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!

Feb. 5th & 6th, 2009

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

TOPICS:
- Aggravated vehicular homicide / Appeal dismissed
- Juvenile procedure / Probation-revocation hearing
- Criminal law / Prostitution of a minor
- Attorneys at law / Misconduct
- Workers’ compensation / Consent of employer
- Sex offenses / Duty to register
- Bankruptcy / Chapter 11 bankruptcy / Administrative expense claim
- Bankruptcy / Fraudulent-transfer claims / Derivative standing / Stay of relief

Ohio Supreme Court: State v. Hatfield (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 5, 2009)(2009-ohio-253)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-253.pdf
- Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted.

In re L.A.B. (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 5, 2009)(2009-ohio-254)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-254.pdf
- Juvenile procedure * R.C. 2152.02 * Juv.R. 29 and 35 * A probation-revocation hearing is an adjudicatory hearing * Both Juv.R. 29, setting forth the procedure for adjudicatory hearings, and Juv.R. 35(B), setting forth the procedure for the revocation of probation, are applicable to a probation-revocation hearing.

State v. Bartrum (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 5, 2009)(2009-ohio-255)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-255.pdf
- Criminal law * Former R.C. 2907.21(A)(3) * Compelling prostitution of a minor * Conviction precluded if the minor whom defendant agreed to pay was fictitious only.

Akron Bar Assn. v. Maher (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 5, 2009)(2009-ohio-256)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-256.pdf
- Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Multiple disciplinary violations * Indefinite suspension.

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Podor (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 5, 2009)(2009-ohio-258)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-258.pdf
- Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Advancing financial assistance to clients * One-year stayed suspension.

Thorton v. Montville Plastics & Rubber, Inc. (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 5, 2009)(2009-ohio-260)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-260.pdf
- Workers’ compensation * 2006 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 7 * Amendment to R.C. 4123.512(D) requiring consent of employer before claimant may voluntarily dismiss employer’s appeal to common pleas court without prejudice is not retroactive * 2006 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 7 is prospective in its entirety, with exception of amendment to R.C. 4123.512(H).
First District Court of Appeals: [Search Other Ohio Districts]

State of Ohio vs. Michael Allison (Feb. 6, 2009) (2009-Ohio-498)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-498.pdf
- Where the petitioner had been classified as a sexually oriented offender under former R.C. Chapter 2950 and had been reclassified by the Attorney General as a Tier III sex offender under Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10, the trial court erred in granting the offender’s R.C. 2950.031(E) petition to contest his reclassification, because the court’s determination that the petitioner was not subject to Senate Bill 10’s registration requirements was against the manifest weight of the evidence: The petitioner’s testimony that his registration requirements had expired in 2004 conflicted with a court entry that indicated that the petitioner was still subject to reporting requirements in 2007; therefore, a new hearing must be held to determine if and when the petitioner’s registration requirements had expired.
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Ohio Cases: John McMillan v. LTV Steel, Inc. (Feb. 5, 2009) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
- http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0040p-06.pdf
- John G. McMillan appeals the district court’s judgment upholding the bankruptcy court’s denial of McMillan’s claim seeking administrative expense priority status for amounts allegedly owed to him by his former employer, LTV Steel, Inc. (“LTV Steel”), a debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court sustained LTV Steel’s objection to McMillan’s administrative expense claims, and denied McMillan’s claims. The district court affirmed, concluding that the bankruptcy court properly sustained LTV Steel’s objection, and that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying McMillan’s motion for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the order of the district court affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of McMillan’s administrative expense claim.
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases: Hyundai Translead v. Jackson Truck & Trai (Feb. 6, 2009) (Appeal from M.D. TN)
- http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0041p-06.pdf
- In this bankruptcy case, Appellants Jackson Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc., James A. Harrell, Raleigh J. Williams, and Mark Lazarus (collectively “the JT&T parties”) appeal the district court’s order granting Appellee Hyundai Translead, Inc. (“Hyundai”) derivative standing to bring an action on behalf of the bankruptcy estate to recover certain assets that Hyundai alleges were fraudulently transferred from the debtor Trailer Source, Inc., to the JT&T parties. We granted permission for an interlocutory appeal on the question of whether a creditor may be granted derivative standing to bring an action pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b) and 550(a) on behalf of the bankruptcy estate for avoidance of fraudulent or preferential transfers in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (2000). The JT&T parties also appeal the district court’s order granting Hyundai relief from the automatic stay so that it may proceed in a separate district-court action asserting fraudulent-transfer claims against the JT&T parties to recover the assets allegedly transferred from Trailer Source. The district court reversed contrary orders by the bankruptcy court. Hyundai argues that the JT&T parties lack prudential appellate standing to pursue this appeal. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the JT&T parties have appellate standing to pursue this appeal; we AFFIRM the district court’s ruling granting Hyundai derivative standing; and we REVERSE the district court’s grant of stay relief to Hyundai.

Law Blog

Daily Case Updates