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. 24, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Children - Dependency
- Abortion drug
- Crime of violence
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinion.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

In Re:  Cody T. Walling (February 24, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050646.pdf
-  There was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment adjudicating a child dependent under R.C. 2151.04(B), where there was no evidence that the mother's mental condition interfered with her ability to provide adequate care for her son; the evidence was also insufficient to adjudicate the child dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C), where the state presented no evidence concerning the child's environment or the mother's ability to care for the child.The juvenile court must consider the wishes of the child in the dispositional phase of dependency proceedings to terminate parental rights, R.C. 2151.414(D)(2), and consideration of the child's wishes is also necessary in certain cases to determine whether the child is entitled to independent counsel.  In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398, 2004-Ohio-1500, 805 N.E.2d 1110. Judgment REVERSED AND DEPENDENCY COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
 

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

 

Planned Parenthood v. Taft (February 24, 2006) (Appeal for S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0068p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiffs challenge an Ohio statute which prohibits the off-label use of the abortion drug mifepristone (more commonly known as RU-486). The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the statute on two alternative grounds. The State timely filed an interlocutory appeal. For the following reasons, we hold that the district court's primary holding was error, but affirm the reasoning of the district court's alternative holding. Nevertheless, we vacate the district court's order in part and remand for consideration of the appropriate scope of injunctive relief in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, * U.S. *, 126 S. Ct. 961 (2006).
 
USA v. Perry (February 24, 2006) (Appeal for S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0069p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Oceanus Perry appeals his convictions and sentences for armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a)&(d), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We affirm Perry's convictions, and his sentence for use of a firearm, but remand for resentencing on his conviction for armed bank robbery.
 

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

 

No Opinions. 
 

Daily Case Updates