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. 7th, 2009

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

TOPICS:
- Litigation / Asbestos related tort claims
- Civil procedure / Medical claims
- Breach of Contract / Malpractice / Collateral estoppel / Statute of limitations
- Bankruptcy / Chp 7 / Records / Final and Appealable order / Jurisdiction
- Clean Water Act / Interpretation / Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Staley v. AC&S, Inc. (Slip Opinion)(Jan. 7, 2009)(2009-Ohio-5)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-5.pdf
-  Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of Ackison v. Anchor Packing Co.

Stahlheber v. Lac d'Amiante du Quebec Ltee (Slip Opinion)(Jan. 7, 2009)(2009-Ohio-6)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-6.pdf
-  Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of Ackison v. Anchor Packing Co.

Holbein v. Genesis Healthcare Sys. (Slip Opinion)(Jan. 7, 2009)(2009-Ohio-7)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-7.pdf
-  Court of appeals' judgment affirmed on the authority of Fletcher v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
*** Judgment Entries ***

Karin E. Laine vs. Christopher P. Finney, Esq., et al. (Jan. 7, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080133_01072009.pdf
-  Laine sued Utz and Half asserting claims of breach of contract, unpaid wages, and sexual harassment. In response, Utz retained defendant-appellee Finney, Stagnaro, Saba & Klusmeier Co., L.P.A to represent Half, and later retained separate counsel for his personal representation. The wrong, as alleged in Laine’s malpractice complaint, was that Finney L.P.A., “act[ed] without proper authority [when it sued her] purportedly on behalf of Half, Inc., and Half, Ltd.” After entering summary judgment for Finney L.P.A., the present appeal followed. We affirm the entry of summary judgment—Laine’s malpractice suit was filed too late, and the issue whether Finney L.P.A., was authorized to represent Half had already been resolved by the trial court in the underlying suit. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
      

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

 

Fioravante Settembre v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insur (Jan. 7, 2009)(Appeal from W.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0003p-06.pdf
-  In this matter, the bankruptcy court granted the appellants (collectively, “Fidelity”) summary judgment on their complaint against the debtor, Fioravante Settembre, for denial of a discharge. The district court reversed and remanded the case for trial on Fidelity’s complaint. Fidelity now seeks review of the district court’s order.

Delta Council v. EPA AND
Croplife America v. EPA AND
IL Fertilizer v. EPA AND
Syngenta Crop v. EPA AND
Environmental Maine v. EPA AND
Baykeeper v. EPA AND
Agribusiness Assoc v. EPA AND
Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA AND
Southern Crop v. EPA AND
BASF Corp v. EPA AND
The Natl Cotton Cncl v. EPA (Jan. 7, 2009)(Appeal from Environmental Protection Administration )
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0004p-06.pdf
-  These proceedings involve a final regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of “pollutants” into the nation’s waters by, among other things, requiring entities that emit “pollutants” to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit. Id. §§ 1311(a), 1342. On November 27, 2007, the EPA issued a Final Rule concluding that pesticides applied in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (the “FIFRA”) are exempt from theting requirements. See 71 Fed. Reg. 68,483 (Nov. 27, 2006) (the “Final Rule”). Two different groups of Petitioners—one representing environmental interest groups and the other representing industry interest groups—oppose the EPA’s Final Rule as exceeding the EPA’s interpretive authority. The EPA defends the Final Rule by arguing that the terms of the Clean Water Act are ambiguous and that the Final Rule is a reasonable construction of the Clean Water Act entitled to deference from this Court. We cannot agree. The Clean Water Act is not ambiguous. Further, it is a fundamental precept of this Court that we interpret unambiguous expressions of Congressional will as written. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). Therefore, we hold that the EPA’s Final Rule is not a reasonable interpretation of the Act and VACATE the Final Rule.
 

Daily Case Updates