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!

May 3, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Public utilities - Competitive electric service
- Sentencing
- Attorney Misconduct
- Relief from judgment
- Unauthorized practice of law
- Workers' compensation
- Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage
- Withdraw as counsel
- Zoning - Untimely appeal dismissed
- Credit for time served
- Motion to suppress after pleading guilty
- Matched Funds
- Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-2110)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-2110.pdf
-  Public utilities * Electric company * Competitive electric service * O.R.C. Chapter 4928 * Decision of Public Utilities Commission reversed Public Utilities Commission acted without authority when it approved rate-stabilization plan that did not require that the electric company also offer customers electric service a rate determined by competitive bid.
 
In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-2109)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-2109.pdf
-  Criminal law * Felonies * Sentencing * Disposition of cases accepted and held for the decision in State v. Foster.
 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Garfield (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1935)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1935.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation * Suspension for 18 months.
 
Harris v. Anderson (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1934)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1934.pdf
-  Appeal from denial of motion for relief from judgment * Court of appeals did not abuse its discretion.
 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Britt (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1933)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1933.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Neglecting an entrusted legal matter * Failure to carry out a contract for professional employment * Intentionally prejudicing a client * Six-month suspension, with entire suspension stayed on conditions.
 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. King (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1932)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1932.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation * Failure to carry out a contract for professional employment * Failure to promptly pay client funds held by the attorney to the client * Indefinite suspension.
 
Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Legal Aid State Servs., Inc. (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1931)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1931.pdf
-  Unauthorized practice of law * Preparation of legal documents for another * Conduct enjoined.
 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Thomas (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1930)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1930.pdf
-  Unauthorized practice of law * Preparation of legal documents for others * Offering legal advice to others * Conduct enjoined * Civil penalty imposed.
 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dadisman (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1929)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1929.pdf
-  Attorneys at law*Misconduct*Conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation * Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice * Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law * Neglect of an entrusted legal matter * Failure to promptly return unearned fees upon withdrawal from employment * Failure to seek lawful objectives of a client * Failure to carry out contract of employment * Conduct that prejudices or damages a client * Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation * Failure to maintain records of and account for client funds * Failure to promptly pay funds of client*Commingling * Failure to notify client of receipt of client's funds * Handling a legal matter outside the attorney's competence * Illegal conduct involving moral turpitude * Permanent disbarment.
 
State ex rel. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bilbao (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1928)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1928.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * Court of appeals' judgment affirmed.
 
State ex rel. Cincinnati, Inc. v. Lowe (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1927)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1927.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * Court of appeals' judgment affirmed.
 
Hedges v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (May 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-1926)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-1926.pdf
-  The interpretation of O.R.C. 3937.18(A) in Moore v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27, 723 N.E.2d 97, applies only to the 1994 S.B. 20 version of the statute. Thus, Moore does not apply to the version of O.R.C. 3937.18(A) as amended by 1997 H.B. 261.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

***JUDGMENT ENTRIES ***
 

State v. Nash (May 3, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-040854.pdf
-  Nash appeals the judgment of the trial court convicting him of trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, and having a weapon while under a disability, following his plea of no contest. Under Anders, this court is now charged with the task of independently reviewing the record for any prejudicial errors that would warrant the reversal of Nash's convictions. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Brooks, et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of The City of Cincinnati (May 3, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050365.pdf
-  Audricia Brooks, Julia Brooks, and the North Avondale Neighborhood Association appeal from the trial court's judgment affirming the decision of the Cincinnati Zoning Board of Appeals that dismissed their appeal as untimely. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
In Re:  Reggie Binford (May 3, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050391.pdf
-  Reggie Binford was adjudicated delinquent for committing acts that would have constituted theft under O.R.C. 2913.02 if committed by an adult. The Hamilton County Juvenile Court committed him to the custody of the Department of Youth Services until age 21, but suspended that commitment. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Harman (May 3, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050395,%20050396.pdf
-  Harman pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property and possession of heroin. Harman argues that the trial court erred by (1) failing to consider community control under O.R.C. 2929.13(B)(1) and to articulate any findings why a prison term was more appropriate than community control; (2) failing to make findings on the record to support a sentence above the minimum; (3) sentencing Harman to a maximum prison term for the possession charge and failing to make any findings on the record to support a maximum sentence; and (4) imposing consecutive sentences under O.R.C. 2929.14(E). Harman 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.
 
State v. Taher (May 3, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050401.pdf
-  Taher was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery under O.R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), with accompanying firearm specifications, and one count of receiving stolen property under O.R.C. 2913.51(A). Taher contends that the trial court erred in imposing more than the minimum sentence on the receiving-stolen-property conviction based on this court's decision in State v. Montgomery. Taher also argues that the trial court erred in making the sentence for the receiving-stolen-property conviction consecutive to the sentences for the aggravated-robbery convictions and the firearm specifications. He argues that the evidence did not support the trial court's findings justifying the consecutive sentences. Because Taher has not appealed the sentences on the aggravated-robbery convictions and the firearm specifications, and because they do not involve any unconstitutional enhancements under Foster, we affirm those sentences.
 
State v. Sillett (May 3, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050496.pdf
-  Sillett appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas terminating his community control and imposing a prison term for theft under O.R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), a felony of the fifth degree. Sillett argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he had violated his community control. He also argues that the trial court failed to make a sufficient inquiry into whether the program constituted "confinement" under O.R.C. 2949.08. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Jones (May 3, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050548.pdf
-  Jones appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of trafficking in marijuana and possessing cocaine. After he was charged with the offenses, Jones filed a motion to suppress the contraband. The trial court overruled the motion, and Jones entered guilty pleas with agreed sentences. Jones argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress. Jones waived any error regarding the motion to suppress. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Myrick v. SmartMoney Community Services (May 3, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050588.pdf
-  SmartStep Savings was designed to provide financial literacy and assistance to its participants while helping them save money towards an enumerated goal. A participant is allowed to make up to three emergency withdrawals of the funds on deposit. Withdrawal of funds from the participant's account results in a loss of matching funds equal to the withdrawal. If more than three withdrawals are sought, the participant must either withdraw from the program or take a leave of absence. During Myrick's participation in the program, Myrick made three emergency withdrawals from her savings account. After requesting a fourth withdrawal, Myrick chose to withdraw from SmartStep Savings rather than to take a leave of absence. Upon withdrawal from the program, Myrick requested the "matching" portion of her money. SmartMoney declined to provide Myrick with this money, and Myrick filed suit. The trial court granted summary judgment for SmartMoney. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinion.
 

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

 

Johnson v. Detroit (May 3, 2006) Appeal from E.D. of Michigan
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0151p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff Dellita Johnson, on behalf of her minor child, Jerome Johnson, Jr., appeals an order of the district court dismissing the claims she asserted against defendants City of Detroit ("City") and the City of Detroit Housing Commission ("DHC"), for the deprivation of federal rights ostensibly created by provisions of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4821-46 ("LBPPPA"), the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437-1437bbb ("USHA"), and administrative regulations promulgated pursuant to those statutes. We affirm and hold that the LBPPPA, the USHA, and their administrative regulations do not create individual federal rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Daily Case Updates