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 16, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Weapons - Juries - counsel - Sentencing
- Procedure - Rules - Tort
- Counsel
- Arrest - Constitutional law / Criminal - search and Seizure
- Autos - Constitutional Law / Criminal
- Admitting challenged evidence
- National Securities Markets Improvement Act
- Sentencing
- Employee Retirement and Income Security Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Patrick (March 16, 2007)(2007-Ohio-1175)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-1175.pdf
-  The evidence was sufficient to prove the firearms specifications that accompanied the charges against the defendant: One witness testified that he had seen a gun, and two testified that defendant had threatened to kill them; this was enough to establish that the gun was operable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to dismiss the entire jury panel after one prospective juror had stated that the defendant was a "bad kid": It was not entirely clear what the prospective juror had said, and defense counsel did not request a voir dire of the panel to determine whether anyone had heard the comment. Defense counsel's performance was not ineffective for failing to move for the suppression of a photographic identification of the defendant: The photographic array was not unduly suggestive, and the witnesses' identifications were reliable. Because defendant was sentenced under unconstitutional provisions, the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. Sentence VACATED and Cause REMANDED.
 
Watts v. Forest Ridge Apartments & Town Homes (March 16, 2007)(2007-Ohio-1176)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-1176.pdf
-  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a default judgment, when the motion was timely filed, the judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff was for an amount significantly more than the plaintiff had requested, and the defendant demonstrated the meritorious defenses of lack of notice and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A suggestion of incompetency under Civ.R. 25(E) is not a motion, and a trial court cannot issue a ruling on a suggestion of incompetency. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Gordon (March 16, 2007)(2007-Ohio-1177)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-1177.pdf
-  Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move, under Crim.R. 32.1, for withdrawal of the defendant's guilty plea:  The defendant had been afforded a full Crim.R. 11 colloquy and had pleaded guilty in exchange for an agreed sentence; and just because the defendant was arrested again before sentencing, causing the court to reject the agreed sentence, did not mean that trial counsel was ineffective. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Hutson (March 16, 2007)(2007-Ohio-1178)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-1178.pdf
-  The trial court properly overruled defendant's motion to suppress the results of his blood-alcohol test: The record contained competent credible evidence to show that defendant's blood had been drawn, as required by former R.C. 4511.19(D)(1), within two hours of his alleged operation of a vehicle, and the state presented evidence showing substantial compliance with the regulations pertaining to the testing and refrigeration of defendant's blood. The trial court properly overruled defendant's motion to suppress his arrest: Testimony by the arresting officer that he had found defendant unconscious in the driver's seat of a car, that defendant had smelled of alcohol, and that he had displayed watery and bloodshot eyes and compromised motor skills showed that the officer had made the arrest upon probable cause. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Wilson (March 16, 2007)(2007-Ohio-1174)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-1174.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion to suppress based on the claim that a detention of seven to eight minutes in the back of a police cruiser constituted an arrest without probable cause: The brief detention was proper in light of the officer's reasonable suspicion that the defendant had been operating his car with a prohibited breath-alcohol concentration. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion to suppress where the defendant claimed that his prior knee injury had prevented him from successfully completing field-sobriety tests: The defendant did not claim a disability until after he had performed poorly on the tests, and the trial court reasonably rejected the claim that the tests were invalid. The trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the results of a breathalyzer test: The state demonstrated that it had complied with the mandated weekly testing of the breathalyzer machine and with the requirement that the machine be tested immediately before and after the defendant's test (the alleged failure to test the machine when it was initially placed in service was therefore irrelevant); and the state also demonstrated that the solution used to calibrate the machine had been used within the required three-month period after its initial use. The trial court did not err in admitting the Ohio Department of Health director's certification of the breathalyzer test solution: The certification was not "testimonial" within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354.
   

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

Stockman v. Oakcrest Dent, et al  (March 16, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0101p-06.pdf
-  Defendants Oakcrest Dental Center ("Oakcrest") and Dr. Louis Leonor appeal a judgment of $479,491.63 in favor of Plaintiff Dr. Samuel Stockman. Defendants allege several trial errors including the erroneous admission of a settlement offer in violation of FED. R. EVID. 408. Because we agree that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the settlement offer and the record demonstrates substantial prejudice, we REVERSE the judgment and REMAND to the district court for a new trial.
 
Brown v. Earthboard Sports (March 16, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Ky.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0102p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant Clinton Brown, a wealthy businessman, made arisky investment in the securities of a small privately-held California company called Earthboard Sports USA ("Earthboard"). He was induced to embark on such a course of action by the "tip" he had received from Defendant-Appellee Jeffrey Vaughn, an acquaintance and financial advisor who considered Brown to be a prospective client, that a large public company was about to acquire Earthboard on extremely, even ridiculously, favorable terms. However, the promised acquisition turned out to be an entirely fictitious creation of Earthboard's president, one Hugh Jeffreys, a felon. When the truth was finally revealed, Brown and many others lost their investments. Brown then sued Earthboard, Jeffreys, Vaughn, and Vaughn's employer Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. ("Lincoln") in federal court, claiming a variety of federal and state securities violations. The district court entered default judgment against Earthboard and Jeffreys. Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Vaughn and Lincoln. Relevant to the appeal before us now, the district court held that (1) Brown's complaint that the parties had sold him unlawfully unregistered shares under Kentucky's Blue Sky law was preempted by the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-290, 110 Stat. 3416 ("NSMIA"), because the securities had been sold "pursuant to" a valid federal registration exemption; and (2) Brown did not adduce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to two vital elements of a securities fraud suit: scienter and loss causation. Brown filed a timely notice of appeal. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the district court with respect to the claims against Vaughn, but affirm summary judgment in favor of Lincoln.
 
In Re: Renato Acosta v. (March 16, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Ky.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0103p-06.pdf
-  Renato Acosta, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, moves this court for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
 
Crosby v. Rohm & Haas Co (March 16, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Ky.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0104p-06.pdf
-  Amanda Crosby filed this lawsuit against Rohm and Haas under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., seeking to recover benefits allegedly owed to her as a beneficiary of her father's life insurance policy with the company. She also sought monetary penalties from the company because it allegedly violated ERISA's disclosure requirements. The district court granted summary judgment for Rohm and Haas, reasoning that Crosby received all of the life insurance benefits she was due and that the company's conduct did not warrant monetary penalties. We affirm.
 

Daily Case Updates