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 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

March 3 & 4, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Zoning / Takings and Equal Protection clauses
- Taft-Hartley Act / Labor Management Relations Act
- IRS / Change in the method of accounting
- Consumer bankruptcy / Chapter 13 / Gap in the law
 

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

 

Trafalgar Corporation v. Miami Cnty (March 3, 2008) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0098p-06.pdf
-  Trafalgar Corporation sought a federal court determination of its constitutional takings and equal protection claims against the Miami County Board of Commissioners and Concord Township. The district court dismissed the case on a motion for summary judgment finding that Trafalgar’s claims were barred by principles of preclusion. For the following reasons we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
 

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

 

USA v. Mabry AND USA v. Michael (March 3, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0099p-06.pdf
-  Defendants-Appellants Walter Ralph Mabry and Anthony Michael were convicted and sentenced for conspiring to solicit and obtain prohibited payments from union contractors, and for soliciting and obtaining such payments, in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186. On appeal, Mabry and Michael argue that (1) the district court erred in ruling that the term “settlement” under 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(2) is limited to settlements in the context of formal litigation or arbitration; (2) they are entitled to a judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding that the exception to liability under 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(3) should not apply; and (3) the district court engaged in unsupported judicial fact finding to arrive at Mabry’s sentence. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court on all counts, but recognize the possibility of a broader interpretation of “settlement” than that of the district court.
 
Huffman v. CIR (March 4, 2008) (Appeal from Commissioner of Internal Revenue)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0100p-06.pdf
-  The Tax Court upheld the determination by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the correction of a consistently repeated inventory accounting error in this case amounted to a “change in method of accounting” under I.R.C. § 481. Section 481 permits correction of accounts for otherwise time-barred years. Because the Commissioner properly determined that § 481 applies, we affirm.
 
AmeriCredit Fin Serv v. Long (March 4, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0101p-06.pdf
-  This consumer bankruptcy, Chapter 13 case arises because the debtor bought a car under a typical financing arrangement in which the lender retained a lien or mortgage on the car as security for payment of the outstanding loan that enabled the debtor to buy the car. The debtor proposed to surrender the car to the finance company as part of the Chapter 13 plan. The value of the car was less than the outstanding debt. Due to a glitch or gap in a recent revision of the Bankruptcy Code intended to benefit creditors, the law is now silent on what happens to the remaining indebtedness in the surrender-of-the-car situation. The bankruptcy court below held that the congressional mistake in drafting the revision means that the remaining indebtedness is completely wiped out. We believe the gap should be filled and the Congressional mistake corrected. The law previously governing this situation should be restored until Congress can correct its mistake and fill in the gap.
 

Daily Case Updates