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 8, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Unemployment compensation - benefits
- Death penalty
- Attorney misconduct
- Motion of satisfaction
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Domestic Relations - custody
- Non-compete clause
- Sherman Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

M. Conley Co. v. Anderson (March 8, 2006) (2006-Ohio-792)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-792.pdf
-  Unemployment compensation ― O.R.C. 4141.29(D)(1)(a) ― Eligibility for benefits during labor dispute ― Hiring of permanent replacement workers coupled with  notice to striking workers that they have been permanently replaced removes disqualification to receive unemployment compensation.
 
State v. Conway (March 8, 2006) (2006-Ohio-791)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-791.pdf
-  Criminal law ― Aggravated murder ― Death penalty upheld.
 
Muskingum Cty. Certified Grievance Commt. v. Greenberger (March 8, 2006) (2006-Ohio-790)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-790.pdf
-  Attorneys at law ― Misconduct ― Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice ― Failure to carry out contract of employment ― Advising a client to disregard a ruling of a tribunal ― Neglect of an entrusted legal matter ― Failure to account for fees ― Failure to return funds to which client is entitled ― Failure to keep client funds in trust account ― Conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Beneficial Ohio, Inc., v. Hurst (March 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050017.pdf
-  Beneficial Ohio, Inc., filed a breach-of-contract action against Hurst seeking to recover the amount due on a promissory note. For several years, Beneficial received garnishment payments through tge court from Hurst's wages.  Hurst filed a "motion of satisfaction," in which he contended that the money had been garnished from his wages and theat the debt was paid in full.  Beneficial contends that the trial court erred in granting Hurst's motion for satisfaction.  It argues that Hurst had the burden to prove that he had satisfied the judgment and that he failed to meet that burden.  Since some competent, credible evidence showed taht the judgment was satisfied, the court did not err in granting Jurst's motion.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Farris (March 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050060.pdf
-  Farris appeals from the trial court's order revoking his community control and sentencing him to one year in prison.  Farris contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it failed to make any sentencing findings before imposing his one-year prison term.  Farris contends that because he had  never served a prison term, the trial court was statutorily required to make certain findings under O.R.C. 2929.14(B) and 2929.19(B) before imposing more than the minimum prison term.  Farris argues that because the trial court failed to make these findings, we should reduce his prison term from one year to six months, the minimum prison term allowable for a fourth-degree felony. Judgment AFFIRMED
 
Grus, Inc. v. North American Tradesman International, Inc., et al. (March 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050183.pdf
-  Defendants-appellees are former employees of Grus, each of whom executed a non-compete clause.  Grus filed a complaint against each of these individuals, alleging breach of contract for violations of their non-compete clauses after they left Grus's employment. Judgment AFFIRMED.

Holloway v. Holloway (March 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050198.pdf
-  Peter Holloway appeals a decision designating Barbara Holloway as the residential and custodial parent for the parties' two children.  Peter contends that the trial court erred in failing to afford equal status to the parents as required be O.R.c. 3109.03.  He also argues that the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were contrary to the evidence presented at trial.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Young (March 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050333.pdf
-  Young appeals from the trial court's order revoking his community control and sentencing him to seventeen months in prison. He argues the trial court's failure to have his competency evaluated prior to revoking his community control and sentencing him to a seventeen-month prison term violated his due-process rights under the Fourtheenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Young contends that he should have been sentenced only to six months in prison, the minimum term of imprisonment for a fourth-degree felony, based upon the U.S. supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington. As a result, trial courts are no longer required to make findings or to give their reasons for imposing more than the minimum prison sentence; instead they have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range for the offense. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Cannon v. Past Time Park, Inc., et al. (March 8, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050369.pdf
-  Cannon was playing the outfield, and after the first inning, he ran back toward the dugout.  He fell while running in the outfield causing serious injury to his knee and ankle. Cannon then filed suit, claiming that the Park had failed to properly maintain the playing field and that this failure was the proximate cause of his injuries. The Park filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.  Cannon now appeals.  He raises two assigments of error, both of which claim that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinion.
 

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

 

Expert Masonry v. Boone Cnty (March 8, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Kentucky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0088p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-appellant is a company that bid on two public construction projects, failed to win either of them, and now seeks to mend its misfortune by asking the federal courts to reverse the buyer's judgment of the competing construction bids' relative merits. Specifically, the appellant claims that the government purchasing entity and the winning private bidder unlawfully conspired in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and also violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by unlawfully depriving the disappointed bidder of a vested property interest.
 
Fligiel v. Samson; et al (March 7, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0087a-06.pdf
-  This is an appeal of the district court's refusal to set aside its grant of summary judgment to the Veterans Administration (VA) in a suit brought by a physician who was transferred to a VA facility without notice and an opportunity to respond, as required by statute and Veterans Administration agency regulations. The district court found that Dr. Suzanne Fligiel's transfer was a "major adverse action," entitling her to procedural protections, including advance notice and an opportunity to respond. However, the court held that the denial of procedural due process was harmless error and granted the VA summary judgment. On appeal, Fligiel argues that the application of the harmless error test was inappropriate under Wilson v. Social Security, 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004), and that the district court wrongly relied on information outside of the agency record in making its determination. It is unnecessary to address these claims on the merits, however, because we find that judicial review of this matter was precluded in the first instance. Therefore, we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment to the VA, with remand to the district court for an entry of dismissal pursuant to United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988).
 

Daily Case Updates