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 14, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Collective bargaining agreement - grievance
- Evidence - suppression
- Writ of habeas corpus
- Admission of evidence, jury instructions
- civil RICO
 

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

 

Clev Elec v. Utility Workers (March 14, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0092p-06.pdf
-  The plaintiffs in this case, appeal the district court's enforcement of the arbitrator's determination that the grievance filed by defendant Utility Workers Union of America, Local 270, on behalf of retirees was arbitrable.  The defendant cross-appeals the portion of the district court's ruling requiring the retirees' consent as a condition of representation.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

USA v. Perez  --AND-- USA v. Rhodes (March 14, 2006) (Appeal from M.D. Tennessee)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0093p-06.pdf
-  Perez and Rhodes both appeal from the district court's denial of their respective motions to suppress evidence.  They challenge the stop of the Cadillac Excalade EXT in which they were both traveling, and the search of the unoccupied  Chevrolet Tahoe from which 30 kilograms of cocainne were seized.  Defendants each challenge the legality of the stop, the scope and length of their detention, and the search of the Tahoe.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Brown v. Palmer (March 14, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0094p-06.pdf
-  Brown was convicted in a Michigan state court of armed robbery and carjacking under an aiding and abetting theory. After exhausting his state-court remedies, he sought a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court. The district court granted Brown an unconditional writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown aided and abetted the crimes committed by the unidentified gunman. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
USA v. Matthews (March 14, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Kentucky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0095p-06.pdf
-  Matthews was convicted of possessing five grams or more of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and of using, possessing, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). He was sentenced to a total of 162 months of imprisonment and 4 years of supervised release. On appeal, he asserts errors relating to the admission of evidence of prior uncharged drug sales, the instructions to the jury regarding this priordrug- sale evidence, and the lawfulness of his sentence. The government concedes that Matthews should be resentenced in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). For this reason and for the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM Matthews's convictions, but VACATE his sentence and REMAND the case for resentencing.
 
Genord, et al v. Blue Cross of MI (March 14, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0096p-06.pdf
-  The named gynecologists sued Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, alleging that Blue Cross had fraudulently denied their claims in violation of both the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), and various state laws. Blue Cross moved for dismissal on the ground that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the civil RICO action was "reverse preempted" by Michigan law in accordance with a provision of a federal statute commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012. The district court denied Blue Cross's motion, thus allowing the civil RICO claim to proceed. After the district court certified the issue for interlocutory appeal, a panel of this court exercised its discretion to grant Blue Cross's petition to have the jurisdictional issue decided on an interlocutory basis. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

Daily Case Updates