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 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , 2011.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

April 27, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Post-conviction
- Search & Seizure
- Divorce
- Civil Miscellaneous
- Procedure / Rules - Juries - Evidence - Constitutional Law / Criminal - Sentencing
- Sex Offenses - Constitutuional Law / Criminal
- Jurisdiction
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Andrews (April 27, 2007)(2007-Ohio-2013)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2013.pdf
-  Attempted importuning, under R.C. 2907.07(D), is a cognizable criminal offense: The offense of importuning is not defined in terms of an attempt; and although the offense of importuning requires the soliciting of sexual activity, a charge of importuning does not involve an attempt to engage in the sexual activity that has been solicited. When an offender has solicited sexual activity from a person whom the offender believes to be a child between 13 to 15 years of age, but who is actually an adult civilian posing as a child between 13 to 15 years of age, the offender may be charged with and convicted of attempted importuning. The offense of importuning does not infringe upon the First Amendment's right to freedom of speech. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Bailey (April 27, 2007)(2007-ohio-2014)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2014.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to sever the trial of separate indictments for robbery offenses and a weapon-under-disability offense, where the evidence supporting the offenses was simple and distinct and sufficient to overcome any taint of corroboration from the joinder. The trial court's finding of no discriminatory intent in disposing of the defendant's Batson challenge to the state's exclusion of the sole African-American in the jury pool was supported by the record, where the potential juror emphatically and repeatedly asserted that he did not want to serve on the jury, and where he disclosed that a family member had been convicted on the same offense charged against the defendant. A nontestimonial statement is exempted from Confrontation Clause scrutiny: The defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the basis that his Confrontation Clause or fair-trial rights had been violated by the state's reference to and use of a testimonial statement, where the statement was, under the attendant circumstances, nontestimonial. A firearm-specification conviction carries a mandatory prison term: Because of the mandatory nature of the term, the trial court did not act punitively in imposing such a sentence. Judgment AFFIRMED in Part, Sentences VACATED in Part, and Cause REMANDED.
 
Roth v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Financial Insts. (April 27, 2007)(2007-ohio-2015)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2015.pdf
-  In an administrative appeal from a decision of the Ohio Department of Commerce, the trial court erred as a matter of law by granting a conditional loan-officer license: R.C. Chapter 1322, Ohio's Mortgage Brokers Act, does not provide for the issuance of such a license. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
 
Thomas v. Thomas (April 27, 2007)(2007-ohio-2016)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2016.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in concluding that the tax consequences of a property division were speculative: although the court ordered the wife to pay the husband $4,500,000, his share of the value of the family business, it did not order her to sell the business or to pay the money out of dividend income. The trial court erred in ordering the wife to pay 10% of the growth of the business as interest on the husband's share of the business, when the husband was not entitled to share in the growth of the business after the court had valued the business as of the date of the de facto termination of the marriage; while the husband was entitled to interest for the wife's use of his half of the business for the four years the divorce was pending, the court should not have tied the interest rate to the growth of the business but should instead have determined that interest rate by taking evidence as to a reasonable return on the husband's investment. Judgment AFFIRMED in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause REMANDED.
 
State v. Mercier (April 27, 2007)(2007-ohio-2017)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2017.pdf
-  Where the defendant was a passenger in an automobile that was stopped by police within minutes of a drug transaction by the driver, and where the driver was arrested at the scene, police had a right to request that the passenger leave her purse, which had been in her lap, in the automobile and to search the purse, as well as an Advil bottle in the purse, for weapons and contraband. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Fuller (April 27, 2007)(2007-ohio-2018)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2018.pdf
-  The common pleas court erred in declining to entertain a postconviction petition that was filed in conjunction with a reopened appeal under App.R. 26(B): R.C. 2953.21 permits a petition to be filed within 180 days of the filing of the trial transcript in the "direct appeal"; and because an appeal reopened under App.R. 26(B) is a "direct appeal," the filing of the petition 39 days after the trial transcript had been filed in the reopened appeal clearly gave the trial court jurisdiction to entertain the petition. There is no jurisdiction to review an appeal from the judgment denying a postconviction petition, when the trial court fails to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law and or to otherwise provide a basis for meaningful appellate review, and when, as a consequence of that failure, there is no final appealable order. Appeal Dismissed.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

Allison v. East Lansing (April 27, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0148p-06.pdf
-  Seven Michigan State University ("MSU") employees ("Plaintiffs") sued the City of East Lansing ("City") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment violations that occurred during the East Lansing Fire Department's ("ELFD") response to a possible anthrax contamination at MSU. Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the Plaintiffs. On appeal, the City asks us to overturn the jury verdict and grant judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Because the City failed to preserve its sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we dismiss.