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 21, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Burglary - Breaking and Entering - Trespassing
- Insurance - uninsured-motorist coverage
- Maritime law - Jones Act
- Elections - Voting Rights Act
- Armed Career Criminal Act
- Request for rehearing
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Waford (April 21, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1955)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1955.pdf
-  The defendant's conviction for breaking and entering was based upon sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence:  the state presented two witnesses who knew the defendant and who, upon viewing a  video-disc recording of the break-in, immediately identified the defendant as the perpetrator. Judgment AFFIRMED.

Warmack v. One Beacon Ins. Co. (April 21, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1954)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1954.pdf
-  The trial court erred by entering summary judgment for an insurer on a claim for uninsured-motorist coverage, when the insured's employee was occupying a covered auto in the course of his employment at the time of the accident in question. That part of an insurance policy that purported to provide uninsured-motorist coverage for "only those 'autos' you own that, because of the law in the state where they are licensed or garaged, are required to have and cannot reject uninsured motorist coverage" was contrary to Ohio public policy:  Because Ohio law permits an insured to reject uninsured-motorist coverage, the policy language in effect excluded from coverage all autos garaged in Ohio, thus subverting the offer-and-acceptance protections of O.R.C. 3937.18.
 

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

 

Stewart v. Blackwell (April 21, 2006) Appeal from N.D. Ohio
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0143p-06.pdf
-  The plaintiffs are African-American and Caucasian voters residing in Hamilton, Montgomery, Sandusky, and Summit Counties in Ohio. They filed their complaint on October 11, 2002 alleging that: (1) the use of unreliable, deficient voting equipment, including the punch card ballot, in some Ohio counties but not other counties violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) the use of error prone voting equipment deprives voters of their due process right to have their votes counted accurately; and (3) the use of punch card voting systems in Hamilton, Montgomery, and Summit Counties has a disparate impact on African-American voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from: (1) continuing to allow the use of "non-notice" and deficient punch card and optical scan voting equipment in some Ohio counties while using more reliable voting equipment in other counties; (2) using non-notice punch card voting equipment in Hamilton, Montgomery, and Summit Counties; and (3) using non-notice optical scan voting systems in Sandusky County. On December 14, 2004, the district court rejected the plaintiffs' claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Some commentators have suggested that these types of voting rights challenges are taking us into a brave new world. Others suggest that they are simply variations of old challenges. Regardless of the proper characterization, we find ourselves bound by Supreme Court precedent, and therefore, with regard to the plaintiffs' claim under the Equal Protection Clause, we REVERSE the district court's judgment. With regard to the plaintiffs' claim under the Voting Rights Act, we VACATE the district court's judgment and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

USA v. Mahon (April 21, 2006) Appeal from N.D. Ohio
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0144p-06.pdf
-  Mahon pled guilty to a two-count indictment that charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm and with making a false statement in attempting to reacquire that firearm. He was sentenced under the then-mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines to 210 months of imprisonment, but was given an alternate sentence of 180 months in the event that the Guidelines were later determined to be unconstitutional. On appeal, Mahon contends that the enhancement of both sentences pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), violated his Sixth Amendment rights under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Mahon specifically objects to the district court's finding that two of his prior convictions constitute "violent felonies," thereby subjecting him to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years under the ACCA. He also argues that the application of the ACCA in this case is fundamentally unfair. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's application of the ACCA, but VACATE Mahon's sentence and REMAND the case for imposition of the 180- month alternate sentence.
 

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

 

Churchwell v. Bluegrass Marine (April 21, 2006) Appeal from W.D. Kentucky
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0142p-06.pdf
-  Churchwell appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, Bluegrass Marine, Inc., Marquette Transportation Company Inc., and Motor Vessel Marie Hendrick, and dismissing Plaintiff's claims of 1) unseaworthiness in violation of general maritime law, and 2) negligence in violation of the Jones Act. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims.

Davis v. Straub (April 21, 2006) Appeal from E.D. Michigan
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0145p-06.pdf
-  AMENDED ORDER - This matter comes before the court upon the petition for rehearing en banc, filed by counsel for the appellant, and the response of the appellee thereto. The petition has been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other judges of the court in regular active service, less than a majority of whom have voted in favor of rehearing en banc. Accordingly, the petition has been returned to the panel for decision. Upon consideration of the petition and the response, the panel concludes that the issues raised therein were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case, and the request for rehearing is therefore denied.
-  ORIGINAL OPINION - http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0375p-06.pdf (September 1, 2005)
-  AMENDED OPINION - http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0462a-06.pdf (December 1, 2005)
 

Daily Case Updates