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 19, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Automobile:  definition of "operate" in O.R.C. § 4511.01
- Civil Procedure:  parties in interest, substitution
- Criminal:  Batson violation
- Evidence:  Motion to suppress statements
- Municipal:  Village ordinance constitutionality
- Sentencing:  State v. Foster, U.S. v. Booker
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

PNC Bank v. Dater Found. (May 19, 2006) (2006 Ohio 2479)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2479.pdf
-  Quintin F. Lindsmith, James P. Schuck (Brickler & Eckler), appellant-plaintiff Dater; Jack Fuchs, Erin Alkire (Thompson Hine), appellant-intervenor plaintiff PNC; Mark A. Vander Laan, Amanda P. Leinhart (Dinsmore & Shohl), appellee-defendant
-  Mrs. Dater sued the Foundation alleging unjust enrichment.  The trial court twice dismissed the complaint on procedural grounds, and was twice reversed.  Prior to this appeal, the trial court substituted the successor trustee to Mr. Dater's trust, PNC Bank, as plaintiff instead of Mrs. Dater.  Mrs. Dater argued that she could not be substituted, unless one of the circumstances of Civil Rule 25 applied (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Rules/civil/default.asp#rule25 ).  REVERSED, because the trial court erred in substituting Mrs. Dater, who, by the law of the case, is a proper party, and PNC's intervention did not alter that interest.

State v. James (May 19, 2006) (2006 Ohio 2478)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2478.pdf
-  Christine Y. Jones, appellant; Ronald W. Springman, Asst. Prosecuting Atty., State
-  James was convicted of two murders and appealed.  AFFIRMED, because evidence was sufficient and not against manifest weight of evidence, trial court was correct in overruling motion to suppress statements, and there was no Batson violation during jury selection, but REMAND for resentencing because sentence based on unconstitutional statutory provisions (State v. Foster:  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-856.pdf ).

State v. Wallace (May 19, 2006) (2006 Ohio 2477)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2477.pdf
-  Ernest McAdams, Gertrude Dixon, Assistant City Prosecutors, appellant; George W. Clark, Asst. Public Defender, appellant
-  The State appealed the trial court's grant of a motion to suppress blood alcohol and sobreity tests.  REVERSED, because Wallace's conduct was unambiguously within the definition of "operate" in O.R.C. § 4511.01
 

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

 

Pagan v. Fruchey (Appeal from S.D. Ohio) (May 19, 2006)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0170p-06.pdf
-  Pagan appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Village of Glendale and Police Chief Fruchey.  Pagan was warned that he would be cited for violating a village ordinance against the parking of a car for the purpose of selling it.  He removed the for sale sign before receiving a citation.  Pagan sued, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional, violating his free speech rights, as well as rights under equal protection and due process.  AFFIRMED.
(Village of Glendale Ordinance 76.06:  http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Ohio/glendale/titleviitrafficcode/chapter76parkingregulations?f=templates$fn=altmain-nf.htm$3.0#JD_76.06)
 

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

 

United State v. Morris (Appeal from W.D. Mich.) (May 19, 2006)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0169p-06.pdf
-  Morris challenged the reasonableness of his sentence on interstate travel in aid of racketeering, for which he was sentenced following U.S. v. Booker.  AFFIRMED.
 

Daily Case Updates