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 20, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Sentencing
- Records-retention law
- National Firearms Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

State v. Saxon (March 20, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1245)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1245.pdf
-  Criminal law * Sentencing * Appellate review * "Sentencing package" doctrine rejected * Appellate court may vacate, modify, or remand only that sentence that has been appealed by defendant * Appellate court may not vacate, modify, or remand any other, unappealed sentence based on error found in appealed sentence.
 
Kish v. Akron (March 20, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1244)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1245.pdf
-  Records-retention law * O.R.C. 149.351 * O.R.C. 149.011(G) * A "record" may be a single document within a larger file of documents as well as a compilation of documents * A "violation" of the Public Records Act includes any destruction of a public record that is not permitted by law.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinion.
 

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

 

No Opinion.
 

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

 

ACLU TN v. Bredesen (March 20, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Kentucky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0103p-06.pdf
-  This case involves a forfeiture of the Defendant weapon pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5872(a) because the weapon was found to be a machinegun within the terms of the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), and was not registered to the Claimant-Appellant, William K. Alverson ("Alverson"), in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Alverson claims that the Government failed to satisfy the burden required to justify the forfeiture because it did not show that the Defendant firearm was "designed to shoot" automatically or could "be readily restored to shoot" automatically under the NFA's definition of a machinegun. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment granting the United States's motion for summary judgment.
 

Daily Case Updates