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!

January 8th, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Property - water wells
- Breach of Contract
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

McNamara v. Rittman (Jan. 8th, 2007) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0004p-06.pdf
-  This case involves a federal takings claim arising from the City of Rittman's operation of water wells that allegedly caused damage to plaintiffs. In our initial review of the district court's judgment, we requested that the Supreme Court of Ohio answer an important question of first impression involving a property owner's interest in the groundwater beneath his property. The Supreme Court of Ohio has now answered that question. For the reasons articulated below, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
 

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

 

Detroit Radiant Prod v. BSH Home Appliances (Jan. 8th, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0005p-06.pdf
-  BSH Home Appliances Corporation appeals from the district court's judgment that it pay $418,261 to Detroit Radiant Products Company for breach of contract. The dispute centers around whether the contract between the two companies, which involved custom-made stove burners, contemplated a minimum fixed number of units binding upon the purchaser or merely a non-binding estimate. Because we conclude that a minimum fixed number was indeed contemplated, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 

Daily Case Updates