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 10th, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Postconviction relief
- Miranda warnings
- Sentencing
- Civil rights action
- Copyright - architectural design
- Employment discrimination - Americans with Disabilities Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** JUDGMENT ENTRIES ***
 
State v. Foster (Jan. 10, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060065;%20C-060121.pdf
-  Foster has taken these consolidated appeals from the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court's judgments dismissing his December 7, 2005, and January 12, 2006, petitions for postconviction relief. We affirm.
 
State v. Fisher (Jan. 10, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060214.pdf
-  Fisher appeals his conviction for sexual battery. We conclude that his two assignments of error do not have merit, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 
State v. Stevens (Jan. 10, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060429.pdf
-  Stevens appeals his sentence for the second time. We sustained his first appeal based on State v. Foster, vacated his sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing in accordance with Foster. On remand, the trial court gave Stevens the same sentence he had originally received, a total of ten years' incarceration. He received consecutive prison terms consisting of seven years for aggravated burglary and three years for aggravated robbery. Stevens now appeals as a matter of right, claiming his new sentence is contrary to law because it was excessive. We affirm.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

Griffith v. Coburn (Jan. 10, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0010p-06.pdf
-  The underlying claim in this civil rights action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, stems from the death of Arthur L. Partee during his arrest by two Benton Township (Michigan) police officers, defendants Tim Sutherland and William Bradshaw. His estate sued the officers, Police Chief Jim Coburn, and the Township, alleging that Partee's death was caused by use of excessive force, in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding as to the arresting officers that there had been no showing that Partee had a clearly established right to freedom from "the use of the vascular neck restraint" or that the officers' use of what is commonly called a "choke hold" was objectively unreasonable, and as to Chief Coburn and the Township that the plaintiff had failed to make out a case of inadequate training. The plaintiff now appeals, but only as to the ruling on Officer Sutherland's liability in this matter.1 We find that there are material disputes of fact concerning the reasonableness of his action in subduing Arthur Partee, and we therefore conclude that summary judgment on the claim against Sutherland must be reversed.
 
Chirco v. Crosswinds Cmnty Inc  (Jan. 10, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0011p-06.pdf
-  The plaintiffs, Michael Chirco and Dominic Moceri, are Detroit-area real estate developers who brought suit against Crosswinds Communities and its principal shareholder, Bernard Glieberman, alleging that the defendants had copied the plaintiffs' architectural design for a "twelve-plex" condominium building, which was protected by copyright and to which they had exclusive rights of construction. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that they had been prejudiced by unnecessary delay between the time the plaintiffs had learned that construction was planned (or, alternatively, the time that construction was undertaken) and the time that the complaint was filed, even though the action was filed within the three-year statute of limitations provided by the Copyright Act in 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). On appeal, the dispositive question is whether the equitable doctrine of laches can be held to trump the statutorily-prescribed period for filing suit under § 507(b). To the extent that the plaintiffs in this case are seeking only monetary damages and injunctive relief, we give effect to the Sixth Circuit's presumption that the statute of limitations must prevail. However, to the extent that the relief sought is destruction of the condominium complex that allegedly infringes the plaintiffs' copyright, the facts before us suggest that this is indeed the extraordinary case in which the defense of laches is properly interposed. We thus remand the case to the district court for clarification of the nature of the relief sought in this action and for such further proceedings as are appropriate.
 
Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare  (Jan. 10, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0012p-06.pdf
-  The plaintiff, Millicent Hollins, filed this action against her former employer, Methodist Healthcare, Inc., claiming that her termination from employment as a resident in the hospital's Clinical Pastoral Education program violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101. On appeal, Hollins challenges the order of the district court dismissing her claim based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the constitutional "ministerial exception" to the enforcement of employment discrimination laws that is derived from the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. See Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare, Inc., 379 F. Supp. 2d 907 (W.D. Tenn. 2005). We find no basis upon which to disturb the district court's decision and, therefore, we affirm.
 

Daily Case Updates