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 29, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Attorney Misconduct
- Writ of mandamus
- Insurance - Compensation
- Negligence -  Breach of duty
- Domestic Relations - unsuitability of the child's parents
- Municipalities - extraterritorial customers - Annexation
- Tortious act
- Criminal - procedural - evidence, hearsay, due process, ineffective counsel
- Domestic Relations - spousal support
- Sentencing
- Frivolous Appeal
- Preliminary injunction
- Qualified immunity

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Quatman (March 29, 2006) (2006-ohio-1196)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1196.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice law * One-year suspension stayed on conditions and two years' probation.
 
Dzina v. Celebrezze (March 29, 2006) (2006-ohio-1195)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1195.pdf
-  Writ of mandamus sought to compel trial court to enter judgment in accordance with remand order * Writ of prohibition sought to prevent trial court from exercising judicial power to modify or vacate remand order * Court of appeals' denial of writs affirmed.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise (March 29, 2006) (2006-ohio-1194)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1194.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice * Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law * Commingling * Failure to maintain records and accounts * Indefinite suspension.
 
Lorince v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. (March 29, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1193)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1193.pdf
-  Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted.
 
Campbell v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr. (March 29, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1192)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1192.pdf
-  When a patient of a mental-health institution is assaulted or battered by another patient, the institution may be held liable for harm that results only if the injured patient establishes liability under O.R.C. 2305.51.
 
In re C.R. (March 29, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1191)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1191.pdf
-  When a juvenile court adjudicates a child to be abused, neglected, or dependent, it has no duty to make a separate finding at the dispositional hearing that a noncustodial parent is unsuitable before awarding legal custody to a nonparent.
 
Bakies v. Perrysburg (March 29, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1190)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1190.pdf
-  Municipalities * Provision of water and sewer services to extraterritorial customers conditioned on petition for annexation.
 
Groob v. KeyBank (March 29, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1189)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1189.pdf
-  Absent special circumstances, a bank dealing at arm's length with a prospective borrower does not have a fiduciary duty to that prospective borrower * For an employer to be liable for a tortious act of its employee, the employee must be acting within the scope of employment when she commits the tortious act.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** JUDGMENT ENTRIES ***
 
State v. Price (March 29, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-040446.pdf
-  Price appeals his convictions for murder under O.R.C. 2903.02(B) with a firearm specification and for having a weapon under a disability in violation of O.R.C. 2923.13(A)(3).  Price argues that the trial court erred by (1) admitting into evidence gruesome and cumulative photographs of the victim, (2) permitting the state to elicit inadmissible hearsay, (3) he was denied due process of law because of improper comments by the prosecuting attorney during closing arguments, (4) he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel, and (5) his convictions were based on insufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of evidence.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Engel v. Engel (March 29, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-040538.pdf
-  David Engel appeals the trial courts modification of spousal support obligation to $463 per month.  He alleges that the trial court erred in overruling the magistate's decision to terminate David's spousal support obligation because be presented evidence of a substantial change in circumstances and awarding spousal support for an indefinite term and failing to provide a termination date for the order of spousal support.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Wright (March 29, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-040549.pdf
-  Wright was convicted of reckless homicide and two accompanying firearm specifications following a jury trial. Wright challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence underlying his conviction for reckless homicide with a gun specification. Wright argues that his sentence was unconstitutional and contrary to law. We AFFIRM Wright's conviction and sentence for reckless homicide, but VACATE his sentences for the firearm specifications and remand for resentencing.
 
State v. Lochett (March 29, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-040841.pdf
-  Lochett challenges the trial court's imposition of a ten-year term of incarceration. He argues that the court's O.R.C. 2929.14(B) and O.R.C. 2929.14(C) findings violated his Sixth Amendment right to have submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt any fact not admitted but essential to his punishment. We VACATE Lochett's sentence and REMAND to the trial court for resentencing in a manner consistent with law and this decision.
 
State v. Deese III (March 29, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050028.pdf
-  Deese III pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine. The trial court ordered a presentence investigation and a River City evaluation. At the sentencing hearing, the court stated that it had "received a report from River City advising [the court] that Mr. Deese refused to complete his interview with that program." Deese told the court that during the River City interview he had stated that he did not have a drug problem and that he did not want to go to River City. Deese's argues that the trial court erred in accepting Deese's guilty plea because it was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, and that the court erred in failing to hold a hearing "regarding the withdrawal" of Deese's plea, are overruled. We note that Deese did not make a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Hodges (March 29, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050137.pdf
-  Hodges appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine, having a weapon under a disability, and three counts of carrying a concealed weapon. Hodges argues that counsel should have filed a motion to suppress evidence because fingerprint analysis would have demonstrated that one of the guns was not his. We hold that Hodges's appeal is completely without merit and is wholly frivolous. We overrule counsel's motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
 
State v. Ingram (March 29, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050594.pdf
-  Ingram appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court following his guilty plea to three counts of robbery. The trial court sentenced Ingram to two years in prison for each robbery and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for a total of six years' incarceration. He contends that the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington. Because the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences in this case was based upon O.R.C. 2929.14(E), which is now unconstitutional, we sustain Ingram's second assignment of error. Ingram's first assignment of error, in which he argues that his sentence was excessive, did not comply with the sentencing guidelines, and was based upon factors outside the guidelines, is rendered moot and need not be addressed. We VACATE the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand this cause for re-sentencing in accordance with Foster.
 

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

 

No Opinion.
 

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

 

Abney v. Amgen (March 29, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Kentucky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0111p-06.pdf
-  The plaintiffs in this case are eight individuals involved in a clinical drug trial sponsored by Amgen, Inc. When the study was terminated, the plaintiffs sued claiming that Amgen was legally required to continue providing them with the drug. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to require Amgen to provide them with the drug immediately. The district court denied the motion and the plaintiffs appealed. For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
 
Causey, et al v. Bay City, et al (March 29, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0112p-06.pdf
-  Defendants Joseph E. Doyle, Eric Sporman, and Ken Souser, all of whom are police officers, appeal the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment in this § 1983 action brought by plaintiffs Choice L. Causey and Henretta Denise Bradley. The plaintiffs allege that the officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights when the officers, without a warrant, entered and searched the plaintiffs' backyard and residence. The officers were responding to a confirmed 911 call that gunshots had been fired from the plaintiffs' residence. The officers argue that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entries and searches and that the district court therefore erred by denying their claim of qualified immunity. Because exigent circumstances justified the entries, we reverse the order of the district court denying the officers qualified immunity.

Daily Case Updates