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 21st, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Lack of personal jurisdiction
- Family Law - Divorce - property division
- Waiver of constitutional rights
- Jurisdiction - final appealable order
- Sentencing
- Motion for a new trial - sufficient evidence
- Insufficient evidence - abused its discretion
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Wheaton Trenching, Inc. (February 21, 2007)
(2007-Ohio-518)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-ohio-518.pdf
-  Floating forum-selection clause - Court of appeals' judgment
reversed on the authority of Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Power
Engineering Group, Inc., and cause remanded to trial court to enter an
order of dismissal.

Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Al & Lou Builders Supply, Inc. (February 21, 2007) (2007-Ohio-517)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-ohio-517.pdf
-  Floating forum-selection clause - Court of appeals' judgment
reversed on the authority of Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Power
Engineering Group, Inc., and cause remanded to trial court to enter an
order of dismissal.

Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Ferris Bros., Inc. (February 21, 2007)
(2007-Ohio-516)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-ohio-516.pdf
-  Floating forum-selection clause - Court of appeals' judgment
reversed on the authority of Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Power
Engineering Group, Inc., and cause remanded to trial court to enter an
order of dismissal.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** Judgment Entries ***

Ruther v. Ruther (Feb. 21, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060070.pdf
-  Defendant-appellant Joseph Ruther ("Joseph") appeals from the
divorce decree terminating his marriage to plaintiff-appellee Donna
Ruther ("Donna.") Joseph contests the property division ordered by
the domestic relations court in his two assignments of error. Judgment
AFFIRMED.

State v. Jones (Feb. 21, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060188.pdf
-  Jones was indicted for two counts of rape in violation of R.C.
2907.02(A)(1)(b). The state alleged that Jones had digitally penetrated
a child on two occasions. On January 5, 2006, Jones pleaded guilty to
the two counts of rape. After conducting a colloquy with Jones, the
trial court accepted his guilty pleas. After a hearing, Jones was
sentenced to two consecutive ten-year prison terms and was adjudicated a
sexual predator. Jones asserts that his guilty pleas were invalid
because the trial court did not comply with Crim.R. 11 when it accepted
the pleas. Jones's second assignment of error is that he was denied
the effective assistance of counsel. Judgment AFFIRMED.

Hilmer, et al. v. White, et al, (Feb. 21, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060262.pdf
-  Casey Hilmer and her parents, Steve and Megen Hilmer, filed suit
against Benjamin White and his parents, Lance and Diane White. A jury
trial resulted in a $10,000,000 verdict against the Whites. The trial
court entered a judgment on the jury verdict on October 7, 2005. The
Hilmers filed a motion for prejudgment interest, which the trial court
granted on March 7, 2006. Safeco filed the instant appeal challenging
the award of prejudgment interest. Because the trial court's March 2,
2006, order did not determine damages, it was not a final appealable
order. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, and
it must be dismissed.

State v. Covington (Feb. 21, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060444.pdf
-  Covington was indicted for four counts of nonsupport of dependents,
felonies of the fifth degree. The trial court sentenced Covington to
consecutive one-year terms of imprisonment. On appeal, we vacated the
sentences and remanded the case for resentencing under State v. Foster.2
The trial court resentenced Covington to consecutive one-year terms.
Covington has appealed. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State v. Smith (Feb. 21, 2007)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060489.pdf
-  Officer Paul Smith appeals his conviction for assault. While Meeks
was against the car, Smith lifted her miniskirt, exposing her underwear.
He then pulled out his Mace and sprayed her with it. According to
Warman, the use of Mace was unnecessary because Meeks had already been
subdued. The state's evidence that Smith unnecessarily used Mace on
Meeks after she had been subdued was sufficient to prove assault.
Smith's conviction was based on sufficient evidence, we conclude
that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial
under Crim.R. 33(A)(4). Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

USA v. Winkle (Feb. 21, 2007) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0070p-06.pdf
-  Thomas Winkle appeals his convictions and sentence for bank fraud
and conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Winkle's convictions stem from a
check kiting scheme between Winkle and co-defendant Steven Myers. On
appeal, Winkle argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence of intent
to support his convictions; (2) the district court abused its discretion
in allowing an unqualified expert to give his opinion on an ultimate
issue; (3) the district court abused its discretion in refusing to admit
a report from the Federal Reserve; (4) he was denied the effective
assistance of counsel; (5) he was sentenced by a judge who did not
preside over his trial in violation of Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and (6) he is entitled to resentencing under United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We affirm Winkle's convictions
and sentence. The evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient
to support Winkle's convictions and the district court's evidentiary
rulings were not abuses of discretion. Winkle has waived any argument
that the sentence imposed was unreasonable and the sentencing court did
not abuse its discretion in sentencing Winkle, despite any technical
violation of Rule 25. We decline to address Winkle's ineffective
assistance of counsel claim.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

Daily Case Updates