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 16th, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Certificate of Appealability
- Banking - prompt statement examination
- Capital punishment - lethal injection - motion to stay
- Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program
- Writ of habeas corpus
 

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

 

Benge v. Johnson (Jan. 16, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0017p-06.pdf
-  Michael W. Benge was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery in violation of Ohio law and was sentenced to death. He filed a petition for habeas corpus that raised sixteen alleged errors in the state-court proceedings. The district court denied the petition, but granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) as to seven of Benge's claims. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 
Tatis v. US Bancorp (Jan. 16, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0018p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant, Fernando Tatis ("Tatis"), appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee US Bank in this diversity action for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of Ohio law based on US Bank's payment of forged checks drawn on Tatis's account. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court's decision.
 
Cooey (Biros) v. Strickland (Jan. 16, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0020p-06.pdf
-  ORDER: In deference to the Cooey panel's knowledge of the underlying merits of this stay motion, its prior resolution of the Lundgren stay motion, its capacity to resolve related stay motions consistently and its responsibility for issuing a merits decision in the Cooey case, we transfer the State's stay motion in this case to the panel in No. 05-4057, subject to that panel's acceptance of the case.
 

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

 

Metro Life Ins Co v. Conger (Jan. 16, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Ky.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0016p-06.pdf
-  In 2002, Plaintiff Russell D. Conger filled out an on-line application and purchased a long-term care insurance policy under the Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program ("FLTCIP"). When he sought to collect benefits, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") refused to pay, voided the policy, and then sued for rescission and declaratory relief. Because we conclude that MetLife abused its discretion by voiding the policy and that Conger had no independent duty to disclose information that MetLife neglected to request, we REVERSE the district court's judgment and REMAND the case with instructions to dismiss MetLife's complaint.
 
Van v. Jones (Jan. 16, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0019p-06.pdf
-  Is a Michigan defendant's consolidation hearing a critical stage of the criminal proceeding against him? And, if so, what results from his counsel's total absence from that hearing? These questions are the nub of this case. Roeur Van appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court issued a Certificate of Appealability with respect to whether Van's Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and a fair trial were violated when the state court consolidated his criminal trial with that of his co-defendants at a hearing ("consolidation hearing") at which Van's attorney was not present. This is a difficult case presenting a question of first impression for a United States appellate court. We affirm the judgment of the district court that a Michigan consolidation hearing is not a critical stage and that the total absence of counsel at such a hearing does not require that a writ of habeas corpus issue.
 

Daily Case Updates