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 8, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Counsel / ORC 2941.25
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act / Attorney's Fees
- Due process violations
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Chambers (February 8, 2008)(2008-Ohio-470)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-470.pdf
-  When a defendant has failed to make a timely and unequivocal assertion of the right to self-representation, a trial court does not err in failing to allow the defendant to represent himself during trial: spur-of-the-moment emotional responses do not constitute unequivocal assertions of the right to self-representation. When a defendant provides contradictory responses regarding whether the defendant desires a continuance, no abuse of discretion occurs in the trial court’s denial of the continuance. A motion for the appointment of an expert witness is properly denied when the defendant fails to show that an expert would aid in his defense and that the denial of an expert appointment would result in an unfair trial. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request the appointment of a fingerprint expert, when the testimony that such an expert would have provided was purely speculative and might have revealed inculpatory evidence; nor was counsel ineffective for failing to subpoena witnesses to testify on the defendant’s behalf, when the defendant refused to cooperate with counsel by revealing the names of those witnesses whom the defendant wanted to testify. Convictions for trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and for possession of the same drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) are allied offenses of similar import; the trial court therefore erred in imposing a separate sentence for each offense.
 

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

 

Imwalle v. Reliance Medical (February 8, 2008) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0066p-06.pdf
-  Dennis Imwalle became President of Reliance Medical Products, Inc. in 1990. He was fired in January of 2004, three months after he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision (EEOC) that alleged both age and national-orgin discrimination. He was 62 years old at the time his employment ended. Imwalle's suit in the district court resulted in a $185,000 jury verdict for compensatory damages based on his claim that he was fired in retaliation for filing his discrimination claims. The court subsequently awarded him approxiamately $250,000 more in attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. Reliance and its affiliated companies have appealed, challenging both the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law and the amount of the award for attorney fees and costs. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 
Slyman v. Piqua (February 8, 2008) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0067p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff Jeffrey Slyman was appointed by defendant the City of Piqua as an Assistant Law Director. When defendant Grant Kerber, Piqua’s then-Current Law Director and plaintiff’s supervisor, discharged Slyman, Slyman sued, alleging identical procedural due process violations against both Piqua and Kerber. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff’s due process claims fail because he did not have a federally protected property interest in continued employment. The district court agreed and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed this timely appeal. Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, we are not persuaded that a lengthy opinion is necessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See Slyman v. City of Piqua, 494 F. Supp. 2d 732 (S.D. Ohio. 2007).
 
Darlington Amadasu v. Mercy Franciscan Hospital (February 8, 2008) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0068p-06.pdf
-  Darlington Amadasu, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order dismissing his civil complaint. He moves for a copy of the transcripts at the government’s expense, for a stay of the briefing schedule, and for miscellaneous relief. The defendants move to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to Amadasu’s failure to file objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

Daily Case Updates