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. 17, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Indictment/Complaint - Procedure/Rules - Constitutional Law/ Criminal
- Sentencing - Sex Offense
- Homicide - Jurisdiction
- Negligence - Slip and Fall
- Constitutional Law
- Due Process Rights
- Money laundering - false tax returns
- Land installment contract
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinion.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Shugars (February 17, 2006) (2006-Ohio-718)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-718.pdf
-  Shugars appeals his conviction for violating Cincinnati's home-improvement ordinance.  Shugars now claims that the state failed to assert that he "recklessly" violated the ordinance, and that, therefore, his conviction cannot be sustained.  By omitting an essential element, the complaint against Shugars failed to state an offense under Ohio law.  This defect has affected Shugars's substantial rights, and we must vacate Shugars's conviction and dismiss the complaint against him.  Accordingly we sustain Shugars' assignment of error, VACATE his conviction, and dismiss the compliant against him.
 
State v. Mozena (February 17, 2006) (2006-Ohio-717)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-717.pdf
-  The defendant-appellant, Floyd Mozena, appeals his four-year sentence for gross sexual imposition and the trial court's judgment adjudicating him a sexual predator. In his two assignments of error, Mozena contends that (1) the trial court should have imposed only the minimum prison term for his conviction on two counts of gross sexual imposition, and (2) the trial court's judgment that he is a sexual predator was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We sustain the first assignment of error and overrule the second.
 
State v. Harris (February 17, 2006) (2006-Ohio-716)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-716.pdf
-  The common pleas court's failure to remand a juvenile defendant's criminal case to juvenile court was not erroneous, where the common pleas court not only lacked the authority to review the juvenile court's initial bindover order, but also had no statutory authority for a remand.  The trial court's failure to grant the defendant's motion to sever the charges involving two separate murder victims did not give rise to plain error, when evidence of either murder would have been admissible in separate trials under Evid.R. 404(B) to show a common scheme or plan, and when the defendant was ultimately acquitted of the charges relating to one of the victims.  Convictions for murder and aggravated robbery were not against the sufficiency or the manifest weight of the evidence, where it was shown that the defendant approached the victim, pointed a gun at him, and told him to give up his money; that witnesses heard three gunshots fired in rapid succession, and that the bullets recovered from the victim were fired from a gun that the police located from the defendant's directions, and where the defendant's admission that he had merely shot the victim in the leg was contradicted by the coroner's testimony that the victim had been shot only in the torso. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Christen v. Don Vonderhaar Market & Catering , Inc. (February 17, 2006) (2006-Ohio-715)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-715.pdf
-  In a slip-and-fall case, the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the defendant when the plaintiff's evidence raised genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the defendant's failure to have slip-resistant material on stair treads used by delivery persons was a breach of duty that had proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Although a violation of the set of administrative regulations contained in the Ohio Basic Building Code does not constitute negligence per se, such a violation may be admissible as evidence of ordinary negligence. Judgment REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED.
 
Amann v. Clear Channel Communications (February 17, 2006) (2006-Ohio-714)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-714.pdf
-  Broadcasters have substantial First Amendment protection for commercial speech broadcast in advertisements:  They do not owe a duty of care to their listening audience to verify the accuracy of advertisements, but they may be held civilly liable where they know an advertisement is false before it is broadcast, or when an advertisement is so inherently improbable on its face that they must know that it is probably false. A broadcaster is liable for the tort of negligent misrepresentation for an advertisement only when the advertisement is intended for a specific person or for a limited group of people; there is no liability for the tort when an advertisement is broadcast to a radio station's entire listening audience. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Women's Med Prof v. Baird  (February 17, 2006) (Appeal from S.D. of Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0065p-06.pdf
-  Women's Med Prof operates an abortion clinic in Dayton, Ohio.  Under Ohio law, the Dayton clinic is required to be licensed.  No hospital would enter into a transfer agreement with the clinic. Women's Med Prof sought a waiver of the transfer agreement requirement.  Baird denied Women's Med Prof's request for a waiver, proposed to issue an order denying its license application, and issued a cease-and-desist order requiring the clinic to close immediately. Judge Marbley conducted a nonjury trial and granted Women's Med Prof's motion for a permanent injunction, preventing Baird from enforcing the written transfer agreement requirement against the Dayton clinic. Director Baird now appeals the district court's grant of a permanent injunction and award of attorneys' fees and expenses. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court with respect to its conclusion that Women's Med Prof's procedural due process rights were violated, but vacate the grant of a permanent injunction and remand the case for a hearing on the proposed denial of the license application.
 
USA v. Abboud, Elie  (February 17, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. of Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0066p-06.pdf
-  Defendants Elie F. Abboud and Michel Abboud appeal the July 13, 2004 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio convicting and sentencing Defendants for bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1); money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957; conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and failure to file income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Additionally, the order convicted and sentenced Defendant Michel Abboud for filing a false income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the convictions on all counts, but we VACATE Defendants' sentences and REMAND to the district court for resentencing.
 
In Re: Ravenswood v.  (February 17, 2006) (Appeal from S.D. of Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06b0002p-06.pdf
-  Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. James F. O'Brien, Trustee, Robert S. Corbly, Glen A. Burns and Carol Burns (the "Appellants") appeal the bankruptcy court's order denying their motion to compel the Debtor to make payments under a land installment contract and to assume or reject the contract within a specified time period. For the reasons that follow, we find that the land installment contract is executory under controlling Sixth Circuit precedent and Ohio law and REVERSE the order of the bankruptcy court.
 

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

 

No Opinion.
 

Daily Case Updates