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 28 & 29, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Election
- Criminal Rule 11
- Arrest / Lesser included / Instructions / Miranda Prosecutor
- Medicare Secondary Payer Statute
- Bankruptcy / Prepetition transfer
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

State ex rel. Parrott v. Brunner (Slip Opinion) (February 29, 2008) (2008-Ohio-813)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-813.pdf
-  Elections * Prohibition * Other writ * Relators claims not cognizable in prohibition or in “other writ” under R.C. 2503.40 * Writs denied.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State of Ohio vs. Jerome Kinebrew (February 29, 2008)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-812.pdf
-  The mandates of R.C. 2945.05, requiring the filing of a written waiver of a trial by jury, are not applicable when an accused enters a plea of guilty; thus a written jury waiver is not required before a guilty plea may be accepted. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Frank Sofer (February 29, 2008)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-811.pdf
-  Since the police had a valid arrest warrant, they were permitted to enter the defendant’s home to effectuate his arrest. The trial court properly instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of murder, over defendant’s objection, where the evidence supported an acquittal of the charged offense of aggravated murder while supporting a conviction for the lesser-included offense; the defendant did not have the right to prevent the jury from being instructed on the lesser-included offense if the instruction was otherwise proper. The state did not improperly comment on the defendant’s silence, where he had waived his Miranda rights and had freely spoken to police; making reference to defendant’s equivocal answers concerning whether he had killed the victim did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

Stalley v. Methodist Healthcare (February 28, 2008) (Appeal from W.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0097p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant Douglas B. Stalley (“Stalley”) filed seven separate lawsuits in the district courts in Tennessee * in addition to numerous cases in other jurisdictions against different defendants * claiming that Defendants- Appellees Methodist Healthcare (“Methodist”), Sumner Regional Health Systems, Inc. (“Sumner”), Erlanger Health System (“Erlanger”), Wellmont Health System (“Wellmont”), Mountain States Health Alliance (“Mountain States”), Covenant Health (“Covenant”), and The Baptist Health System of East Tennessee (“Baptist”)1 (collectively referred to as “Appellees”) all violated the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSP”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b). In none of the virtually identical complaints does Stalley allege any direct injury. Instead, the complaints are premised on his belief that the MSP is a qui tam statute granting him standing to sue as a private attorney general. The several district courts, following the clear language of the MSP and a plethora of case law, separately ruled that the MSP is not a qui tam statute and, therefore, Stalley does not have Article III standing to raise these claims. Stalley appeals those decisions. Because we find no basis upon which to hold that the MSP is a qui tam statute, and no basis upon which to find that Stalley can otherwise demonstrate standing, we AFFIRM the judgments of the district courts.
 
In re: Michael Sterba v. (February 29, 2008) (Appeal from U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Cleveland)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0098p-06.pdf
-  The chapter 7 trustee filed an adversary proceeding in the debtors’ chapter 7 case pending in the Northern District of Ohio seeking to avoid preferential transfers from MBNA America Bank, N.A. (“Appellant”) in the amount of $8,206 under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, and 551 and Ohio Revised Code § 1313.56. The Appellant appeals an order of the bankruptcy court denying its motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(b).
 

Daily Case Updates