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!

April 6, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Writ of habeas corpus
- Motion to Suppress
- National Labor Relations Act
- Family Medical Leave Act
- Insurance - liability policy

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

Carter v. Mitchell (April 6, 2006) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0122p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner-Appellant Clarence Carter, an Ohio prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the order of the district court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On appeal, he raises several claims challenging trial counsel's effectiveness, and also challenges the prosecutor's conduct and the sufficiency of the evidence in light of newly discovered evidence. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of Carter's petition.
 
USA v. Hython (April 6, 2006) (Appeal from S.D. ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0123p-06.pdf
-  The defendant, Andre Hython, appeals his conviction for possession of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii), following his guilty plea to the first count of a three-count indictment. Hython's plea was conditional, permitting him to challenge the district court's order denying his motion to suppress, in which he contended that police had seized the evidence used to convict him during a search of his home pursuant to a defective search warrant. The district court agreed that the warrant was deficient but denied Hython's suppression motion on the basis that the officers were reasonable in their reliance on the warrant and, therefore, that the Leon good-faith exception applied. Because we find, to the contrary, that no reasonably objective police officer could have concluded that the warrant was supported by probable cause, we hold that Leon is inapplicable in this case and that the motion to suppress should have been granted.
 
OPW Fueling v. NLRB (April 6, 2006) (Appeal from State of Ohio Agency )
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0124p-06.pdf
-  This appeal involves a petition for the review of a final administrative decision by the National Labor Relations Board * Region 9 ("NLRB"). In this case, the Petitioner and Cross-Respondent, OPW Fueling Components ("OPW-FC" or "Company"), appeals an order by the NLRB on December 16, 2004, which determined that the discharge of a former employee, Logan Cox, was in violation of sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA" or "Act"). See 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (3), and (4).
 

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

 

Edgar v. JAC Products Inc (April 6, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0125p-06.pdf
-  Gale Edgar sued her former employer, JAC Products, Inc., based upon an alleged violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after she was fired in October of 2002. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of JAC, concluding that Edgar was not entitled to relief under the FMLA because she was unable to return to work after the 12-week period of statutory leave had ended. On appeal, Edgar argues that her ability to resume her duties is a disputed question of fact that the district court improperly resolved in JAC's favor. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 
Minges Creek LLC v. Royal Ins Co (April 6, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0126p-06.pdf
-  A customer slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk upon exiting a card store in the Minges Brook Mall, a shopping center owned by Minges Creek, L.L.C. Chubb Insurance Company, the insurer of the mall's common areas, paid the settlement cost and the associated litigation expenses resulting from the customer's lawsuit. Minges Creek then sued Royal Insurance Company of America, the insurer of the card store, for indemnification on the basis that Minges Creek was named as an additional insured under the card store's liability policy with Royal. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Minges Creek. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case with instructions for the district court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
 

Daily Case Updates