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!

January 9, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Divorce / Attorney Fees
- Commodity Exchange Act
- Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct / Younger Abstention
- Sentencing
- Arbitration award / Contract-law / Federal Arbitration Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** Judgment Entries ***
 
Theodore J. Trammel vs. Linda A. Moeller (January 9, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070065_01092008.pdf
-  Theodore Trammel and Linda Trammel Moeller were divorced. Moeller filed a motion to show cause and a motion for attorney fees. At the hearing, the magistrate found Trammel in contempt and ordered him to pay attorney fees to Moeller. Trammel argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying Trammel’s motion for a continuance, (2) the contempt finding was based upon insufficient evidence and against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (3) the trial court erred in ordering Trammel to pay “excessive” attorney fees. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Commodity Futures v. Erskine (January 9, 2008) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0008p-06.pdf
-  The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Ross Erskine and his company, Goros, LLC, (collectively “Goros”) in federal court, alleging that Goros had misrepresented facts and omitted pertinent information when soliciting customers to trade in foreign currency, which violated the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-27. As a jurisdictional predicate, the CFTC alleged that the trades at issue were “futures contracts” governed by the CEA and that the CFTC is authorized to “enjoin or restrain violations” of that Act. Id. at § 13a-1. Goros denied the accusations, denied that the trades were “futures contracts,” and challenged the CFTC’s jurisdiction. The district court agreed with Goros as to the nature of the trades and the jurisdiction of the CFTC and granted summary judgment to Goros. The CFTC appealed and we must now decide whether the trades at issue were “futures contracts” subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction. Because we conclude that they were not, we AFFIRM.
 
O'Neill v. Coughlan (January 9, 2008) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0009p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel for the Supreme Court of Ohio, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff William O’Neill in this action seeking to enjoin enforcement of three canons of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. O’Neill, a judge of the Ohio Court of Appeals at the time, was accused of violating these canons while campaigning for election to the Ohio Supreme Court in 2004. The district court concluded that enforcement of these canons would impermissibly restrict O’Neill’s free speech rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment. We vacate the judgment entered in favor of O’Neill because the district court should have abstained from deciding the merits of the case under the authority of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
 
USA v. Gonzalez (January 9, 2008) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0011p-06.pdf
-  During a routine traffic stop, defendant David Gonzalez consented to a search of his vehicle which uncovered some seven kilograms of cocaine. Defendant was found guilty in a jury trial of possessing with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced to life in prison. In challenging his conviction and sentence, defendant asserts five claims of error: (1) that the government did not timely file notice of possible sentencing enhancement based on prior convictions; (2) that the sentencing court improperly considered his two prior drug felony convictions to be separate offenses even though they arose from a single criminal episode; (3) that evidence seized in a consensual search which exceeded the scope of the consent should have been suppressed; (4) that the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments; and (5) that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed the cocaine. Finding that none of defendant’s claims have merit, we affirm the the district court’s judgment.
 

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

 

Uhl v. Komatsu Forklift Co.(January 9, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0010p-06.pdf
-  In this case, the appellants challenge the validity of an arbitration award where one of the party-selected arbitrators had previously and occasionally served as co-counsel with the attorney representing the intervening plaintiff in the instant case. Because we conclude that this relationship did not violate the arbitration agreement or rise to the level of evident partiality, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Daily Case Updates