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 15th & 16th, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Attorney misconduct
- Appeal dismissed
- Public utilities
- Workers’ compensation
- Antitrust Law / Damages Award / Jury Instructions
- Negligence / Breach of Fiduciary Duty / Fraudulent Concealment
- Pension Benefits / Equitable-estoppel / Fiduciary-breach
- Civil Rights Act / Racial Harassment / Damages Award
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Peden (Slip Opinion)(May 15, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2237)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2237.pdf
-  Attorney misconduct * Six-month suspension stayed on conditions * Failure to safeguard client funds.
 
State v. Dankworth (Slip Opinion)(May 15, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2234)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2234.pdf
-  Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted.
 
Doe v. Massillon City School Dist. (Slip Opinion)(May 15, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2233)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2233.pdf
-  Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted.
 
Elyria Foundry Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (Slip Opinion)(May 15, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2230)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2230.pdf
-  Public utilities * Interruptible electric service * Fairness of economic interruptions * Order affirmed.
 
State ex rel. McDaniel v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)(May 15, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2227)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2227.pdf
-  Workers’ compensation * Termination of permanent total disability * Engaging in sustained remunerative employment * Context * Judgment reversed.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broschak (Slip Opinion)(May 15, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2224)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2224.pdf
-  Attorneys * Misconduct * Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation * Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law * Neglecting entrusted legal matter * Intentionally failing to seek client’s lawful objective * Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice * Indefinite suspension.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

In re: Scrap Metal v. (May 15, 2008)(Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0182p-06.pdf
-  Defendant-Appellant Columbia Iron and Metal Company (“Columbia”) appeals a jury verdict finding Columbia liable for antitrust violations and awarding the Plaintiffs-Appellees damages exceeding $20 million. The most critical question on appeal relates to the damages testimony of Plaintiffs-Appellees’ expert, Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger. Columbia asserts that Leitzinger’s damages calculations are unreliable, and that the district court therefore erred in admitting his testimony. Columbia also raises three additional arguments on appeal: (1) the damages award is not supported by sufficient evidence and represents an impermissible “fluid recovery”; (2) the district court improperly allowed the case to proceed as a class action; and (3) the district court improperly instructed the jury on the tolling of the statute of limitations. Finding no reversible error by the district court, we AFFIRM the verdict and damages award.
 
Brittingham v. GMC (May 16, 2008)(Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0185p-06.pdf
-  The plaintiffs, Julie and David Brittingham, appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to remand the case to state court and its grant of summary judgment in favor of both defendants, Dr. Virginia Stull (“Dr. Stull”) and General Motors Corporation (“GM”). The plaintiffs’ claims arose from a pre-employment physical examination conducted by one of GM’s physicians, Dr. Stull. That examination produced two abnormal lung function tests, the results of which were never discussed with Ms. Brittingham. When she was later diagnosed with a lung disease, the plaintiffs sued GM, Dr. Stull, and several others for negligence, intentional misconduct, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment. The case was originally filed in state court, but was removed by the defendants to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of complete preemption. Because we find that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND with instructions to remand the matter to the state court from which it came.
 

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

 

Zirnhelt v. MI Con Gas, et al (May 16, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0183p-06.pdf
-  In this pension-benefits case, Diane Zirnhelt argues that the district court erred in (1) upholding the company’s denial of benefits, (2) denying her motion to amend her complaint to add an equitable-estoppel claim, (3) dismissing her breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and (4) awarding her just $10,500 based on the company’s failure to provide her with pension plan documents in a timely manner. For its part, the company argues (in its cross appeal) that the district court should not have imposed any monetary penalty. We affirm.
 
Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc (May 16, 2008)(Appeal from M.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0184p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiffs Bobby Bailey and Robert Smith, both African-American, were dock workers and truck drivers for defendant USF Holland, Inc. After making numerous complaints over the course of several years regarding their coworkers’ habit of referring to them as “boy,” “hey boy,” or “damn it boy,” and subjecting them to other forms of racial harassment, plaintiffs sued defendant for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Following a non-jury trial, the district court ruled for plaintiffs and awarded damages. We affirm.
 

Daily Case Updates