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 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , 2011.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

November 20th and 21st, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution
- Sentencing
- habeas petition
- National Labor Relations Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Am. Financial Servs. Assn. v. Cleveland (Nov. 20, 2006) (2006-Ohio-6043)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-6043.pdf
-  Municipal home rule * Section 3, Article XVIII, Oho Constitution * Municipal regulation of predatory lending * Conflict with general laws * Preemption.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

USA v. Gale (Nov. 20, 2006) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0427p-06.pdf
-  Gale appeals his sentence for wire fraud involving car loans. He takes aim at the district court's sentencing-range calculation under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G." or the "Guidelines")1 as well as its consideration of the remaining sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He also argues that he should not have to pay restitution, or, alternatively, that the amount ordered was too high. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Higgins v. Renico (Nov. 20, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0428p-06.pdf
-  The lone issue before this court is whether Higgins's Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated when his trial attorney failed to cross-examine the only eyewitness against him. We review de novo a district court's determinations concerning a habeas petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
USA v. Magouirk (Nov. 20, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0429p-06.pdf
-  A federal grand jury indicted George Bryant, Crystal Keel, Scottie Magouirk, and Richard Whited on ten counts relating to the manufacture and use of methamphetamine. Following a jury trial in Bryant's case and guilty pleas in the cases of Keel, Magouirk, and Whited, the district court imposed sentences of 100, 188, 151, and 151 months in prison, respectively. Magouirk explicitly agreed in both his plea agreement and plea colloquy to have his sentence governed solely by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines notwithstanding Booker. Despite this agreement, he now claims that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the 151-month sentence imposed by the district court.
 
USA v. Portela (Nov. 21, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0430p-06.pdf
-  Adalberto Lara Portela challenges his 94-month sentence for possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(2) related to the illegal reentry of removed aliens. Portela contends that the district court erroneously enhanced his sentence because his prior Tennessee conviction for vehicular assault was not a "crime of violence" under United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). We agree, vacate the sentence, and remand for resentencing.
 
Vanguard Fire v. NLRB (Nov. 21, 2006) (Appeal from State of Michigan Agency)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0431p-06.pdf
-  This appeal involves a petition for review of a final Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board" or "NLRB") and a cross-petition for enforcement of the Decision and Order. Petitioner and Cross-Respondent, Vanguard Fire and Supply Company, Inc. ("Vanguard"), appeals the Decision and Order of the Board adopting the decision of Administrative Law Judge Keltner Locke ("ALJ Locke") that Vanguard violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (the "Act"), by (i) withdrawing its recognition of Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 (the "Union") based upon a disaffection petition signed by fewer than a majority of the employees in the collective-bargaining unit; (ii) unilaterally implementing changes to its cellular telephone bill reimbursement policy without notice to or bargaining with the Union; and (iii) refusing to bargain with the Union unless the Union complied with Vanguard's demand for a bargaining agenda. Although the Board found additional unfair labor practices, those practices are not the subject of Vanguard's appeal. Vanguard appeals the Board's final Order, claiming there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision that Vanguard violated the Act. The Board cross-petitions this Court for summary enforcement of the unchallenged portions of the Decision and Order.