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 16th, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Procedure Rules - Sentencing
- Divorce - Procedure Rules
- Constitutional Law Criminal
- Litigation - Intentional infliction - emotion distress
- Constitutional Law - Eighth Amendment
- Awards - black lung benefits
- Alien Tort Claims Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Couch (Feb. 16, 2007)(2007-Ohio-654)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-654.pdf
-  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's presentence motions to withdraw his guilty plea:  Although such motions are ordinarily freely granted, in this out-of-the-ordinary case, allowing the withdrawal of the plea would have prejudiced the prosecution in view of the considerable length of time that had passed before the defendant filed his first motion; and the record otherwise shows that the defendant was represented by competent counsel and that the court had fully observed his rights, both at the withdrawal hearing and when the plea was originally entered.
When the defendant was sentenced for his offenses in Ohio, he was not entitled to credit for time served in Illinois for a different offense committed after the defendant had entered his guilty plea in Ohio. Judgment AFFIRMED.

Azarova v. Schmitt (Feb. 16, 2007)(2007-Ohio-653)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-653.pdf
-  In a divorce proceeding involving a "mail-order" Ukrainian bride, the evidence supported the trial court's determination that a prenuptial agreement was unenforceable on the ground of overreaching:  The wife did not have a meaningful opportunity to consult with independent counsel before signing the agreement, the husband had exploited the wife's ignorance of the property-distribution statutes, and the wife was limited in her comprehension of the English language. The evidence supported the trial court's determination that a prenuptial agreement was unenforceable on the grounds of coercion and duress:  The husband presented the agreement to the wife only a few days before the wedding and only two weeks before her fiancée visa would have expired; and the wife testified that if she had not signed the agreement, the husband would not have married her, and she would have had to return unmarried to her native country. In reviewing objections to a magistrate's decision, a trial court has the responsibility to conduct a de novo review of the evidence and to determine whether the magistrate properly assessed the facts and applied the correct law; the court is not required to defer to the magistrate's factual findings or legal conclusions if it does not agree with them.  Judgment AFFIRMED.

State v. Lyons (Feb. 16, 2007)(2007-Ohio-652)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-652.pdf
-  The Double Jeopardy Clause posed no bar, as a matter of state and federal constitutional law, to the defendant's prosecution for a drug offense, where the defendant had already been sanctioned for violating a city ordinance that prohibited the use of a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of a drug offense:  the sanctions authorized for a violation of the city ordinance (fines and vehicle impoundments) did not constitute criminal punishment for double-jeopardy purposes because the sanctions did not constitute an affirmative restraint, and because the ordinance and its penalties were reasonably related to the ordinance's nonpunitive goal of promoting public safety. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
 

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

 

Chesher v. Neyer (Feb. 16, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0063p-06.pdf
-  In 2001, Jaqueline Chesher and other named plaintiffs initiated a class action lawsuit against Hamilton County, several individuals employed at the Hamilton County Morgue, and Thomas Condon, a private photographer. Chesher's claims stem from an "art project" that Condon undertook at the Morgue in which he photographed dead bodies without the knowledge or consent of the decedents' relatives. The employee defendants allegedly engaged in a civil conspiracy and inflicted emotional distress on the class members by facilitating the project and later covering up their involvement. Asserting statutory immunity under Ohio law, the employee defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court denied their motions. Subsequently, the employee defendants filed these interlocutory appeals from the district court's judgment. Hamilton County also appealed, arguing that the district court improperly denied the County summary judgment regarding Chesher's negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, even though that issue was not before the court. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petty v. Franklin Cnty Oh (Feb. 16, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0064p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant Sherman Petty sustained serious injury to his jaw during a fight with other inmates in the Franklin County Correctional Institute. He sued numerous county defendants under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging primarily that they violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him and by failing to provide him with adequate medical care. In particular, Petty claimed that the County's delay in allowing him to undergo surgery, and its failure to provide him exclusively with a "soft" diet prior to the surgery, was the direct cause of his suffering further injury. The district court dismissed Petty's claims against some defendants for failure to state a claim, and against others upon their successful motion for summary judgment. Petty now appeals the dismissal of his claims. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Taveras v. Taveraz (Feb. 16, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0066p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant Romil Rafael Estrella Taveras appeals the district court's dismissal of his parental child abduction action brought under the Alien Tort Statute (also commonly referred to as the "Alien Tort Claims Act"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's decision.
 

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

 

Crockett Colleries v. Barrett (Feb. 16, 2007) (Appeal from Benefits Review Board)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0065p-06.pdf
-  Petitioners Crockett Colleries, Inc. and The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (hereafter "Crockett") appeal the decision of the Benefits Review Board of the United States Department of Labor ("BRB") affirming an award of black lung benefits to Respondent James Barrett. The BRB found that Crockett's petition for review failed to comply with the requirements set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 802.211(b). It therefore refused to review the merits of Crockett's petition and summarily affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). On appeal, Crockett seeks an order requiring the BRB to review the ALJ's decision or, in the alternative, an order reversing the award of benefits. We conclude that the BRB erred in finding that Crockett's petition was insufficient to trigger review. We nevertheless affirm the award of benefits because the ALJ correctly applied the law and his factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.
 

Daily Case Updates