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.

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!

January 17th, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Adoption
- Taxation
- Evidence - manifest weight
- Legal Malpractice - statute of limitations
- Sentencing
- Personal jurisdiction - Foreign corporation
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

In re Adoption of Walters (Jan. 17, 2007) (2007-Ohio-7)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-ohio-7.pdf
-  Adoption * R.C. 3107.11(A) does not require the notice of a hearing on an adoption petition to include language that both the consent and best-interests requirements will be addressed at the hearing * One hearing to address both requirements is sufficient, provided notice of the adoption hearing pursuant to R.C. 3107.11(A) is afforded the biological parent * When, at the discretion of the court, separate hearings take place to address the consent requirement and the best-interests requirement of R.C. 3107.14(C), notice of each shall be given to the biological parent.
 
Strongsville Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Jan. 17, 2007) (2007-Ohio-6)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-ohio-6.pdf
-  Taxation * Real property valuation * Board of Tax Appeals' valuation of property based on appraisal evidence, not sales price, was reasonable and lawful when recent sale was not an arm's-length transaction.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** JUDGMENT ENTRIES ***
 
State v. Price (Jan. 17, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050846.pdf
-  Price was convicted of recklessly violating a protection order in violation of R.C. 2919.27(A)(1). Price now argues that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. By challenging only the weight of the evidence and not the sufficiency of the evidence, Price concedes that there was some evidence to prove each element of the offense. After reviewing the record, we cannot say that the trial court lost its way in evaluating the credibility of the witnesses or in resolving conflicts in the evidence such that a manifest miscarriage of justice resulted. Accordingly, we overrule the assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 
Whitaker and Gorman v. Tekulve (Jan. 17, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060211.pdf
-  Patricia Ann Whitaker and Nancy Gorman appeal from the trial court's entry of judgment for defendant-appellee Charles J. Tekulve in a legal-malpractice action.  Whitaker and Gorman argue that the trial court erred in holding that the legal-malpractice action was barred by the statute of limitations. The malpractice complaint filed in August 2004 was untimely. Accordingly, we overrule the assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 
State v. Abercrombie (Jan. 17, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060245.pdf
-  Garrett Abercrombie, was originally convicted of breaking and entering under R.C. 2911.13(A) in case number B-0501614. The trial court sentenced him to two years' community control. Abercrombie contends that his sentences were unconstitutional under State v. Foster because he received more than the minimum prison term and consecutive sentences. Consequently, we sustain Abercrombie's assignment of error. Under the mandate in Foster, we must vacate the sentences imposed because they were based on unconstitutional statutes and remand the case for resentencing.
 
Belmont v. Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (Jan. 17, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060296.pdf
-  Frank Belmont appeals from the trial court's judgment dismissing his case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Belmont asserts that the trial court erred in affirming the magistrate's decision to dismiss his case. We affirm.
 

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

 

Bakri v. Venture Mfg Company  (Jan. 17, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0023p-06.pdf
-  The question in this ERISA case arising from a company's deferred compensation plan is whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant company by holding that the plaintiff, Rebecca Bakri, a former employee, was a participant in a "top hat" deferred compensation plan as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(2) which exempts such plans from the vesting or nonforfeitability requirements of § 1053. We do not believe that the plan in question qualifies as a "top hat" plan because it does not meet the "selectivity" requirements of § 1051(2). Therefore, we reverse the judgment below and remand for further proceedings.
 
United Steelworkers v. Cooper Tire & Rubber (Jan. 17, 2007) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0024p-06.pdf
-  Cooper Tire & Rubber Company ("Cooper") and United Steelworkers of America Local 207L ("Local 207L" or the "Union") were parties to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") containing an arbitration clause. The parties simultaneously executed a side letter that limited company contributions to retiree healthcare benefits. Following a dispute involving one of the side letter's terms, Local 207L filed suit in federal district court on behalf of the retirees, seeking to compel arbitration of the grievance. Local 207L claimed that the disagreement was arbitrable under the scope of the CBA's arbitration clause even though the side letter did not contain a separate provision for arbitration. The district court agreed, granting the Union's motion for summary judgment on the issue of arbitrability. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court's decision to compel arbitration of the dispute over the side agreement. However, we VACATE the district court's order certifying the class under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b) and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

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 ("Melated 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