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 13, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Public Records Act
- Ohio statute - prohibits abortion drug
- Employment Retirement Income Security Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

State ex rel. Dann v. Taft (April 13, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1825)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1825.pdf
-  This is an original action in mandamus filed by relator, Marc Dann,
seeking a writ ordering respondent Governor Bob Taft to disclose certain
weekly reports prepared for him by executive branch officials. Dann, a
member of the Ohio Senate, claims in a complaint filed in his individual
capacity that the governor has a clear legal duty to disclose to Dann
the weekly reports, pursuant to O.R.C. 149.43, the Public Records Act.
The governor has filed a motion for protective order relative to
Dann's discovery requests. Dann has filed a motion to compel
discovery. We therefore order that respondent, Governor Taft, may submit
to this court, within 15 days of the announcement of this decision, a
formal assertion of the gubernatorial-communications privilege defined
in this opinion. Relator Dann may assert, within 15 days thereafter, his
particularized need to review any weekly reports the governor asserts
are privileged. We defer ruling on the pending motion for protective
order relating to discovery until we determine whether the governor has
established a gubernatorial-communications privilege.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

Planned Parenthood v. Taft (April 13, 2006) Appeal from S.D. Ohio
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0129p-06.pdf
-  This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' petition for panel
rehearing. Upon consideration of the relevant briefs and the record, we
vacate our prior opinion, Planned Parenthood v. Taft, 439 F.3d 304 (6th
Cir. 2006), and replace it with this amended opinion. Plaintiffs
challenge an Ohio statute which prohibits the off-label use of the
abortion drug mifepristone (more commonly known as RU-486). The district
court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the
statute on two alternative grounds. The State timely filed an
interlocutory appeal. For the following reasons, we hold that the
district court's primary holding was error, but affirm the reasoning
of the district court's alternative holding. Nevertheless, we vacate
the district court's order in part and remand for consideration of the
appropriate scope of injunctive relief in light of the United States
Supreme Court's recent decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of
Northern New England, - U.S. -, 126 S. Ct. 961 (2006).
 

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

 

Briscoe v. Fine (April 13, 2006) Appeal from W.D. Kentucky
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0130p-06.pdf
-  Five former employees of the M. Fine & Sons Manufacturing Co., Inc.
(the Company) filed this putative class-action lawsuit against five of
the Company's former officers and directors (collectively, the Fines),
as well as the third-party administrator of the Company's healthcare
plan, Preferred Health Plan, Inc. (PHP). The plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants violated their fiduciary duties imposed by the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and committed various torts under
Kentucky law. Specifically, the plaintiffs maintain that the Fines and
PHP (1) failed to disclose to the employees that the Company was in dire
financial straits and was therefore unable to make the payments
necessary to support the Company's healthcare plan, and (2) failed to
devise a means of assuring adequate financing for the plan. They also
allege that PHP improperly allocated plan assets to itself after the
plan ceased operation and PHP's administration contract had
terminated. In granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on
the ERISA claims, the district court concluded that neither the Fines
nor PHP were ERISA fiduciaries within the meaning of the statute. The
district court also initially dismissed the plaintiffs' pendent
state-law claims with prejudice, but, after a motion for
reconsideration, changed the dismissal to one without prejudice. On
appeal, the plaintiffs maintain their argument that the Fines and PHP
were ERISA fiduciaries, and that they breached their duties during the
months preceding the Company's bankruptcy. Both the Fines and PHP, on
the other hand, cross-appeal the district court's decision to dismiss
the plaintiffs' pendent state-law claims without prejudice, as opposed
to with prejudice, arguing that those claims are preempted by ERISA. For
the reasons set forth below, we (1) agree with the district court that
the Fines were not ERISA fiduciaries, (2) conclude that the district
court erred in ruling that PHP was not an ERISA fiduciary with respect
to the assets of the Company's healthcare plan over which PHP had
control, and (3) hold that all but one of the plaintiffs' state-law
claims are preempted by ERISA. We therefore AFFIRM the grant of summary
judgment in favor of the Fines; AFFIRM the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' state-law claims, but order that all but the one
claiming that the Fines breached a duty by failing to disclose the
overall financial condition of the Company be dismissed with prejudice;
REVERSE the grant of summary judgment in favor of PHP; and REMAND the
case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

Daily Case Updates