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 26, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Attorneys at law * Misconduct
- Habeas corpus - release from confinement
- Constitutional law * Right to privacy
- Arbitration clause - contract interpretation
- Contract - meeting of the minds
- Manifest weight of the evidence
- Sentencing
- Domestic Relations - child custody - erred in journalizing
- Foreclosure - entry confirming the sale.
- Adoption - permanent custody
- Habeas relief
- Labor Management Relations Act - Employee Retirement Income Security Act
- Federal Procedure - reasonable time
- Railway Labor Act - jurisdiction to resolve disputes
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lang (April 26, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1830)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1830.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Neglecting an entrusted legal matter * Failure to cooperate in investigation of misconduct * One year suspension, with six months stayed on conditions.
 
Smith v. Bradshaw (April 26, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1829)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1829.pdf
-  Habeas corpus sought to compel relator's release from confinement * Complaint in habeas corpus dismissed because relator has an adequate remedy at law.
 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. McCray (April 26, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1828)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1828.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Failure to maintain client funds in a account * Disregard of an order of the court * Public reprimand.
 
State ex rel. Fisher v. Cleveland (April 26, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1827)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1827.pdf
-  Constitutional law * Right to privacy * Informal document request of employee undergoing initial stages of residency investigation cannot include request for income tax returns. * R.C. 733.59 * Statutory taxpayer actions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

***JUDGMENT ENTRIES ***
 

Fulton v. Hering Homes, Inc. (April 26, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050036.pdf
-  The Fultons entered into a "Lot Reservation Agreement" with Hering to reserve a lot for the construction of a home. Hering filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, contending that the arbitration provision in the "Agreement of Sale Contract to Purchase" required the dispute to be arbitrated. The trial court denied Hering's motion. Hering alleges that the trial court erred in denying Hering's motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Bodeker v. American K-9 Performance Academy (April 26, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050180.pdf
-  This appeal arises out of a dispute between Bodeker and American K-9 regarding the training of Bodeker's two golden retrievers. Bodeker felt that he could not comply with the homework rule; he quit the training sessions and requested a refund. American K-9 refused to refund Bodeker's money, and Bodeker filed suit.  A hearing was conducted before a magistrate, who issued a decision finding that Bodeker had not agreed to the terms of the homework. American K-9 alleges that the magistrate erred in finding that no agreement existed between the parties; that the magistrate erred in finding that there was an oral agreement between the parties; that the magistrate erred in finding that there was no meeting of the minds; and that the magistrate erred in finding that the homework was an additional term of the contract. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Williams (April 26, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050303.pdf
-  Williams appeals his conviction for two counts of aggravated robbery in violation of O.R.C. 2911.01(A)(1). We affirm the findings of guilt. But in accordance with State v. Foster, we vacate Williams's sentence and remand the cause for resentencing.
 
State v. Bartley (April 26, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050521.pdf
-  Bartley appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common sentencing him to terms of imprisonment for two counts of arson under O.R.C. 2909.03(A)(1), felonies of the fourth degree. Bartley argues that the trial court erred in imposing more than the minimum sentences. The court based the sentences on findings under O.R.C. 2929.14(B). In this case, because the imposition of more than the minimum sentences was based on an unconstitutional statute, we hereby sustain the assignment of error, vacate the sentences, and remand the cause for resentencing in light of Foster.
 
Lassiter v. Lassiter (April 26, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050540.pdf
-  Lassiter appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, reallocating custody of minor children. Christo Lassiter argues that the domestic relations court erred in indicating that all other pending matters had been decided by the parties or by the court. Christo Lassiter argues that the trial court erred in journalizing a nunc pro tunc entry regarding the tax exemptions. Having sustained both assignments of error, we hereby strike the language in the order indicating that all motions had been resolved, and we also vacate the nunc pro tunc entry. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the domestic relations court.
 
First Tennessee Bank, N.A. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., et al. (April 26, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050612.pdf
-  First Tennessee initiated a foreclosure action against Bruce Diem and others after Diem failed to make payments on a loan secured by property. The trial court entered judgment in favor of First Tennessee on the foreclosure and ordered the sale of the property. Deutsche Bank appealed from the trial court's entry confirming the sale. By vacating the sheriff's sale, the trial court granted Deutsche Bank the only relief it could obtain from this appeal. Therefore, we dismiss Deutsche Bank's appeal as moot.
 
State v. Richardson (April 26, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050672.pdf
-  Richardson pleaded guilty to three counts of non-support of dependents, all fifth-degree felonies. Richardson appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) imposing consecutive sentences based on O.R.C. 2929.14(E), which unconstitutionally allows a court to determine facts that enhance a sentence beyond what the defendant would have received based solely on the jury verdict; (2) failing to state for the record certain findings to impose consecutive sentences; and (3) imposing maximum sentences on all three charges without making any findings to support the sentences. Richardson was sentenced under unconstitutional statutes, and therefore, we must sustain the assignment of error, vacate the sentence, and remand the case for resentencing in light of Foster.
 
In Re:  Brittany Shaffer, et al. (April 26, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060026.pdf
-  Shaffer challenges the Hamilton County Juvenile Court's adoption of a magistrate's decision adjudicating her six children abused and dependent and committing them to the permanent custody of the appellee, Hamilton County Jobs and Family Services. Shaffer challenges the order of commitment as being contrary to the weight of the evidence and against the best interests of her children. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Gillard v. Mitchell (April 26, 2006) Appeal from N.D. Ohio
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0147p-06.pdf
-  Betty Mitchell (the "Warden") appeals from the district court's order granting in part John Gillard's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Gillard, an Ohio prisoner under a death sentence, cross-appeals from the district court's denial in part of his petition. The district court granted Gillard habeas relief on two issues: his trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest and the cumulation of errors at trial violated his constitutional rights. Because Gillard is not entitled to habeas relief, we REVERSE the district court's order as to those two claims and AFFIRM as to all remaining claims.
 
Moore v. Rohm & Haas Co (April 26, 2006) Appeal from N.D. Ohio
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0149p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiffs appeal an order of the district court dismissing this case without prejudice on the basis of improper and/or inconvenient venue. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. In doing so, we hold that under both the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") venue was properly laid in the Northern District of Ohio.
 
 Days Inns Worldwide v. Alibaba Charchor (April 26, 2006) Appeal from N.D. Ohio
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0150p-06.pdf
-  Defendant-appellant Bharat Patel ("appellant") appeals an order of the district court denying his motion for relief from judgment on the basis that the motion was not filed within a "reasonable time" as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4). We affirm and hold that because appellant waited over eleven months after the district court acquired jurisdiction over him to file his motion for relief from judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time.
 

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

 

Intl Brotherhood v. United Parcel Ser (April 26, 2006) Appeal from W.D. Kentucky
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0148p-06.pdf
-  Section 3 of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), Pub. L. No. 442, 48 Stat. 1185 (1934) (codified as amended at 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.), grants adjustment boards exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes over the "interpretation or application of [collective bargaining] agreements" affecting the railroad and airline industries. At issue in this case is a claim by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the union) that it has a right to designate a representative on a safety committee established by its collective bargaining agreement with United Parcel Service (UPS). The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the adjustment board. The union responds that the dispute lies outside of the board's exclusive jurisdiction because it involves a dispute between labor and management about the "[d]esignation of representatives." § 2, Third. Concluding that the union has construed the board's exclusive jurisdiction in § 3 too narrowly and the term "representatives" in § 2, Third too broadly, we affirm.

Daily Case Updates