|
|
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Funk, 124 F. App'x 987, 991 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (remanding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.
|
Daily Case Updates
|