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!

February 6, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Trade secrets
- Wills * Testamentary trusts
- Writ of Habeas corpus
- Evidence - Insufficient
- Subject-matter jurisdiction
- Ineffective assistance of counsel
- Juvenile Law / Permanent Custody
- Constitution / Ordinances / Entertainers license
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

*** Slip Opinions ***
 
Stevens v. Radey (February 6, 2008)(2008-Ohio-291)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-291.pdf
-  Wills * Testamentary trusts * Trust for life of beneficiary with no provision for remainder * Assignment of interest in remainder occurs at death of testator * When testator manifests no contrary intent, vesting of estate occurs at death of testator, not of beneficiary of life interest.
 
Al Minor & Assoc., Inc. v. Martin (February 6, 2008)(2008-Ohio-292)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-292.pdf
-  Trade secrets * R.C. 1333.61(D) * Confidential client lists * List does not lose its character as trade secret merely because former employee utilized memory of list rather than writing or other tangible source.
 
Barber v. Moore (February 6, 2008)(2008-Ohio-293)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-293.pdf
-  Judgment affirmed.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** Judgment Entries ***
 
State of Ohio vs. Kelvin Sanders (February 6, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070154_02062008.pdf
-  Sanders appeals a conviction for felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), with an accompanying firearm specification. Sanders contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Robert Hill (February 6, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070169_02062008.pdf
-  Hill appeals the trial court’s judgment resentencing him in compliance with R.C. 2967.28(B), the statute governing mandatory post-release control notification. Hill argues that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his case and that the resentencing was barred by res judicata. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Angela Garner (February 6, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070183_02062008.pdf
-  Garner appeals from a conviction for attempted assault under R.C 2903.13(A) and 2923.02(A). She contends that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Specifically, she argues that the state failed to prove the required mental state. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Willie Rogers (February 6, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070237_02062008.pdf
-  Rogers appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of two counts each of aggravated robbery and robbery, with firearm specifications. Rogers argues that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. He also argues that the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of Harris and Swann on the issue of bias. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
In Re: Daniel Vasquez (February 6, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070714_02062008.pdf
-  Ten-year-old Daniel Vazquez had been placed in the interim custody of Hamilton County Jobs and Family Services. HCJFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. Tinamaria Vazquez alleges that the trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody of Daniel to HCJFS was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in Daniel’s best interest to be placed in HCJFS’s custody, that Daniel could not be placed with his mother within a reasonable time, and that he should not be placed with her. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Amadasu v. Christ Hosp (February 1, 2008) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0060p-06.pdf
-  Darlington Amadasu, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his employment discrimination and civil rights action filed pursuant to Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d & 2000e; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623; the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-213; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986; and state law. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. The panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). Accordingly, we deny the request for oral argument and affirm the district court’s judgment. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
 

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

 

729, Inc. v. Kenton Cnty Fiscal (February 6, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0063p-06.pdf
-  This case stems from Kenton County’s enactment of a licensing ordinance that comprehensively regulates sexually oriented businesses within the County’s jurisdiction. A group of such businesses and their employees brought suit against the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and K.R.S. § 418.040, challenging the constitutionality of the Ordinance. Before the district court, the plaintiffs raised more than ten separate constitutional claims. Both sides moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted to the County. The plaintiffs raise four issues on appeal. First, they claim that the Ordinance violates the First Amendment by barring entertainers from entering areas of an establishment occupied by customers within one hour of the entertainers’ performing semi-nude on stage. Second, they claim that the Ordinance violates their rights under the Contracts Clause of Article I, § 10 of the Constitution. Third, they claim that the Ordinance’s judicial review provisions do not satisfy the First Amendment’s prompt-judicial-review requirements. Fourth, they claim that the Ordinance’s license fees are excessive, content-based taxes that violate the First Amendment. Following a brief recitation of the background of this case, we address each of the plaintiffs’ challenges in turn, relating details relevant to each respective challenge when appropriate. Ultimately, we affirm the district court with respect to the first three challenges and we vacate and remand for further proceedings with respect to the fourth challenge.
 

Daily Case Updates