Join!  |   Find Us  |   Contact Us  |   Search  |   Home
Services Online Catalog Research Tools CLE News About the Library
Search our online catalog for print and electronic legal resources.

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 22, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Sentencing
- Settlement administration expenses
- Sherman Antitrust Act
 

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
 
USA v. Funk (Feb. 22, 2007) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0072p-06.pdf
-  The government appeals the 150-month sentence imposed by the district court after we remanded James Funk's case for re-sentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Funk, 124 F. App'x 987, 991 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (remanding pursuant to United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 527-28 (6th Cir. 2005)). Because we conclude that the district court considered "impermissible factors" and failed adequately to justify its substantial downward variance from the applicable guidelines range, we again vacate Funk's sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
 
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases
 
In re: Cardizem v.  (Feb. 22, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0071p-06.pdf
-  At the end of a case, "costs" are awarded to prevailing parties "as of course" for an assortment of trial-related expenses-such as court fees, court reporter fees and, as pertinent here, "compensation of court appointed experts." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6). At the end of this case, the district court ordered Gordon Ball, an attorney for one of the parties to this action, to pay costs associated with the compensation of Rust Consulting, Inc., a classaction settlement administrator hired to disburse the $80 million settlement in this case. Because Rule 54(d)(1) and § 1920(6) permit costs to be charged against parties, not their counsel, we reverse.

USA v. Funk (Feb. 22, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0073p-06.pdf
-  First American alleges that the Lapeer, Eaton, Saginaw, and Newaygo County registers refuse to provide duplicate records in non-paper formats, or to provide duplicate paper records at a bulk discount, unless First American agrees not to sell or give the duplicate records, unofficial copies of the copies, or the information therein, to anyone else. First American contends that this no-resale condition is an anticompetitive practice that violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. First American also alleges that the Tuscola County Register violated the Sherman Act by refusing to provide official title record copies in non-paper format, and by refusing to provide paper copies at a bulk discount; First American does not allege that the Tuscola County Register imposed a no-resale condition on the availability of such copies. The registers moved to dismiss the Sherman Act claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), on the ground that the challenged practices qualify for state-action immunity. The district court granted the registers' motion, and First American appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims with regard to the challenged practices of the Tuscola County Register because those practices are covered by state-action immunity from antitrust liability. But we reverse the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims with regard to the challenged practices of the other four county registers and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 
WebCite Citation
  OR
Keyword Search:

Daily Case Updates