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 15, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Railway Labor Act - Arbitration award
- Fair Credit Reporting Act - Punitive damages
- Due process claim
- Petition for habeas corpus - Certificate of Appealability
- Sentencing Guidelines
 

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

 

NetJets Aviation v. Intl Brotherhood (May 15, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0173p-06.pdf
-  This case arises from NetJets’ discharge of a pilot employed by the company. The pilot’s employment was terminated after NetJets learned that he had made a video depicting a pilot shooting a rifle at a DVD produced by NetJets that promoted a tentative agreement between NetJets and its pilots’ union. The union grieved the termination, and the System Board of Adjustment (“the Board”) ordered NetJets to reinstate the pilot. NetJets sought an order from the district court vacating the award, arguing that the award violated public policy. The district court held that public policy review is not permitted under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) and enforced the award. We affirm on the alternative ground that, assuming without deciding that public policy review is permitted under the RLA, the award at issue does not violate any public policy that conceivably could warrant vacating an RLA arbitration award.
 
Bach v. First Union Natl Bk (May 15, 2007) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0176p-06.pdf
-  Following trial, a jury determined that defendant appellant First Union National Bank (FUNB) breached certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x, and awarded $400,000 in compensatory damages and $2,628,600 in punitive damages to plaintiff-appellee, Dorothy Bach. FUNB appealed, claiming, among other things, that the punitive damages award was excessive and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We agreed and accordingly remanded to the district court for either remittitur or a new trial on punitive damages. The district court offered Bach the choice between a $400,000 reduction in the punitive damages award or a new trial, and Bach chose the former. FUNB appealed. For the reasons below, we reverse the judgment of the district court and direct it to enter an order of remittitur not to exceed $400,000 in punitive damages.
 

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

 

Mitchell v. McNeil  (May 15, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Tenn)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0172p-06.pdf
-  At the heart of this dispute is the claim that the City of Memphis, several of its agencies and several of its police officers violated the substantive due process rights of Daniel Mitchell when they permitted a police officer to loan a personal vehicle to an informant who subsequently collided with*and killed*Mitchell while driving the vehicle. The district court concluded that the allegations did not state a cognizable substantive due process claim, and we agree.
 
Henley v. Bell (May 15, 2007) (Appeal from M.D. Tenn)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0174p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner Steve Henley was convicted of two counts of murder and aggravated arson in violation of Tennessee law and was sentenced to death. He filed a petition for habeas corpus that alleged twenty-one errors in the state-court proceedings. The district court denied the petition, but granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) as to one issue, and we permitted Henley to expand the COA to include five additional claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
 
USA v. Borho (May 15, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Ky)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0175p-06.pdf
-  Norman Borho pled guilty to three counts of distributing child pornography in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), and to one count of receiving child pornography that had traveled in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of between 210 and 262 months of imprisonment, but the district court imposed a sentence of only 72 months. On appeal, the government argues that the sentence should be vacated and remanded for resentencing because such a large downward variance from the Guidelines range in this case is substantively unreasonable. We agree. The judgment of the district court is therefore VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing for the reasons set forth below.
 

Daily Case Updates