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 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

March 2, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Bankruptcy court - discharging the debtor's student loans
- Fraudulent asset transfers
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinion.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinion.
 

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

 

 In re: Thom. Barrett v. (March 2, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06b0003p-06.pdf
-  Educational Credit Management Corporation appeals an order of the bankruptcy court discharging the debtor's student loans as the result of undue hardship pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the decision of the bankruptcy court.
 

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

 

In re: Powerhouse v. (March 2, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0082p-06.pdf
-  Petitioners consist of individuals and corporate entities who are defendants in a diversity action currently pending in the Eastern District of Michigan. In that suit, plaintiff Venice Renaissance, LLC, alleges that petitioners participated in fraudulent asset transfers in order to avoid paying a $1 million judgment rendered by a California court. In the course of the litigation below, Venice Renaissance sought to take the deposition of an attorney involved in structuring the disputed transactions. Over the objection of petitioners, the district court ordered that the deposition proceed; further, it ordered that documents, which petitioners claim are privileged, be produced in conjunction with that deposition. This petition for a writ of mandamus asks us to vacate the order of the district court. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition.
 

Daily Case Updates