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 23, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Evidence / Sufficient & Mainfest weight
- Civil Rule 56(C) and 60(B) / Causes of Action
- Motion for an acquittal / Criminal Rule 29
- New-trial motion
- Traffic / ORC 4511.21
- Bonds / Failure to appear / Motion for relief from forfeiture judgment
- Domestic violence / Reasonable discipline
- Condominium / Nuisance claim / Water damage and repair
- Motion to correct a judgment / Judicial release
- Traffic / ORC 4511.20 / Willful or wanton operation
- Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief
- Sentencing / Offense level
- Employee Retirement Income Security Act / Social Security Administration disability determinations
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** Judgment Entries ***
 
State of Ohio vs. Leonard Evans (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2006/C-060392_01232008.pdf
-  Evans was convicted of murdering Aubrey McCreary, carrying a concealed weapon, and having a weapon under a disability. Evans was also convicted of a three-year firearm specification. He now appeals his convictions, arguing that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
James Pike, et al. vs. Bessie Jones, Administratrix of the Estate of Nathaniel Jeffrey Jones, Deceased. (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2006/C-060657_01232008.pdf
-  Defendant-appellant, Bessie Jones (“Jones”), appeals the summary judgment entered by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in favor of plaintiffs-appellees, James Pike and Baron Osterman, in a suit for assault and battery. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Robert F. Croskery and Associates vs. Goomtie Ramudit, et al. (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070046_01232008.pdf
-  Plaintiff-appellee Robert F. Croskery & Associates, LPA, (“Croskery”) filed a complaint against defendants-appellants Goomtie and Ruplall Ramudit to recover payment for legal services. The trial court granted judgment in favor of Croskery and dismissed the counterclaims. Goomtie Ramudit filed what was essentially a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment based upon “newly discovered evidence”, which was denied. Goomtie Ramudit raises four assignments of error for our review. The four assignments of error are overruled and judgment is AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Thomas Massey (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070060_01232008.pdf
-  Massey was indicted for illegally possessing or assembling chemicals for the manufacture of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.041, and for possessing criminal tools, in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A). He filed a motion to suppress his statement and the evidence found in the shed, which the trial court overruled. Massey argues that (1) the consent given by the owner was invalid because Harris had no right to consent to the search since she had given Massey the key to the shed, had given him permission to use it exclusively, and had not retained any rights of access to the shed, (2) the trial court erred in overruling Massey’s motion to suppress his statement that he had supplied the anhydrous ammonia to others for the manufacture of methamphetamine, (3) the trial court erred in overruling Massey’s Crim.R. 29 motion for an acquittal, (4) his convictions were based upon insufficient evidence, and (5) his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Clyde Bostic (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070096_01232008.pdf
-  Bostic was convicted of possession of crack cocaine. Bostic was sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment. Bostic now appeals. He argues in three assignments of error that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a judgment of acquittal, that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, and that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Earl Howard (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070097_01232008.pdf
-  Howard was convicted of aggravated murder,2 aggravated burglary,3 and two counts of aggravated robbery.4 For the aggravated murder, Howard was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, with a consecutive three-year term for the accompanying gun specifications, and received 10 to 25 years’ for the remaining aggravated robbery and burglary charges. In this appeal, Howard advances a single assignment of error, alleging that the trial court erred in denying his new-trial motion where newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. James W. Benz (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070129_01232008.pdf
-  Benz appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal convicting him of speeding under R.C. 4511.21. Benz argues that (1) his conviction was improper because the state failed to present a victim of the offense, (2) the trial court erred in convicting him because the evidence established that the deputy sheriff who had issued the citation was also speeding, (3) his conviction was erroneous because a person is not required to have an operator’s license under the Ohio Revised Code, and (4) the trial court violated the United States Constitution by requiring him to pay fines and court costs in a form other than “gold or silver Coin.” Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Walter Markes and Allegheny Insurance Company and LRJ Bonding Company (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070140_01232008.pdf
-  Markes was indicted for trafficking in drugs. The Bonding Companies posted a $20,000 surety bond. Markes failed to appear at a hearing. The trial court ordered the Bonding Companies to forfeit the $20,000 bond. The Bonding Companies filed a motion for relief from the forfeiture judgment and for a refund of the monies paid in partial satisfaction of the judgment. The trial court overruled that motion. The Bonding Companies now appeal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motions because (1) the rearrest of Markes and the new bond relieved them of financial responsibility, and (2) the trial court did not conduct a hearing on whether to grant a motion for bond remission under R.C. 2937.39. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Selina Benson (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070162_01232008.pdf
-  Benson was charged with domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25, and assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.13. She alleges that the trial court erred in convicting her of domestic violence and assault because she had presented sufficient evidence to prove that she was disciplining Isaiah in a proper and reasonable manner when she bit him. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Haile Muluhagre vs. Robert and Linda Safrin (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070229_01232008.pdf
-  Muluhagre noticed water leaking into his condominium and wrote the Safrins a note telling them about the leak. The Safrins contacted their insurance company, which alleged that the leak was not coming from the Safrins’ deck and refused to pay for repairs. Muluhagre sued the Safrins for nuisance and for an injunction to force them to permanently fix the deck. The trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment because it determined that the Safrins’ actions had been reasonable and that Muluhagre had failed to specify damages. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment on the injunction, but we REVERSE the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the nuisance claim for damages, and REMAND the cause for further proceedings.
 
State of Ohio vs. Malar Balasubramanian (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070247_01232008.pdf
-  Balasubramanian appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct a judgment under Crim.R. 36. Balasubramanian filed a motion to correct the judgment under Crim.R. 36. Specifically, she asked the court to amend the judgment to reflect her right under the plea agreement to file for judicial release. The trial court denied the motion. We hold that the trial court’s denial of the motion was clearly erroneous. We REVERSE the judgment of the trial court and REMAND the cause with instructions to strike from the judgment entry of conviction the sentence concerning the defendant’s ineligibility for, among other things, judicial release.
 
State of Ohio vs. Karim Ali Rashid (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070278_01232008.pdf
-  Rashid appeals his conviction for a violation of R.C. 4511.20, willful or wanton operation on a street or highway. Rashid claims that the finding of guilty by the trial court was based on insufficient evidence and that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court weighed the evidence and decided the credibility of the witnesses. The court obviously believed the testimony of Officer Lynn and found that the abrupt turn, the excessive rate of speed on a narrow street, and the near striking of the police cruiser, all in the vicinity of children playing, constituted willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Elesther Thomas vs. Maria Ciriaco (January 23, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070291_01232008.pdf
-  Thomas filed a negligence action against Ciriaco for injuries resulting from an automobile accident. Following a hearing at which Ciriaco failed to appear, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of Thomas and awarded her compensatory damages of $25,000. Ciriaco filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the default judgment, which the trial court granted. Thomas argues that the trial court erred by granting Ciriaco’s motion for relief and by allowing her to file an answer instanter. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

USA v. Conway (January 23, 2008) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0040p-06.pdf
-  After a grand jury issued a four-count indictment against Jeffrey Conway, he pleaded guilty to one of the counts in exchange for which the government dismissed the remaining three counts. At sentencing, the district court enhanced Conway’s offense level based in part on the conduct underlying one of the charged, but dismissed, counts. Because the district court did not err, either as a matter of fact or as a matter of law, in sentencing Conway, we affirm.
 

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

 

Bennett v. Kemper Natl Serv Inc (January 23, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0041p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant Adrienne Bennett (“Bennett”) filed an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, against Kemper National Services, Inc. (“Kemper”), Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (“Lumbermens”), Broadspire Services, Inc. (“Broadspire”), and Platinum Equity, L.L.C. (“Platinum”) (collectively “defendants”) arguing that the decision to deny her long-termdisability (“LTD”) benefits was arbitrary or capricious. The district court granted a judgment in favor of the defendants, and Bennett appealed. Because we conclude that the decision to deny benefits was not the result of a deliberate and principled reasoning process supported by substantial evidence, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to remand to Broadspire for a full and fair review consistent with this opinion.
 

Daily Case Updates