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!

May 4, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Employment Discrimination
- Insurance
- Conditional writ of habeas corpus
- Fraudulent Inducement - Measure of Damages - Jury Instructions and Interrogatories
- Equal Access to Justice Act - attorney fees and expenses
- Federal Tort Claims Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Brown v. Dover Corp. (May 4, 2007)(2007-Ohio-2128)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2128.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to an employer on race-based discrimination claims of disparate treatment and a hostile work environment:  The employee had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because no adverse employment action had been taken due to the insignificant effect of the alleged misconduct, and because the conduct complained of was neither severe nor pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment; and even if there had been some impropriety, the employer had no liability because it had promptly taken remedial action to ensure that the misconduct would not recur. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
CNH Capital v. Janson Excavating, Inc. (May 4, 2007) (2007-Ohio-2127)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-2127.pdf
-  A person has an insurable interest in property whenever he would profit by or gain some advantage by its continued existence and suffer some loss or disadvantage by its destruction: It is not necessary that a party hold title to a piece of property to have an insurable interest in it. One who pays a debt without any legal obligation is a volunteer and is not entitled to recover any part of the payment from another party, but where two insurance policies cover the same piece of destroyed property, and one insurer settles the claim in full after the other disclaims all liability, the settling insurer is not a volunteer due to its legal obligation to the insured to pay the claim. Where two insurance policies cover the same risk, and both provide that their liability with regard to that risk shall be excess insurance over other valid, collectible insurance, the two insurers become liable for any covered loss in proportion to the amount of insurance provided by their respective policies. A material misstatement of fact by an insured regarding a “warranty” renders an insurance policy void ab initio: For a statement to qualify as a warranty, the warranty must appear either on the face of the policy or in another instrument specifically incorporated in the policy, and if the effect of the misstatement is intended to render the policy void ab initio, that effect must appear clearly and unambiguously from the terms of the policy. Where an insurance policy states that the policy is void in the case of any misrepresentation of a material fact concerning the covered property, the policy contains clear and unambiguous language that a material misrepresentation renders the policy void ab initio: A fact is material if it would induce an insurance company either to decline the issuance of a policy altogether or not to issue coverage unless at a higher premium. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment where genuine issues of material fact remained concerning whether an insured made a material misstatement of fact when obtaining insurance coverage for a piece of machinery. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
 

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

 

Matthews v. Ishee (May 4, 2007) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0156p-06.pdf
-  An Ohio jury convicted Rasheem Matthews of the murder of Wayne Price. An eyewitness and a jailhouse informant testified for the prosecution. Approximately two weeks after Matthews’s conviction and sentence, both witnesses received favorable plea bargains. According to Matthews, the witnesses had agreed to testify in exchange for these favorable pleas, and, therefore, the prosecution should have notified the defense of the preexisting deals. Because it failed to do so, Matthews argues that the prosecution violated his right to due process under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The district court agreed and granted Matthews a conditional writ of habeas corpus. As explained infra, Matthews procedurally defaulted his claim involving the jailhouse informant, and has failed to show cause for the default. On his claim involving the eyewitness, the state court concluded that there was no preexisting deal, and Matthews has not rebutted this factual finding with clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, we reverse.
 
Micrel, Inc. v. TRW Inc  (May 4, 2007) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0159p-06.pdf
-  Micrel, Inc., and TRW, Inc., d/b/a Automotive Electronics Group, entered into agreements for Micrel to design and supply electronic circuits to be used in airbag passive restraint systems. After trial on their competing claims and counterclaims for breach of contract, the jury returned its verdict in favor of TRW and awarded damages in the amount of $9,282,188. Judgment was entered accordingly, and Micrel’s motion for new trial was denied. Micrel appeals from the verdict, arguing that the district court erred by (1) allowing TRW’s claim for “cover” or “expectancy” damages; (2) failing to properly instruct the jury concerning the contract claims or the proper measure of damages; and (3) refusing to give the jury interrogatories it requested. Micrel also appeals from the district court’s pretrial order granting summary judgment to TRW on Micrel’s claim of fraudulent inducement. After review of the record and the arguments presented on appeal, we affirm.
 

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

 

Townsend v. Social Sec Admin  (May 4, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Ky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0157p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant Stella Townsend (“Townsend”) appeals from the district court’s order denying her application for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. On remand after a previous appeal, the district court denied as untimely Townsend’s application for fees and expenses related to litigation in the district court, concluding that equitable tolling was not warranted. The district court also denied Townsend’s request for fees and expenses related to the initial appeal, concluding that Townsend was not a prevailing party for purposes of the EAJA. Because Townsend cannot collect any attorney fees or expenses if her initial fee application was not timely filed, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that equitable tolling was not warranted, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 
Barnes v. USA  (May 4, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Tenn)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0158p-06.pdf
-  Karen Barnes fell when taking off her shoes before going through airport security, allegedly because of the negligence of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in not providing her a chair. She sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The district court granted the Government summary judgment, and we affirm because Barnes has not provided sufficient evidence of negligence.
 

Daily Case Updates