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 14 & 15, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- §1983 Claim
- Writ of habeas corpus
- Third-Party Complaint amendment
- IRS false claims / Sentencing
- Equal Protection Clause
 

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

 

Harris v. Bornhorst (January 14, 2008) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0022p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Harris (“Harris”) filed suit against Defendants-Appellees Amanda Spies Bornhorst (“Spies”)1 and Tuscarawas County, Ohio (“Tuscarawas”) (collectively, the “defendants”),2 asserting claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for malicious prosecution, defamation, and tortious interference with a prospective contract, pursuant to Ohio state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of Harris’s claims, and Harris now appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Harris’s § 1983 and Brady claims, REVERSE the grant of summary judgment as to Harris’s First Amendment retaliation, defamation, and tortiousinterference claims, AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment as to all of Harris’s other claims, and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings.
 
Wilkins v. Timmerman-Cooper (January 14, 2008) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0023p-06.pdf
-  This appeal arises out of the district court’s dismissal of petitioner-appellant Randolph Wilkins’s (“Wilkins”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district judge held that the use of videoconferencing at Wilkins’s parole revocation hearing did not violate his rights to due process and to confront his accuser and therefore did not violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s decision.
 
American Zurich v. Cooper Tire & Rubber (January 15, 2008) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0025p-06.pdf
-  The issue on appeal in this diversity case is whether the district court erred in dismissing the third-party complaint filed by an original defendant, Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, against its insurance broker, Marsh USA and Marsh Placements Inc. (collectively referred to as “Marsh”), after Cooper Tire voluntarily entered into a settlement with the parties to the original complaint. The district court granted summary judgment for third-party defendants Marsh, finding lack of an actual case or controversy between Marsh and Cooper Tire. Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the third-party complaint in light of the dismissal of the underlying action from which Cooper Tire’s third-party complaint derived, we affirm the judgment of the district court. The third-party complaint was filed under the district court’s “supplemental jurisdiction” and can go forward as an independent, nonindemnity action after settlement of the original action only within the discretion of the court, as we will explain below.
 

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

 

Ziegler v. Aukerman, et al (January 14, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0021p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff Susan Ziegler appeals the district court decision granting summary judgment to Defendant Daniel Jonoshies, a police officer in the Springport Township Police Department, in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We hold that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining Defendant’s summary judgment motion. However, because we also believe that applying the proper legal standard to the district court’s findings of fact will not alter the outcome of that court’s decision, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendant.
 
USA v. Peters  (January 14, 2008) (Appeal from W.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0024p-06.pdf
-  On January 31, 2002, a Federal Grand Jury in the Western District of Tennessee returned a 22-count indictment against Freddie Peters. The indictment charged Peters with making, and causing to be made and presented, false claims to the Internal Revenue Service in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287, and unlawfully disclosing, using, and compelling the disclosure of Social Security account numbers of other persons in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(8). Peters appealed his conviction, challenging both the calculation of the sentence and the sufficiency of the evidence. Accordingly, for these reasons, the judgment of the District Court sentencing the defendant to 57 months is reversed, and the case is remanded for re-sentencing.
 
USA v. Nichols (January 15, 2008) (Appeal from M.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0026p-06.pdf
-  Elbert Nichols entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924, reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his suppression motion. On appeal, he raises three arguments: (1) that the police officer’s decision to run a warrant check on him was based on his race, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) that the search of his vehicle incident to his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment; and (3) that the questioning by the police after his arrest violated his Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Finding no constitutional violations that would vitiate Nichols’s conviction, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 

Daily Case Updates