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 14, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Zoning
- Assault
- writ of habeas corpus - defendant incompetent
- Federal Sentencing Guidelines
- IRC - debt or equity
- Fair Labor Standards Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Paddock Point, LLC, v. City of Cincinnati Zoning Board of Appeals, et al.(April 14, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1847)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1847.pdf
-  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the decision of a municipal board of zoning appeals denying a permit to build a car wash on property located in a "transition district" under the city's zoning code:  Although the zoning code did not specifically prohibit a car wash on the property, the code did list a number of factors for the board to consider in determining the propriety of a given use (e.g., surrounding uses, urban design plans approved by the city, proposed amendments to the zoning code, and the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare); and the zoning board properly weighed those factors in finding that the car wash was incompatible with the surrounding uses and would be incongruous with the historical, architectural, and general aesthetic characteristics of the neighborhood. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State v. McClendon (April 14, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1846)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1846.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's Crim.R. 29(A) motion for an acquittal:  Where the defendant essentially admitted that she had committed an assault, but insisted that she had acted in self-defense, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The trial court did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice in assessing the conflicting versions of the events and finding the defendant guilty of assault; and the court was entitled to conclude that the defendant had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she had acted in self-defense. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Filiaggi v. Bagley (April 14, 2006) Appeal from N.D. Ohio
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0132p-06.pdf
-  Filiaggi, an Ohio death-row prisoner, appeals a district court order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on two claims. In his first claim, Filiaggi argues that his jury waiver was invalid because he was incompetent at the time it was made and because the trial court did not engage him in an adequate colloquy. Second, Filiaggi argues that the trial court should have found him incompetent during his trial. Because we conclude that the Ohio Supreme Court reasonably interpreted the facts of the case and reasonably applied clearly established federal law, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of Filiaggi's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
 

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

 

USA v. Brown  (April 14, 2006) Appeal from W.D. Tennessee
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0131p-06.pdf
-  Brown appeals the sentence he received upon his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and for being an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). He was initially sentenced to 360 months in prison, but on appeal that sentence was vacated and his case was remanded for new sentencing. United States v. Brown, 371 F.3d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 2004). On remand Brown was sentenced to 280 months' imprisonment, which he now appeals on the grounds that his sentence is invalid under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We acknowledge that because the district court believed, when sentencing Brown, that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, and because, when Booker was decided, Brown's case was in the appellate pipeline, his sentence violated Booker. But after careful consideration, we conclude that the district court's "error" in following the law applicable on the day of Brown's resentencing was harmless, because the sentence imposed was based upon a significant upward departure that resulted in a reasonable sentence. Therefore, we will AFFIRM Brown's sentence.

Indmar Products Co v. CIR (April 14, 2006) Appeal from U.S. Tax Court
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0133p-06.pdf
-  Indmar appeals the decision of the Tax Court to disallow interest deductions the company claimed for tax years 1998-2000, and to assess accuracy-related tax penalties for those years. The interest deductions relate to a number of advances made to Indmar by its majority stockholders over several years. Indmar argued at trial that the advances were legitimate loans made to the company, and thus it could properly deduct the interest payments made on these advances under 26 U.S.C. § 163(a). The Tax Court, following the position taken by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, disagreed, concluding that the advances were equity contributions and therefore the company could not deduct any purported interest payments on these advances. The court imposed penalties on Indmar based on the deductions. Indmar Prods. Co., Inc. v. Comm'r, T.C.M. 2005-32, 2005 T.C.M. LEXIS 31. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Tax Court clearly erred in finding the advances were equity. The Tax Court failed to consider several factors used by this court for determining whether advances are debt or equity, ignored relevant evidence, and drew several unsupported inferences from its factual findings. We REVERSE and find that the stockholder advances were bona fide debt.

Acs, et al v. Detroit Edison Co (April 14, 2006) Appeal from E.D. Michigan
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0134p-06.pdf
-  The seventh largest utility in the United States, Detroit Edison operates 24 hours a day seven days a week to provide power to more than two million customers in a 7,600 square mile region. Plaintiffs are an initial trial group of 24 (out of 383) employees of Detroit Edison who sued their employer alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs argue that notwithstanding Detroit Edison's characterization of them as salaried employees, they satisfy the legal definition of hourly employees and thus are entitled to time-and-a-half overtime compensation. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

Daily Case Updates