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!

May 2, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Malpractice
- Civil Service / Constitutional Law
- Workers' compensation
- Procedure / Rules / Consittutional Law
- Criminal Rule 11 / Sentencing
- Insurance / Civil Miscellaneous
- Real Property
- Class Action Fairness Act
- Sentencing / Motion to suppress
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Hodesh v. Korelitz (May 2, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2052)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2052.pdf
-  The trial court erred in failing to disclose the terms of the partial settlement agreement between Appellee and Jewish Hospital and the Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati (collectively, “Jewish Hospital”). This Court finds the agreement to be a valid and enforceable “Mary Carter” agreement; however, the instrument should have been subject to pre-trial discovery and admissible into evidence. Although the ruling above disposes of the matter on direct appeal, this Court further provides as guidance that the pre-amendment version of R.C. 1343.03(C) applies insofar as it determines the proper mechanism for calculating prejudgment interest. Finally, pursuant to Plaintiff’s cross-appeal, the trial court did not err in granting Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on the issues of spoliation of evidence, fraud and punitive damages. Judgment AFFIRMED in Part, REVERSED in Part, and REMANDED.
 
Neville v. Cincinnati (May 2, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2053)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2053.pdf
-  The trial court did not err when it dismissed police officers’ claims seeking promotion under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code: The officers could not present sufficient evidence to support their equal-protection claim that the city’s promotion of an African-American man who was ranked lower on a promotional-eligible list was irrational; and they could not show that they had been deprived of property without due process, where they had adequate state-law remedies. The trial court erred when it dismissed the claims of two of the officers who sought a writ of mandamus: The two officers had adequately alleged that there were two vacancies to which they were entitled; but the claim of a third officer was properly dismissed, where his claim to promotion was derivative of another person’s claim that was not pursued. In view of the trial court’s dismissal of the officers’ claims under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), their motion for summary judgment was not ripe for consideration, so the trial court did not err by denying it. Judgment AFFIRMED in Part, REVERSED in Part, and Cause REMANDED.
 
Collins v. W. S. Life Ins. Co. (May 2, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2054)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2054.pdf
-  The trial court did not err by allowing an employee to participate in the workers’ compensation fund, where she was injured on a public sidewalk that transected her employer’s business complex while on her way to her office from the employer’s parking garage. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Adewusi (May 2, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2055)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2055.pdf
-  The failure to declare a mistrial was erroneous when, in a bench trial, there was a substitution of judges before all the evidence had been presented: the successor judge was unable to properly serve as the trier of fact and to adequately assess material evidence that had been presented to his predecessor, and this resulted in a denial of fundamental fairness to the defendant. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
 
Cincinnati v. Stringer (May 2, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2056)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2056.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in suppressing evidence where the warrantless stop of the defendant’s vehicle was unreasonable: there was no probable cause to believe that a cracked taillight on the vehicle was a violation of a local ordinance, when the other taillight was in proper working condition. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Pitts (May 2, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2057)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2057.pdf
-  The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea: the defendant’s attorney was competent, the trial court held a thorough Crim.R. 11 hearing, the court properly considered the defendant’s motion, and the court did not believe that the defendant was not guilty. The trial court had the discretion to believe the information about the defendant’s offense that was presented in the presentence-investigation report rather than the statements made by the victim in an affidavit after the defendant had entered his guilty plea. The trial court had the discretion to impose a sentence anywhere within the applicable statutory range. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Gross (May 2, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2058)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2058.pdf
-  When a dispute involves whether coverage is available under an insurance policy and requires the interpretation of a “named driver exclusion,” the action sounds in contract rather than in tort. When an action sounds in contract, the law of the state where the contract was made ordinarily governs interpretation of that contract. An “out-of-state coverage clause” in an insurance policy cannot void an otherwise valid named-driver exclusion. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
 
Old Republic Natl. Title Ins. Co. v. Fifth Third Bank(May 2, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2059)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2059.pdf
-  The trial court improperly applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation to grant a lienholder priority when the lienholder had failed to show that it had followed “ordinary and reasonable business practices” when recording its lien at least 27 days after the lien was recordable: the only evidence of “ordinary and reasonable business practices” in the record indicated that the lien was to be recorded within 24 hours. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
 

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

 

Savedoff v. Access Group, Inc. (May 2, 2008)(Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0170p-06.pdf
-  In this diversity class action, brought pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (2006), Defendant Access Group, Inc. (“Access Group”) appeals the district court’s denial of Access Group’s motion for summary judgment and its grant of Plaintiff Jill B. Savedoff’s (“Savedoff”) motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for Savedoff’s breach of contract claims. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the judgment of the district court, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

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

 

USA v. Blair (May 2, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0171p-06.pdf
-  Defendant-appellant Marcus Blair appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment and his motion to suppress. Blair was indicted on a federal firearm charge and entered into a plea agreement with the government. Later, Blair was indicted on a federal drug charge that stemmed from a traffic stop. Blair filed a motion to dismiss the drug indictment, claiming that it violated the plea agreement in the firearm case. Blair also filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the traffic stop. The district court denied both motions. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Blair’s motion to suppress and VACATE Blair’s sentence in the firearm case. This result makes it unnecessary for us to reach the plea agreement issue.
 

Daily Case Updates