutory penalties against the Defendants-Appellees, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., J & H Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Employee Welfare Plan, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
 
Amer & Foreign Ins v. Sequatchie Concrete (February 10, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. of Tennessee)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0058p-06.pdf
-  In this case, the Court is asked to decide whether the "loss-inprogress doctrine" bars insurance coverage under a commercial policy where, at the time of the policy's inception, the insured knew about damages that could underlie a third-party's claim against it. The district court concluded that the loss-in-progress doctrine did apply under such circumstances, and that the policy did not cover the claim. This Court affirms.
 

Daily Case Updates