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!

May 1, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Civil Protection Order / Parental Rights
- Attorneys * Misconduct
- Sentencing: served consecutively
- Sherman Act / Cemeteries / Antitrust claims
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

State v. Price (Slip Opinion)(May 1, 2008)(2008-Ohio-1974)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-1974.pdf
-  Criminal law * Notice of prohibited activity * A divorce decree may modify a civil protection order beyond the sections concerning parental rights and responsibilities * Judgment reversed.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Zigan (Slip Opinion)(May 1, 2008)(2008-Ohio-1976)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-1976.pdf
-  Attorneys * Misconduct * Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation * Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law * Neglecting entrusted legal matter * Failing to maintain separate account * Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice * Failing to maintain separate account * Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation * Permanent disbarment.
 
Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cunningham (Slip Opinion)(May 1, 2008)(2008-Ohio-1979)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-1979.pdf
-  Attorneys at law*Misconduct*Threatening criminal charges to gain an advantage in a civil matter*Public reprimand.
 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jackel (Slip Opinion)(May 1, 2008)(2008-Ohio-1981)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-1981.pdf
-  Attorney misconduct * Multiple Disciplinary Rule violations including aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law, sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, and knowingly revealing a client’s confidences * Two-year suspension.
 
State v. Bates (Slip Opinion)(May 1, 2008)(2008-Ohio-1983)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-1983.pdf
-  Criminal law * Consecutive and concurrent sentences * Trial court has discretion and authority to impose prison sentence consecutively to prison sentence imposed by another Ohio court * Judgment affirmed.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

MI Div Monument v. MI Cemetery, et al (May 1, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0169p-06.pdf
-  This case involves allegations of anticompetitive behavior in the market for burial monuments in the state of Michigan. Three independent monument builders and a nonprofit trade association of monument builders*the Michigan Division of the Monument Builders of North America*(collectively, the Builders) filed the present lawsuit against 20 cemetery operators and the Michigan Cemetery Association (collectively, the Cemeteries). The lawsuit alleges that the Cemeteries are engaged in (1) an illegal tying arrangement, in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, (2) an illegal conspiracy to restrain competition and monopolize trade, also in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, (3) an illegal conspiracy to restrain trade, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, and (4) violations of the Michigan Prepaid Funeral and Cemetery Sales Act, M.C.L. § 328.225. The district court dismissed the Builders’ claims after concluding that the proposed geographic market as set forth in the complaint was too narrow as a matter of law. Subsequently, the district court denied motions for sanctions against the Builders that were filed by several of the cemetery operators. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court on the merits of the antitrust claims, but VACATE its denial of sanctions and REMAND the case for further proceedings on that issue.
 

Daily Case Updates