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. 21st, 2009

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

TOPICS:
- Dissolution /  Separate vs Marital property / Spousal-Child Support
- Anders v. California
- Evidence Insufficient
- Motion to withdraw plea
- Auto Insurance / Underinsured motorist premium
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

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

Diane G. Senske vs. David P. Senske (Jan. 21, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080328_01212009.pdf
-  Defendant-appellant David Senske appeals from the judgment of the Domestic Relations Division of the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court awarding plaintiff-appellee Diane Senske spousal support and child support, contesting not only the support awards but also the court’s finding that a portion of a Franklin Savings bank account was separate property. We affirm in part.

State of Ohio vs. Daeshaun Morris (Jan. 21, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080178_01212009.pdf
-  Daeshawn Morris was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine. After withdrawing his not guilty plea, Morris agreed to plead guilty to the trafficking charge and receive two years’ incarceration. The court agreed to dismiss the possession charge. On appeal, counsel for Morris has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, stating that counsel has conscientiously reviewed the record and has found no nonfrivolous grounds on which to appeal. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Brandon Robinson (Jan. 21, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080164_01212009.pdf
-  Brandon Robinson appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine. Robinson asserts that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Ledon Richardson (Jan. 21, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080114_01212009.pdf
-  Ledon Richardson appeals his conviction for domestic violence. Richardson was indicted for domestic violence against his wife. On December 3, 2007, he pleaded guilty to the offense. During the sentencing hearing on January 14, 2008, Richardson’s counsel informed the court that Richardson wanted to withdraw his plea. According to Richardson, his counsel had told him prior to pleading that he would receive probation for the offense. The trial court denied his motion to withdraw his plea and sentenced him to one year in prison with credit for 81 days that Richardson had already served. Richardson asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
      

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

 

Dennis Pennington v. State Farm Mutual Automobile I (Jan. 21, 2009)(Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0022p-06.pdf
-  Stacey Pennington, the 17-year-old daughter of Dennis and Sharon Pennington, was killed in an automobile accident in July 2004. The Penningtons had four drivers in their family, all of whom were insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. In addition to insuring their vehicles, the Penningtons purchased underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage with limits of $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident (100/300 UIM coverage). UIM coverage provides funds to an insured if the liability insurance held by the person responsible for the accident is insufficient to compensate the insured for injuries incurred. At issue on appeal is whether, under Kentucky law, an insurance company may charge a greater UIM premium based on the number of drivers on a policy without being liable for multiple UIM coverage units (i.e., “stacking”). The district court determined that the Penningtons purchased onlfour drivers and were not entitled to stacking. This appeal followed. A few weeks prior to oral argument, the Penningtons filed a motion asking us to certify the legal question at issue to the Kentucky Supreme Court. For the reasons set forth below, we DENY the motion to certify and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 

Daily Case Updates