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 26, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Immigration - motion to reconsider
- Liability - civil action § 1983 claim
- Declaratory Judgment Act - discretionary jurisdiction
 

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

 

Alizoti v. Gonzales (Feb. 26, 2007) (Appeal from the N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0079p-06.pdf
-  In a consolidated appeal, Petitioner Selma Alizoti appeals both the denial of her motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") and the denial of her motion to reconsider by the BIA. This is another difficult immigration case in which we must resist the temptation to impose our own sense of justice as if this were a de novo review. We AFFIRM the BIA on both matters.
 

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

 

Koulta v. Center Line (Feb. 26, 2007) (Appeal from the E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0078p-06.pdf
-  Shortly before 3:00 a.m. on September 13, 2002, Chrissy Lucero drove her 1991 Buick through a red light at 63 miles per hour and broadsided Sami Koulta's 1998 Honda. Koulta died from the collision. No one doubts Lucero's responsibility for the accident: She was intoxicated; she was speeding; and she had just run a red light. And no one doubts the utter misfortune that befell Koulta and his family that night. The police charged Lucero with seconddegree murder, to which she pleaded guilty, and she is currently serving a well-deserved sentence for the crime. Koulta's estate also filed a civil action against Lucero and obtained a $750,000 judgment against her. The question here is one of secondary liability. After learning that several police officers employed by the City of Center Line had confronted Lucero minutes prior to the accident, Koulta's estate filed this § 1983 claim against the officers and the city, alleging that they had violated Koulta's substantive due process rights by permitting the inebriated Lucero to continue to drive. Where a claimant accuses government officials of failing to prevent one private party from injuring another, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), and its progeny seldom permit the claim to proceed. This case does not fall within any of the limited exceptions to the rule. Because the officers' actions did not create or increase the risk that an innocent victim would be killed by Lucero's drunken driving and because the officers' actions in dealing with Lucero did not specially place Koulta at risk, our precedents require us to reject this claim as a matter of law.

Adrian Energy, et al v. MI Pub Serv, et al (Feb. 26, 2007) (Appeal from the W.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0080p-06.pdf
-  This case arose from a contractual dispute between plaintiffs, who are eight small power-producing companies,1 and the intervenor, Consumers Energy, a Michigan utility. Consumers Energy purchases power from plaintiffs pursuant to negotiated agreements, the terms, conditions and interpretation of which is governed by a complex state and federal regulatory scheme. Plaintiffs contend that Consumers Energy is not paying them contractually-agreed upon amounts, and they have sought relief in several different forums over the past several years, including state and federal courts, as well as state and federal regulatory agencies, all arising from the same dispute. Despite the convoluted procedural history raising many issues, the only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the district court properly declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
 

Daily Case Updates