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 9th, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Divorce
- Tort Miscellaneous - Procedure Rules
- Procedure Rules - negligence
- Family Law - Child custody
- Employment Law - Arbitration award
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Metz v. Metz (Feb. 9, 2007) (2007-Ohio-549)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-549.pdf
-  In a divorce action, the domestic relations court did not abuse its
discretion in selecting July 30, 2003, as the termination date of
parties' marriage, instead of the date they had separated, where the
parties had remained financially intertwined after the separation date,
and where the court specifically identified a series of other equitable
considerations that supported its adoption of the statutory date of the
termination of the marriage. The domestic relations court did not abuse
its discretion in treating all of the contingency fees earned by the
husband in his law practice in 2002 and 2003 as marital property, where
the fees were the result of work that the husband had performed during
the marriage. The trial court did not err in rejecting the testimony
given by the husband's expert regarding the coattail and widow's
benefits in valuing the parties' social-security benefits, where the
expert testified that the coattail concept was his own formulation, that
it had not, to his knowledge, been adopted by any court, and that the
wife's entitlement to these benefits relied on a number of
contingencies, thus making the formula too speculative as a basis for
dividing the parties' marital property. The domestic relations court
did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the wife spousal support
for a fixed term, where the testimony offered by husband concerning the
unpredictability of his income was speculative at best, where the award
had the effect of financially disentangling the parties and giving
finality to their marriage, and where the court remained able to address
the husband's concerns about the fluctuation of his income through its
continuing jurisdiction over spousal support. Nothing in Civ.R. 75,
which provides that a magistrate of the domestic relations court has
jurisdiction to hear and decide property and support issues in a divorce
action, conflicts with the domestic relations court's duty under
Section 1, Article IV of the Ohio Constitution to hear and determine
cases, because the court is empowered, pursuant to Civ.R. 53, to issue a
de novo decision in its review of a magistrate's decision. Judgment
AFFIRMED.

Crosset v. Marquette (Feb. 9, 2007) (2007-Ohio-550)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-550.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of
the defendants on claims for malicious prosecution and civil-rights
violations:  the plaintiff's arrest for domestic violence was
supported by probable cause based upon a police officer's interview
with the alleged victim. The trial court did not err in entering summary
judgment in favor of a social worker on a claim for defamation:  the
social worker had prepared a psychological assessment at the request and
direction of the domestic relations court, and because he was acting as
an arm of the court, he was entitled to immunity.  McCleery v. Leach,
11th Dist. No. 2001-L-195, 2003-Ohio-1875, followed. The trial court did
not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend
his complaint:  the amendment was sought 18 months after the complaint
had been filed, the period for discovery had closed, and defendants'
motions for summary judgment had been pending for nearly two months.

Heard v. Labor Ready, Inc. (Feb. 9, 2007) (2007-Ohio-551)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-551.pdf
-  While the language of Civ.R. 15(A) favors a liberal amendment
policy, when the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie showing of
support for a new claim sought to be pleaded, the trial court does not
abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend a complaint. When the
plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add a claim for respondeat
superior, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion:  If the defendant's employee who had caused the accident in
question was not acting within the scope of his employment, the employer
would not have been liable; and if he was, then the Workers'
Compensation Act would have applied, and the trial court would not have
had jurisdiction to decide the issue. To recover for negligent
entrustment, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that a vehicle owner had
knowingly entrusted it to an incompetent or inexperienced driver:
because the plaintiffs acknowledged that the defendant was not the owner
of the vehicle, the trial court did not err in granting the
defendant's motion for summary judgment. The trial court did not
err in granting a corporation's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a
default judgment on the ground of excusable neglect, when the
corporation presented an affidavit describing in detail the procedures
it followed after it was served with a summons and complaint and stating
that, through an inadvertent error, the appropriate department had not
received the plaintiffs' complaint.

In Re:  Alonzo Kennedy (Feb. 9, 2007) (2007-Ohio-548)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-548.pdf
-  The Hamilton County Juvenile Court had jurisdiction to determine the
custody of a child under former R.C. 3109.22(A)(1) and (2):  The record
contained sufficient evidence from which the court could have concluded
that Ohio was the child's home state, where evidence concerning the
mother's purported move to Kentucky was conflicting; the evidence
supported a finding that Ohio had been the child's home state within
six months of the commencement of the proceedings, and the child's
natural father's residence was in Ohio; and the child and his parents
had significant connections to Ohio, and the evidence supported a
determination that it was in the child's best interests for Ohio to
exercise jurisdiction over the case. The trial court's determination
that it was in the best interests of an abused and dependent child to be
placed in the permanent custody of Hamilton County Jobs and Family
Services was supported by clear and convincing evidence, where the
record fully supported the trial court's belief that the child's
mother would not have kept physical and sexual abusers away from her
child and that this would not have changed over time.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

Black v. Surface Transportation Board (Feb. 9, 2007) (Appeal from State
of Ohio Agency)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0058p-06.pdf
-  Timothy Black and Thomas Sorge challenge a decision of the Surface
Transportation Board affirming an arbitration panel's ruling denying
them relief under a railroad merger labor protection agreement. We deny
the petition.
 

Daily Case Updates