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!

June 13, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Writs / Sentencing
- Sex offenses
- Civil Miscellaneous / Wrongful-death action
- Attorney Fees
- Juvenile Law / Public Record / Dependency / Appellate Review
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Lynn Roberts vs. The Honorable Ralph E. Winkler (June 13, 2008)(2008-ohio-2843)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2843.pdf
-  A writ of prohibition is not a substitute for an appeal and should not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment in a case that the lower court is authorized to adjudicate; rather a writ of prohibition tests and determines only the subject-matter jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal. The relator bears a three-part burden to demonstrate that he is entitled to a writ of prohibition: he must establish that (1) the trial court is about to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy at law exists. Under Loc.R. 2 of the First Appellate District, there are three means of presenting evidence in a prohibition action: an agreed statement of facts, a stipulation, or a deposition; absent the consent of the court, there is no provision for considering material attached to the complaint as evidence. Because of the summary nature of a writ of prohibition, while this court may try disputed facts presented in conformity with our local rule, it will not receive oral testimony or evidence by other unapproved means to resolve those factual disputes. A defendant is not entitled to a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from resentencing him, when there are no properly presented facts to demonstrate that the trial court is without jurisdiction to impose a new sentence because the original sentence has already been fully served, and when the defendant would have an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal if the trial court were to erroneously impose a new sentence. Writ DENIED.
 
State of Ohio vs. James Jackson (June 13, 2008)(2008-ohio-2847)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2847.pdf
-  The trial court did not err in classifying defendant as a sexual predator under R.C. 2950.09(B)(3):  Defendant had not raped his victim with a sexual animus and had no prior sex offenses; but many of the R.C. 2950.09 factors do not touch on the offender’s motivation for the predicate offense; and evidence that defendant had an extensive criminal record and had raped his victim in a vile, reprehensible and cruel manner showed his likelihood of recidivism and provided competent and credible evidence to support his sexual-predator classification. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Samantha Bishop, admx. of the Estate of James H. Bishop Jr., Deceased, et al. vs. Carpenter's Local Union #126, et al. (June 13, 2008)(2008-ohio-2846)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2846.pdf
-  In a wrongful-death action arising from an accident caused by an intoxicated driver after she had left a union picnic, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the union: the union could not be held liable for selling beer without a permit, because the admission charge for the picnic was for the patrons to attend the event, not specifically to receive free beer. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the operators of the picnic grounds under Ohio’s Dramshop Act, R.C. 4399.18: the plaintiff failed to establish that the park had sold alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or that it had sold alcohol to a minor. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the operators of the picnic grounds for allegedly causing the decedents’ deaths by failing to provide adequate security: the park’s duty to provide security extended only to the picnic grounds, and there was no evidence that the park had assumed the duty to protect motorists from intoxicated patrons away from the park premises. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Cincinnati City School District Board of Education vs. State Board of Education of Ohio, et al. (June 13, 2008)(2008-ohio-2845)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2845.pdf
-  The trial court erred in determining that a city school district was an organization and was thus not entitled to an award of attorney fees after it had prevailed in a lawsuit against the state of Ohio: Under the principle of ejusdem generis, a city school district should not be considered an organization pursuant to R.C. 2335.39(A)(2)(d), when the statute lists the term organization in conjunction with the terms unincorporated business, partnership, corporation, and association; unlike a school district, the latter entities are generally private bodies engaged in business for profit, whose governing boards are not elected by popular vote. Judgment REVERSED and Cause REMANDED.
 
In Re: Maryah Spencer, Sarya Jones, Kymahn Spencer, Emia Spencer, Aneayah Jones (June 13, 2008)(2008-ohio-2844)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2844.pdf
-  Juvenile courts have discretion to exclude the general public from juvenile proceedings, but the proceedings are neither presumed open nor presumed closed. Restricting public or press access to a dependency proceeding is appropriate if, after hearing evidence and argument on the issue, the court finds that (1) there exists a reasonable and substantial basis for believing that public access could harm the child or endanger the fairness of the adjudication, (2) the potential for harm outweighs the benefits of public access, and (3) there are no reasonable alternatives to closure; the burden of establishing these factors is on the party seeking closure of the dependency proceeding. Pursuant to Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii), an objection to a magistrate’s factual finding must be supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding; the rule places a mandatory obligation on the objecting party to file a transcript with the juvenile court within 30 days unless that time is extended in writing by the court. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error by reference to materials properly contained in the record, but in the absence of a transcript properly filed with the juvenile court in accordance with Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii), the juvenile court and this court must presume the regularity of a magistrate’s factual findings. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

Daily Case Updates