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 18th, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Constitutional Violation
- Abuse of discretion
- Arbitration Awards - attorney fees
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
 

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

 

Carver v. City of Cincinnati (Jan. 18, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0026p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff James Carver, administrator of the estate of David Carver (Carver), brought an action against the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, and some of its individual police officers and firefighters/emergency medical technicians (EMTs), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Carver argued that the officers violated his substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The officers appeal the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The district court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because they unreasonably cut off access to medical care for Carver without providing an adequate alternative. Because we conclude that the officers did not violate Carver's constitutional rights, we REVERSE and REMAND.
 

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

 

Surles v. Greyhound Lines Inc (Jan. 18, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0025p-06.pdf
-  Defendant, Greyhound Lines, Inc., appeals from the district court's judgment awarding $8 million in compensatory damages to Plaintiff, Sharon Surles, for injuries sustained while a passenger on one of Defendant's buses. Plaintiff cross appeals from the district court's orders limiting discovery and granting in part Defendant's motion in limine to limit the admissibility of prior incident reports. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court in all respects.
 
Elec Data Sys Corp v. Donelson (Jan. 18, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0027p-06.pdf
-  Respondents-Appellees Milton Donelson ("Donelson") and Cortez Lotts ("Lotts") (collectively, "Appellees") claimed that their former employer, Petitioner-Appellant Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS"), discriminated against them in violation of Michigan law. The parties executed an arbitration agreement, and, after a hearing, a panel of three arbitrators awarded damages, attorney fees, and costs to both Donelson and Lotts. EDS subsequently petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for an order vacating the arbitration award. The district court denied the petition, and EDS now appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
 
Tuttle v. Metro Govt Nash (Jan. 18, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0028p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff Patricia Burlin Tuttle appeals from the district court's entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendant, stemming from Defendant's termination of Plaintiff's employment. Following a full trial on the merits, which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Tuttle in the amount of $199,200.00, the district court granted Defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on Tuttle's claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and retaliation. After the district court entered its judgment, and after Tuttle timely filed a Notice of Appeal, Defendant filed a Motion for the Conditional Grant of a New Trial, which the district court denied as untimely. Defendant filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the district court's decisions.
 

Daily Case Updates