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!

Jan. 6th, 2009

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

TOPICS:
- Contracts / Good Faith
- Workers' Compensation / State insurance fund rebates
- Real Estate / Market value diminution
- Rooker-Feldman doctrine / Attorney Disbarment
- Harassment / Deliberately indifferent
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Casserlie v. Shell Oil Co. (Slip Opinion)(Jan. 6, 2009)(2009-Ohio-3)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-3.pdf
-  Contracts * Good faith * R.C. 1302.18(B) * When a price that has been left open in a contract is fixed at a price posted by a seller or buyer, and the posted price is both commercially reasonable and nondiscriminatory, the price setter has acted in good faith as required by R.C. 1302.18(B), and a subjective inquiry into the motives of the price setter is not permitted.
 
Frisch's Restaurants, Inc. v. Ryan (Slip Opinion)(Jan. 6, 2009)(2009-Ohio-2)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-2.pdf
-  Administrator of Bureau of Workers’ Compensation did not abuse his discretion in defining the term “subscriber” as contained in former R.C. 4123.32(A) in determining which employers should receive rebates from the state insurance fund.
 
Martin v. Design Constr. Servs., Inc. (Slip Opinion)(Jan. 6, 2009)(2009-Ohio-1)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-1.pdf
-  In an action based on temporary injury to noncommercial real estate, a plaintiff need not prove diminution in the market value of the property in order to recover the reasonable costs of restoration, but diminution of the market value may be a factor bearing on the reasonableness of the cost of restoration.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
No Opinions.
 

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

 

In re: Linda S. Cook v. (Jan. 6, 2009) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0001p-06.pdf
-  Linda S. Cook appeals from an order of disbarment entered against her by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Cook’s disbarment by the district court follows on the heels of her Ohio state disbarment. On appeal, Cook raises two fundamental claims: (1) that the Ohio courts denied her due process during her state disbarment proceedings; and (2) that these due process violations in her state disbarment proceedings tainted the district court’s proceedings. As to Cook’s first claim, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider directly whether Cook’s state disbarment proceedings violated her due process rights. Moreover, even if we could consider the issue, Cook’s claim fails on the merits. As to the second issue, we find nothing in the record to support Cook’s claim. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order permanently disbarring Cook from the practice of law before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
      

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

 

David Patterson v. Hudson Area Schools (Jan. 6, 2009) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0002p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiffs-Appellants David Patterson and Dena Patterson (collectively referred to as “the Pattersons”), appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Hudson Area Schools (“Hudson”) on the Pattersons’ claim that Hudson violated Title IX by allowing their son, DP,1 to be harassed by other students. The Pattersons’ sole argument is that the district court erred in finding that, as a matter of law, Hudson was not deliberately indifferent to the alleged sexual harassment of DP. Because we believe that the Pattersons have established that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hudson was deliberately indifferent to the student on student sexual harassment of DP, we REVERSE the grant of summary judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

Daily Case Updates