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!

February 2nd, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- New Trial - Evid/Wit/trial - malpractice - Constitutional Law/Civil
- Petition for rehearing en banc
- Qualified immunity
- Habeas petition
- Excise taxes
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Joiner v. Simon (Feb. 2, 2007) (2007-Ohio-425)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-425.pdf
-  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, where the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that a witness's testimony was false, thereby preventing a determination that the jury's verdict was based on false testimony. In a medical malpractice action brought by a decedent's estate and by some of the decedent's adult children, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing defense counsel to ask a plaintiff whether it was true that one of her siblings did not want to be part of the lawsuit, because the question related to the plaintiff's testimony on direct examination, and no resulting prejudice was demonstrated. Because R.C. 2317.54 merely establishes a rebuttable presumption that a patient's written consent to a medical procedure is valid and effective if it meets certain requirements, the statute takes no question of fact from the jury, and, therefore, it does not infringe upon a plaintiff's right to a jury trial as guaranteed by Section 5, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. In a medical malpractice action, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a defendant physician to testify about his statements to the patient concerning the risks of a medical procedure, because a party disputing a lack of informed consent is entitled to explain the meaning of the consent form and what information was provided to the patient before the form was signed.
 

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

 

Slagle v. Bagley  (Feb. 2, 2007) (Appeal from thte N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0052p-06.pdf
-  ** ORDER ** The court having received a petition for rehearing en banc, and the petition having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active* judges of this court, and less than a majority of the judges having favored the suggestion, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the original panel. The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. Accordingly, the petition is denied.
 

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

 

Leonard v. Robinson (Feb. 2, 2007) (Appeal from thte E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0051p-06.pdf
-  Thomas Leonard appeals the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the defendant, Stephen Robinson, in this civil rights action resulting from Leonard's arrest at a township board meeting. The district court dismissed the case, holding that Robinson was entitled to qualified immunity on claims for wrongful arrest and that Leonard could not make out a prima facie case on his claim for First Amendment retaliation in violation of his civil rights. We reverse both holdings. The district court's application of state law to Leonard's conduct overlooked the First Amendment and its evaluation of Leonard's retaliation claim ignored evidence indicating that Robinson did have an improper motive. We hold that 1) no reasonable officer would have found probable cause to arrest Leonard solely for uttering "God damn" while addressing the township board because the First Amendment protects this sort of uninhibited debate, and 2) Leonard's retaliation claim survives summary judgment because Robinson's motive for the arrest is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute.

Carroll v. Renico (Feb. 2, 2007) (Appeal from thte E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0053p-06.pdf
-  We affirm the district court's denial of Jarmaine Carroll's habeas petition because the Michigan state courts did not unreasonably apply United States Supreme Court precedent in holding (1) that the state trial court adequately dealt with an incident of improper jury contact, and (2) that counsel for co-defendant could "stand in" for defendant's counsel during reinstruction of the jury without violating defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.

In re: Albion Health v. (Feb. 2, 2007) (Appeal from thte W.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0054p-06.pdf
-  The Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency ("the Agency") appeals the bankruptcy court's order finding that its claim against Debtor Albion Health Services, a nonprofit employer, for reimbursements to Michigan's Unemployment Trust Fund is not entitled to priority status as an excise tax under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(E). For the reasons that follow, the bankruptcy court's decision will be affirmed.
 

Daily Case Updates