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!

March 10-14, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Cross-appeal dismissed
- Public Utilities * Electric
- Federal law * Preemption of state law
- Defamation
- Local Government Fund
- Real property taxation
- Arbitration / Court may stay trial
- Criminal law * Mental state
- Motions for protective order
- Competency hearing / Ineffective counsel / Sentencing
- Postconviction relief
- Sentencing / Evidence / Ineffective counsel
- Petition for a civil protection order / Child support
- Insurance / “sudden and accidental” exception
- Motion to amend
- Federal Aviation Act / Administrative Procedure Act
- Bankruptcy / Property / Fraudulent transfer
- Zoning / Takings Clause
- Subject matter jurisdiction / Fed Govt territorial jurisdiction
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Flynn v. Westfield Ins. Co. (Slip Opinion) (March 13, 2008) (2008-Ohio-991)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-991.pdf
-  Cross-appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted.
 
Indus. Energy Users-Ohio v. Pub. Util. Comm. (Slip Opinion) (March 13, 2008) (2008-Ohio-990)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-990.pdf
-  Public Utilities * Electric-distribution utility cannot use revenues from its noncompetitive distribution service to subsidize the cost of providing a competitive generation-service component.
 
Talik v. Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc. (Slip Opinion) (March 13, 2008) (2008-Ohio-937)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-937.pdf
-  Federal law * Preemption of state law * Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, Section 901 et seq., Title 33, U.S.Code * Federal act preempts Ohio common-law action for employer intentional tort based on substantial certainty * Ohio common-law intentional tort based on substantial certainty poses obstacle to accomplishment and execution of full purposes of federal act.
 
Jackson v. Columbus (Slip Opinion) (March 13, 2008) (2008-Ohio-1041)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-1041.pdf
-  Defamation * Summary judgment * Motivation * Abuse of privilege * A publisher acts with actual malice by publishing defamatory statements of a third party when the publisher has a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity of those statements, thus defeating any qualified privilege.
 
Elyria v. Lorain Cty. Budget Comm. (Slip Opinion) (March 12, 2008) (2008-Ohio-940)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-940.pdf
-  Local Government Fund * Local Government Revenue Assistance Fund * Jurisdiction * R.C. 5747.55 applies to an appeal taken from budget commission orders that allocate funds based on an alternative method of apportionment * An appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals from an apportionment by a budget commission must strictly comply with R.C. 5747.55(C)(3).
 
Episcopal School of Cincinnati v. Levin (Slip Opinion) (March 12, 2008) (2008-Ohio-939)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-939.pdf
-  Real property taxation*Prospective-use exemption possible even though exempt use never materializes*R.C. 5709.07 and 5709.12.
 
Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield (Slip Opinion) (March 12, 2008) (2008-Ohio-938)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-938.pdf
-  R.C. 2711.02(B) stay order * Standard of review regarding unconscionability of arbitration provision * Proper application of the standard * Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded.
 
State v. Fulmer (Slip Opinion) (March 12, 2008) (2008-Ohio-936)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-936.pdf
-  Criminal law * Mental state * Diminished capacity * Unless defendant asserts insanity defense, defense may not offer evidence of medical condition as proof that defendant lacked mental capacity to form specific mental state required for particular crime.
 
State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner (Slip Opinion) (March 10, 2008) (2008-Ohio-1035)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-1035.pdf
-  Motions for protective order to prevent deposition and in limine to limit discoverable evidence in an original action challenging secretary of state’s rejection of county executive committee’s recommended appointment to the board of elections * Motions denied.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** Judgment Entries ***
 
State of Ohio vs. Lance Alexander (March 12, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-060970_03122008.pdf
-  Alexander was convicted of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, robbery, and a one-year firearm specification for each offense. Alexander argues that (1) the trial court failed to hold a competency hearing, (2) he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) his sentence was contrary to law. We REVERSE Alexander’s conviction for the firearm specification associated with the robbery conviction, and we order a single one-year term for the remaining firearm specifications, for an aggregate prison term of 21 years.
 
State of Ohio vs. Robert Smith (March 12, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-070288_03122008.pdf
-  Smith appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying his R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction relief. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Amadasu Darlington (March 12, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-070306_03122008.pdf
-  Amadasu was convicted of menacing, in violation of R.C. 2903.22. The trial court sentenced him to five years’ community control. Amadasu argues that (1) the trial court erred in failing to consider the relevant statutory factors when it sentenced him to a five-year term of community control, (2) his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (3) he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
***  Opinions ***
 
Monahan v. Duke Realty Corp. (March 14, 2008)(2008-ohio-1113)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-1113.pdf
-  When the plaintiff’s notice of appeal specified only that the appeal was being taken from the denial of a motion to amend her complaint to assert a direct claim against a contractor for personal injuries sustained on leased premises, and there was no mention whatsoever of the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the lessor, the lessor was not properly apprised of any involvement in the appeal, and the plaintiff was, accordingly, not entitled to pursue an assignment of error against the lessor. The plaintiff was not entitled to amend her complaint to add a third-party defendant as a direct defendant after the limitations period had expired; the plaintiff’s failure to assert the direct claim within the limitations period did not arise from a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party as contemplated by Civ.R. 15(C).
 
M & M Metals Internatl., Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co. (March 14, 2008)(2008-ohio-1114)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-1114.pdf
-  In a dispute over insurance coverage, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a scrap dealer’s motion for a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance to allow it to take additional discovery from nonparties to establish choice of law and an exception to a pollution exclusion, as well as from first parties, to determine whether document production was complete, where a discovery record had been fully developed, and where the scrap dealer had failed to demonstrate how the additional discovery would have been essential to defeat the insurers’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to insurers on a scrap-metal dealer’s claims for environmental liabilities and cleanup costs associated with two sites to which it had shipped scrap metal, where the record revealed that the claims arose from periodic waste shipments that were not covered under a pollution exclusion in the dealer’s insurance policies; a “sudden and accidental” exception to the pollution exclusion did not apply because the claims were based on shipments of waste that had extended over a period of years. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a scrap-metal dealer’s motion to strike two insurers from joining in another insurer’s motion for summary judgment based on the pollution exclusion, where the dealer did not dispute that the polices issued by the two insurers contained the same pollution exclusion, and where the dealer had also affirmatively moved for summary judgment on the basis of the terms contained in the pollution exclusion. The trial court did not err in denying scrap-metal dealer’s motion for partial summary judgment on regulatory estoppel, which was based on the contention that the term “sudden” as used in the pollution exclusion should have been construed to mean “unexpected,” where the insurance industry had represented to insurance regulators in 1970 that the intent of the pollution exclusion was to bar coverage for intentional pollution, not pollution that was accidental, and where Ohio courts, by holding that the term “sudden” had a temporal component, had implicitly rejected the argument that extrinsic evidence was permitted to vary the terms of an otherwise clear and unambiguous exclusion.
 
Hayes v. Gibbs (March 14, 2008)(2008-ohio-1115)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-1115.pdf
-  The trial court erred in refusing to consider the merits of a wife’s request for child support contained in her petition for a civil protection order, because R.C. 3113.31 explicitly provides that child support is a part of the relief that may be granted by the trial court in issuing a civil protection order.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

R/T 182, LLC v. FAA (March 11, 2008) (Appeal from Federal Aviation Administration)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0109p-06.pdf
-  R/T 182 appeals the decision of the Federal Aviation Administration to allow a local airport to charge a maintenance fee to airport users who store their aircraft at the airport, while charging no fee to those who merely land at the airport. We AFFIRM.
 
In re: World Savings v. (March 12, 2008) (Appeal from U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Cincinnati)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08b0005p-06.pdf
-  World Savings Bank, FSB (“WSB”) appeals the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment to the bankruptcy trustee (the “Trustee”) on his complaint to avoid the mortgage lien of WSB. The bankruptcy court held that the mortgage’s certificate of acknowledgment did not comply with Ohio law and the Trustee was a bona fide purchaser under the Bankruptcy Code. For the reasons that follow, the bankruptcy court’s order is AFFIRMED.
 
Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter  (March 13, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0110p-06.pdf
-  In this Takings Clause and Due Process case, landowners who sought to rezone their farmland for a trailer park and other residential development challenge the district court’s order granting the defendant Township’s motion for summary judgment. The district court held that the plaintiffs’ Takings Clause claim was not ripe for review in the federal courts due to the rule of Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), which requires that a plaintiff first give the state court an opportunity to adjudicate the issue of just compensation before seeking a declaration from a federal court that the state has failed to provide just compensation. According to Williamson County, a plaintiff bringing a takings claim must first pursue * and be denied * available remedies in state court. The district court in the present case concluded that the plaintiffs’ failure to do so precludes a federal court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over the takings claim. The district court also held that the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant’s zoning ordinance and appeals process violated various constitutional rights * including procedural due process, substantive due process and equal protection * was “ancillary” to the takings claim and thus similarly unripe for review. The plaintiffs argue in their appeal that these injuries are unrelated to the Takings Clause claim and must be reviewed as completed injuries. Conflicting case law exists as to whether such claims are, in fact, independent. However, even assuming that the claims are not ancillary to the Takings Clause issue, summary judgment is nevertheless appropriate for the defendant. Consequently, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
 
USA v. Gabrion (March 14, 2008) (Appeal from W.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0111p-06.pdf
-  In this appeal from a federal criminal conviction, we are confronted with the precursory issue of whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction  over a criminal prosecution for murder * the federal statute for which predicates subject matter jurisdiction on the murder’s having been committed on certain federal property * when the property in question is within the national forest. The dispositive question is whether certain national forest land falls within the federal government’s territorial jurisdiction. Because, in this case, it does, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this criminal prosecution.

Daily Case Updates