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. 22, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Attorneys at law * Misconduct
- Habeas corpus
- Acceptance of Plea - Sentencing
- Probate - Common law marriage
- DUI
- DUI - non-citizen warnings
- Corporation - dissolution
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Hinkle v. Cleveland Clinic Found. (February 22, 2006) (2006-Ohio-551)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-551.pdf
-  Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted.
 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wise (February 22, 2006) (2006-Ohio-550)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-550.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * One-year suspension with six months stayed on condition * Implying ability to improperly influence a public official * Threatening to bring criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
 
Boylen v. Bradshaw (February 22, 2006) (2006-Ohio-549)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-549.pdf
-  Habeas corpus * Preindictment irregularities not cognizable in habeas corpus.
 
State ex rel. Rowe v. McCown (February 22, 2006) (2006-Ohio-548)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-548.pdf
-  Mandamus inappropriate to compel release from prison.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. McKenna (February 22, 2006) (2006-Ohio-547)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-547.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice * Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law * Neglect of an entrusted legal matter * Failure to seek lawful objectives of client * Failure to carry out contract of employment * Intentionally prejudicing a client * Failure to cooperate in disciplinary matter * Indefinite suspension.
 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Landon (February 22, 2006) (2006-Ohio-546)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-546.pdf
-  Attorneys * Misconduct * Failure to notify client of insufficient professional liability insurance * Neglecting an entrusted legal matter * Engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation * Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law * Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation * Indefinite suspension.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** Judgment Entries ***
 
State v. Ballard (February 22, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-040857.pdf
-  Ballard appeals from his conviction for cocaine possession, in violation of O.R.C. 2925.11(A).  Ballard argues that the trial court accepted his guilty plea without informing him that it could proceed to sentencing upon acceptance of the plea.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
In Re:  Estate of Robert E. Lomboy (February 22, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050034.pdf
-  Following Robert E. Lomboy's death Sally had identified herself as Robert's surviving spouse and common-law wife.  Robert's surviving siblings, Michael and Katherine, filed actions seeking to have Sally removed as administratix and to determine the heirs of Robert's estate.  Probate court determined that Sally was Robert's common-law wife and surviving spouse, and it entered judgment in her favor in both actions.  Michael and Katherine now appeal.  They challenge the trial court's determination that Robert and Sally were common-law spouses, as well as the court's consideration of certain evidence in arriving at its decision. They also contend that the trial court erred in admitting documentary evidence dated after October 10, 1991.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Smith (February 22, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050258.pdf
-  Smith was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), and of operating  a vehicle without reasonable control in violation of O.R.C. 4511.202. Smith challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence upon which his convictions were based, as well as the trial court's denial of his Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Demosthene (February 22, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050324.pdf
-  Demosthene, a permanent resident alien, was cited for driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a prohibited concentration of alcohol in his breath ("DUI"), operating a motor vehicle without a license, and failing to drive within marked lanes. He pleaded no contest to DUI and operating a motor vehicle without a license. The trial court accepted his plea, found him guilty, and dismissed the other charges.1 His DUI conviction was his second in five years and his third overall. Demosthene moved to vacate his plea, claiming that the trial court, prior to accepting the plea, had failed to give him the non-citizen warnings required by O.R.C. 2943.031.  Demosthene argues the trial court abused its discretion in holding that he failed to demonstrate that his DUI conviction might subject him to deportation, exclusion or a denial of naturalization. Demosthene argues that his plea must be vacated on due-process grounds because it was not entered voluntarily due to his unawareness of the immigration-related consequences of the plea. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Weiss v. Weiss (February 22, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050430.pdf
-  James R. Weiss appeals from the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of his brother, plaintiff-appellee Larry E. Weiss, in an action for dissolution of a corporation.  James argues that O.R.C. 1709.91 did not permit dissolution where the only dispute was whether to dissolve the corporation. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinions. 
 

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

 

No Opinions. 
 

Daily Case Updates