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 22nd & 23rd, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Bankruptcy - award damages
- ERISA - Due Process Clause
- Zoning regulations - signs
- Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis - vacation of theft conviction
- Expert witness fees
- Evidence
 

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

 

In re:Kenneth Perrin v. (Jan. 23, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0003p-06.pdf
-  Kenneth Dwayne Perrin and Tammy Lynn Perrin ("Debtors") appeal
an order of the bankruptcy court finding a willful violation of the
automatic stay, but awarding no damages to the Debtors. The issues
raised by this appeal are: (1) whether an award of damages is mandated
by section 362(h) even when the debtor fails to prove actual damages;
and (2) whether the bankruptcy court erred in permitting a pro se
creditor to call the Debtors' counsel to testify.  The bankruptcy
court was correct in refusing to award damages to Perrin when no injury
was shown or damages proved. There was no error by the bankruptcy court
in permitting counsel for the Debtors to be called as a witness. The
decision of the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Abbott v. MI (Jan. 22, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0030p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiffs-Appellants Thomas Abbott ("Abbott"), Larry Arthur
Ormsby ("Ormsby"), Antonio Mendoza ("Mendoza"), and Edsol J.
Stanley ("Stanley") appeal from the district court's judgment
dismissing their claims. The plaintiffs filed a putative class action
alleging that Defendants State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of
Treasury, and the Michigan Department of Corrections, together with
Defendants-Appellees Governor Jennifer Granholm, Treasurer Jay B.
Rising, and Department of Corrections Director Patricia L. Caruso,
converted their pension benefits in violation of the Due Process Clause,
ERISA, and state law. The district court concluded that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judicata required dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims. For those same reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of
the district court.

Prime Media Inc. v. Cty of Brentwood (Jan. 22, 2007) (Appeal from M.D.
Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0031p-06.pdf
-  Prime Media filed this lawsuit to challenge a sign ordinance of the
City of Brentwood, Tennessee. In a prior appeal, this Court reversed the
district court's entry of summary judgment on behalf of Prime Media,
ordering the dismissal of Prime Media's constitutional challenge as
applied. On remand, the district court dismissed Prime Media's
remaining challenges to the sign ordinance on the basis of standing.
Prime Media appeals that decision by the district court. For the
following reasons, we affirm the district court's decision.

Sanusi v. Gonzales  (Jan. 23, 2007) (Appeal from Board of Immigration
Appeals )
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0032p-06.pdf
-  In these consolidated appeals, petitioner Hendry Sanusi petitions
for review of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the
"BIA"). We deny the petitions for review on the ground that the
state court's vacation of Sanusi's conviction was ineffective for
immigration purposes because it was done solely for the purpose of
ameliorating the immigration consequences to petitioner. Zaitona v.
I.N.S., 9 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 1993). For this reason, we hold that the
present case is distinguishable from Pickering v. Gonzales (amended
opinion), 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2006).

L & W Supply Corp v. Acuity  (Jan. 23, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Ky.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0033p-06.pdf
-  L&W Supply Corp. ("L&W") appeals the order of the district court
in this diversity contract action awarding appellee Acuity
("Acuity") costs for expert witness fees. For the reasons
which follow, we reverse the district court's decision.

USA v. Atchley  (Jan. 23, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0034p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Hal M. Atchley was charged with two counts pertaining to
the manufacture of methamphetamine, one count of possessing a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and two counts of being a felon
in possession of a firearm. The case proceeded to trial and Atchley was
convicted on all counts. On appeal, he argues that the evidence of
methamphetamine manufacturing and firearms found in his motel room
should have been suppressed, that the drug-related counts should have
been tried separately from the firearmrelated counts, and that the
second superseding indictment issued by the government violated his due
process rights. Atchley also argues that the district court erred in
admitting and instructing the jury on evidence of flight, warranting a
new trial. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM his convictions.
 

Daily Case Updates