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. 22nd & 23rd, 2009

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

TOPICS:
- Search & Seizure / Arrest
- Zoning
- Attorney Fees / Attorney sanctions / Employment
- Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
- Rehearing en banc / School law / Student speech / Disruption
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
State of Ohio vs. Nicole Evans (Jan. 23, 2009)(2009-Ohio-241)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-241.pdf
-  Even if a search warrant for the defendant’s apartment was invalid, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant on the street outside the apartment, when the defendant had been observed trafficking in drugs earlier the same day; due to these observations, the fact that the police had searched the defendant immediately prior to her actual arrest was of no legal consequence to the validity of the arrest. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Steve Engel, et al. vs. Crosby Township Board of Zoning Appeals, et al. (Jan. 23, 2009)(2009-Ohio-240)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-240.pdf
-  The trial court did not err when it affirmed the denial of a zoning certificate by a township board of zoning appeals: the zoning resolution at issue was not unconstitutionally vague, when the ordinary meaning of the applicable words made clear what uses were prohibited by the resolution; and the resolution did not allow for the exercise of undue discretion in its enforcement. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Garner v. Cuyahoga Cnty Court (Jan. 22, 2009) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0023p-06.pdf
-  The appellants are 12 African-American employees of the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court (the CCJC) and their attorney Merrie M. Frost. They appeal the district court’s order imposing costs and attorney fees against them for maintaining frivolous discrimination claims long after those claims had clearly become groundless. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the judgment of the district court, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 
Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty (Jan. 23, 2009) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0024p-06.pdf
-  This appeal involves the issue of whether an allegation that section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2607, has been violated confers standing even if the consumer does not allege an above-market rate charge for services, i.e. an “overcharge.” The district court, in an opinion and order granting the Defendants-Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss, held Plaintiffs-Appellants lacked standing to bring a claim under § 2607 because they did not allege any overcharge or other concrete injury. See Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 493 F. Supp. 2d 921, 927 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (“Carter I”). Appellants now appeal, arguing that this court should reject the district court’s “overcharge approach” to standing. For the reasons stated below, the court reverses the decision of the district court and remands the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
       

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

 

Barr v. Lafon (Jan. 23, 2009) (Appeal from E.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0025p-06.pdf
-  Order: The court having received a petition for rehearing en banc, and the petition having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active judges of this court, and less than a majority of the judges having favored the suggestion, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the original panel. The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. Accordingly, the petition is denied.
 

Daily Case Updates