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!

March 1, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Habeas corpus
- Public Records Act
- Unfair-labor-practice
- Workers' compensation - Living-maintenance compensation
- Workers' compensation - temporary total disability compensation
- Appellate Procedure
- Valentine Act - antitrust actions
- Contracts - personally liable
- Domestic Relations - custody
- Frivolous Appeal
- Firearms - Knowingly transport
- Insurance - intentional injuries coverage
- Armed Career Criminal Act
- civil rights action - detention without reasonable suspicion
- Bankruptcy court award
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Crase v. Bradshaw (March 1, 2006) (2006-Ohio-663)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-663.pdf
-  Habeas corpus sought to compel relator's release from confinement * Complaint in habeas corpus dismissed as moot when relator is released from confinement prior to hearing.
 
State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki (March 1, 2006) (2006-Ohio-662)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-662.pdf
-  Public records requests * Redaction of Social Security numbers.
 
State ex rel. Stewart v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (March 1, 2006) (2006-Ohio-661)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-661.pdf
-  Writ of mandamus sought to compel SERB to make a finding of probable cause for unfair-labor-practice charge * Court of appeals' denial of writ affirmed.
 
State ex rel. Dixon v. Airborne Express, Inc. (March 1, 2006) (2006-Ohio-660)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-660.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * O.R.C. 4121.63 * Living-maintenance benefits denied in absence of approved vocational rehabilitation plan.
 
State ex rel. Apcompower, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (March 1, 2006) (2006-Ohio-659)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-659.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * Claim suspension for failure to undergo employer-requested medical examination * O.R.C. 4123.651(C) does not require permanent compensation forfeiture for the period that the statute was invoked.
 
State v. Hancock (March 1, 2006) (2006-Ohio-658)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-658.pdf
-  Criminal law * Appellate procedure * Application to reopen direct appeal * App.R. 26(B) * Application denied as untimely.
 
Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati v. Aetna Health, Inc. (March 1, 2006) (2006-Ohio-657)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-657.pdf
-  Contracts * Arbitration clause * Antitrust claims * Standard of review for determining whether cause of action is within scope of contract clause requiring arbitration of disputes.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

The C. J. Krehbiel Co., Inc. v. DeWitt, d/b/a County Directories (March 1, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-040656.pdf
-  DeWitt alleges that the trial court erred in holding DeWitt personally liable for the judgment.  DeWitt argues that he signed the contract as a corporate officer of County Directories and not as an individual. He also alleges that the trial court erred in granting Krehibiel interest at a rate of 18 percent per annum. The judgment of the trial court is reversed with respect to the calculation of interest, and this cause is remanded for the trial court to calculate the statutory rate of interest pursuant to O.R.C. 5703.47, and to modify its judgment accordingly.
 
In Re:  Shamel Children (March 1, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050135.pdf
-  Shamel appeals a decision of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court granting legal custody of her four children to their father, Angelo Brice.  A magistrate found that while both parents love their children and have suitable homes, the children behave better and achieve academically better when they are with their father.  Shamel contends that the juvenile court's decision was based on a factual error.  She contends that the court failed to consider the best interest of the children in making its decision. Because competent, credible evidence supported the juvenile court's award of custody to Brice, this court will not reverse the award. We overrule Shamel's assignments of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
State v. Harper (March 1, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050241.pdf
-  Harper appeals his convictions for assault, in violation of O.R.C. 2903.13(A), and for driving under a financial-responsibility-law suspension, in violation of O.R.C. 4510.16. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
 State v. Moore (March 1, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050456,%20C-050457.pdf
-  Moore, appeals from his conviction for two counts of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of O.R.C. 2923.16(B). He contends (1) that the trial court committed error when it overruled his Crim.R. 29 motion, and (2) that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We overrule both assignments of error. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinion.
 

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

 

Continental Ins Co v. Adams (March 1, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Kentucky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0078p-06.pdf
-  Defendants Karen Adams, Andrew Slentz and the Estate of John S. Keck appeal the grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff Continental Insurance Co., declaring that a homeowners insurance policy held by decedent John Keck did not cover intentional injuries to Adams and Slentz. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
 
USA v. Hill (March 1, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Tennessee)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0079p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Paul Garnet Hill ("Hill") pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which prohibits the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced him as an armed career criminal to a 188-month term of incarceration, in accordance with the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 4B1.4. That statute imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years on anyone who has been convicted of violating § 922(g) and has three previous convictions "for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another." Before this Court, Hill raises three challenges to that sentence. Initially, he argues that the district court improperly sentenced him under the ACCA, as a result of erroneously finding that he had three previous convictions for a violent felony that had been committed on different occasions. Second, he contends that the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), by finding that each of his three previous convictions was for a violent felony, as opposed to requiring such a finding be made by a jury or based upon his admission. Lastly, he requests that this matter be remanded for re-sentencing under United States v. Booker, * U.S. *, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). We conclude that Hill was properly sentenced under the ACCA and that the district court did not violate Apprendi. However, we remand this matter for re-sentencing in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Booker.
 
Mitchell v. Boelcke (March 1, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0080p-06.pdf
-  In this civil rights action, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs Devin Mitchell and Preston Culpepper appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of defendants Mark Boelcke, Dale Easton, and Lenny Rothrock. The plaintiffs assert that defendants Easton and Rothrock did not have reasonable suspicion to detain them in connection with an investigation of a neighborhood assault and robbery. They further claim that all three defendants engaged in selective law enforcement when they charged only African-American suspects in connection with the incidents. For the reasons set out below, we conclude that the district court erred in denying plaintiff Culpepper's motion for a new trial. In all other respects, however, the district court appropriately resolved the issues before it. As a result, we affirm the judgment of the district court in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial on Culpepper's claim of detention without reasonable suspicion.
 
In re: John R. Homes v. (March 1, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0081p-06.pdf
-  After dismissing the involuntary bankruptcy petition filed by Kevin Adell against John Richards Homes Building Co., L.L.C. ("JRH"), the bankruptcy court found that the petition was filed in bad faith and awarded JRH costs, attorneys' fees, compensatory damages and punitive damages pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The district court affirmed that award. Adell now appeals that affirmance. Finding no error in the bankruptcy court's award or the district court's approval of it, we AFFIRM.
 

Daily Case Updates