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!

March 9, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Procedure - Rules
- Criminal Rule 11
- Constitutional law - Criminal
- Real Property - Landlord & Tenant
- Federal Sentencing
- Social Security - disability insurance benefits
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Starks v. Choice Hotels Internatl. (March 9, 2007) (2007-Ohio-1019)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-1019.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in granting the defendants' motions to dismiss a complaint that sought, among other things, the return of the amount charged for a day's occupancy at a motel after the plaintiff had missed the checkout time, where the plaintiff sued the wrong people, in the wrong place, for a wrong that did not exist. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Fuller (March 9, 2007) (2007-Ohio-1020)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-1020.pdf
-  Defendant's conviction was not subject to reversal on the ground that his guilty plea was unknowing: The trial court at the plea hearing and the plea form misinformed defendant that the five-year period of post-release control mandated under R.C. 2967.28(B)(1) was discretionary; but the court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11's command that the defendant be informed of the maximum penalty involved, because the court and the plea form satisfied the purpose of R.C. 2967.28 when they provided defendant with sufficient notice that post-release control was authorized and could be imposed after he had served his sentence. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
In re Andrew (March 9, 2007) (2007-Ohio-1021)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-1021.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in revoking parole in a delinquency case:  (1) the record sufficiently showed a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of counsel; (2) the violator was 18 years old at the time of the proceedings and was therefore not required to have counsel appointed under R.C. 2151.352; and (3) he was present during the dispositional hearing. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Chapman v. Tri-County Mall (March 9, 2007) (2007-Ohio-1022)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-1022.pdf
-  Where the plaintiff fell on a sidewalk outside a store in a shopping mall and asserted claims for negligent maintenance of the sidewalk and for failure to warn of its defective condition, the mall, as landlord, was required under a lease agreement to indemnify the tenant store for attorney fees and expenses incurred because the plaintiff's alleged injuries:  the landlord had the duty under the lease to maintain the common areas of the mall, including the sidewalks, and all the plaintiff's claims arose from the alleged negligence of the landlord in maintaining one of the sidewalks. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
  

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

USA v. Bridgewater  (March 9, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0095p-06.pdf
-  Before the Court is another in the growing line of cases challenging whether a sentence was reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and United States v. Booker 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We very recently rejected a remarkably similar sentencing challenge brought by the same Federal Defender's Office attorney against the same district judge. United States v. Jackson, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3059886 (6th Cir., Oct. 30, 2006). In light of the analysis in Jackson and for the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
 
Bowen v. Comm Social Security  (March 9, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Ky.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0096p-06.pdf
-  In April of 2002, David Bowen applied for disability insurance benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). He claimed that he had become disabled due to both physical and mental conditions that rendered him incapable of working. During two hearings held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), both Bowen and the Commissioner presented medical evidence related to Bowen's conditions. The ALJ ultimately concluded that Bowen was not entitled to disability benefits because he retained a sufficient residual functional capacity (RFC) to work. In so concluding, the ALJ credited the medical evidence that Bowen was, at most, only moderately limited in his functional capabilities, and rejected without discussion the severe functional limitations that Bowen's treating psychologist ascribed to him. After the SSA's Appeals Council denied Bowen's request for review, he filed suit in federal district court. The district court ruled in favor of the Commissioner. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the judgment of the district court with instructions to REMAND the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

Daily Case Updates