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 11, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Habeas relief
- Employment / Discrimination / Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act
- Sentencing / Career offender
- Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act / Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
- United States 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

 

*** ORDER ***
 
Spisak v. Mitchell (January 11, 2008) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0017p-06.pdf
-  On October 20, 2006, this Court issued an opinion partially granting habeas relief to Petitioner, Frank G. Spisak, and ordering a new mitigation phase trial. Spisak v. Mitchell, 465 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006). Respondent warden thereafter filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On October 9, 2007, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of this Court, and remanded the case to this Court for further consideration in light of Carey v. Musladin, 127 S.Ct. 649 (2006), and Schriro v. Landrigan, 127 S.Ct. 1933 (2007). After careful review and consideration of Musladin and Landrigan, we find that neither of the cases require reversal of our prior disposition of this case. Accordingly, we reinstate our opinion of October 20, 2006, partially granting habeas relief and ordering a new mitigation phase trial.
 

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

 

Lulaj v. Wackenhut Corp (January 11, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0016p-06.pdf
-  Wackenhut appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for renewed judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative a new trial, following a jury verdict in favor of Lisa Lulaj on a claim of sex discrimination. Lulaj cross-appeals the district court’s decision to reduce the jury’s determination of damages. Both parties appeal the amount of attorney’s fees awarded. We AFFIRM.
 
USA v. Bailey (January 11, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0018p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Terrell R. Bailey appeals his convictions and sentences for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Because of his prior convictions for drug trafficking and second-degree escape, KY. REV. STAT. § 520.030, the district court sentenced defendant as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Bailey argues that his prior Kentucky state court conviction for second-degree escape does not qualify for a career offender enhancement; there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; and the district court erred in enhancing his Guidelines offense level after finding that he had perjured himself at trial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences.
 
Schultz v. General RV Ctr (January 11, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0019p-06.pdf
-  Walter and Julie Schultz (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against General R.V. Center and Damon Corp. (“Defendants”) in federal district court, alleging that their new R.V. is defective in violation of federal and state consumer laws. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all counts, and Plaintiffs appealed. Following the conclusion of briefing, Defendants filed before this court a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s amount in controversy object matter jurisdiction exists and DENY Defendants’ motion to dismiss. With regard to the merits, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
 
USA v. Sexton AND USA v. Romans AND USA v. Legg  (January 11, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0020p-06.pdf
-  Defendants Norman T. Sexton, Richard Romans, and James A. Legg challenge the sentences imposed by the district court on remand from this court for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Defendants were sentenced in 2002 after being convicted of offenses stemming from the distribution of cocaine. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker, this court entered an order vacating the sentences of all three defendants and remanding their cases for resentencing. On remand, the district court reimposed identical sentences. Defendants make five primary arguments on appeal: (1) the district court violated their Sixth Amendment and due process rights by using its own factual findings to calculate their sentencing ranges under the United States Sentencing Guidelines; (2) their sentences exceeded the “maximum statutory sentence” allowable for their offenses; (3) the imposition of their sentences in accordance with the remedial portion of Booker created an unconstitutional ex post facto effect; (4) Sexton’s sentence was unreasonable; and (5) the district court’s refusal to order the preparation of new presentencing reports on remand was improper under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32. Because all of these arguments are without merit, we affirm the sentences imposed by the district court.
 

Daily Case Updates