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. 19th - 24th, 2009

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

TOPICS:
- Public Utilities * Trade secrets
- Workers’ compensation
- Habeas corpus
- Criminal law * Postconviction procedure
- Jurisdiction / Venue / Civil Miscellaneous / Procedure / Rules
- Search and Seizure / Weapons
- Real Property
- Jurisdiction / Qualified immunity / Americans with Disabilities Act
- Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act
- Federal takings claim / Well-water / Statute of Limitations
- IRS / Tax liability / Penalty period
- Limitation of Liability / Negligent Supervision / Consortium Damages
- Civil Rights Act / Race discrimination and retaliation / Hostile work environment
- Environmental Protection Agency / Clean Water Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 19, 2009)(2009-ohio-604)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-604.pdf
-  Public Utilities * Trade secrets * Commission’s determinations were appropriate * Decision affirmed.
 
Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 19, 2009)(2009-ohio-605)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-605.pdf 
-  Cause dismissed as moot.
 
State ex rel. Feltner v. HMDC, Inc. (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 24, 2009)(2009-ohio-718)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-718.pdf
-  Workers’ compensation * Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed.
 
State ex rel. Potts v. Fayette Tubular Prods., Inc. (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 24, 2009)(2009-ohio-719)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-719.pdf
-  Workers’ compensation * Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed.
 
State ex rel. Kappes v. Shoe Carnival, Inc. (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 24, 2009)(2009-ohio-720)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-720.pdf
-  Workers’ compensation * Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed.
 
McCuller v. Hudson (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 24, 2009)(2009-ohio-721)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-721.pdf
-  Habeas corpus not available to challenge validity of charging instrument.
 
State v. Fuller (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 24, 2009)(2009-ohio-722)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-722.pdf
-  Discretionary appeal accepted and judgment of the court of appeals reversed on the authority of Morgan v. Eads.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
Mark Greene vs. Robert Whiteside (Feb. 20, 2009)(2009-Ohio-741)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-741.pdf
-  When the defendant, a Texas resident, repeatedly solicited the plaintiff in Ohio to invest in the defendant’s company, the defendant was transacting business within the meaning of Ohio’s long-arm statute. When the defendant repeatedly solicited the plaintiff in Ohio to invest in the defendant’s business, the defendant had purposely availed himself of the privilege of acting in Ohio, thus invoking the benefits and protection of Ohio law, and he had sufficient contacts with Ohio so that an Ohio court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over him did not violate the Due Process Clause. Because the plaintiff’s later affidavit did not contradict his deposition testimony, but merely clarified it, the trial court erred in failing to consider the affidavit in ruling on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. When the parties’ versions of events differed substantially, and when the plaintiff presented sufficient evidentiary material to meet his burden to show that material issues of fact existed for trial on his fraudulent-misrepresentation claim, the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
 
State v. Allwood (Feb. 20, 2009)(2009-Ohio-742)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-742.pdf
-  When an illegal search produces evidence that is only relevant to a charge for which the defendant is acquitted in a bench trial, it is harmless error to deny a motion to suppress that evidence. [But, see, SEPARATE CONCURRENCE: When, apart from the illegally seized evidence, the defendant’s conviction for having a weapon under a disability was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the suppression issue is moot.]
 
Shah v. Smith (Feb. 20, 2009)(2009-Ohio-743)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2009/2009-ohio-743.pdf
-  The trial court erred in holding that no easement was conveyed at the time of a real estate transaction: the plain language of the sales contract, combined with the description in the deed that clear and unequivocally referred to a driveway easement, indicated that the parties intended an easement to run with the land. An easement is extinguished when the same party becomes the owner of both the dominant and the servient estates, but this does not preclude the creation of an easement when the estates are later severed.
 

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

 

Kevin Everson v. Simon Leis (Feb. 20, 2009) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0062p-06.pdf
-  This interlocutory appeal presents several interesting jurisdictional twists. The Plaintiff, Kevin Everson, suffers from epilepsy. He sued multiple defendants, including Hamilton County Sheriff Simon Leis and Deputy Sheriff Albert Wittich, Jr., for their purported unlawful treatment of him during and after a seizure he suffered in 2003. Sheriff Leis and Deputy Sheriff Wittich moved for summary judgment on various grounds, including qualified immunity. Rather than address the merits of the motion, the district court held it in abeyance and ordered that discovery be reopened. Defendants sought interlocutory appeal of that decision. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over Defendants’ qualified-immunity defenses. We further conclude that Defendants are immune from personal liability on several of Everson’s federal claims.
 
Connection Distr v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (Feb. 20, 2009) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0063p-06.pdf
-  At issue in this case is whether a provision of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, § 7513, 102 Stat. 4485, 4487 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 2257), violates (1) the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee, either as applied to the plaintiffs or on its face, or (2) the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.
 
Dorothy Hensley v. City of Columbus (Feb. 23, 2009) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0064p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their federal takings claim against the City of Columbus. They alleged that the City unconstitutionally deprived them of their well-water by digging a trench to extend a sewer pipeline. The district court dismissed their claim as barred by the statute of limitations. Because it ripened around 1992*then beginning the two-year statute of limitations period*we affirm.
       

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

 

Daniel Greer v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (Feb. 19, 2009) (Appeal from Tax Court, Internal Revenue Service)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0061p-06.pdf
-  Daniel and Winnie Greer claimed a number of tax benefits from a 1982 investment. The IRS subsequently disallowed the benefits and, in 2003, imposed penalties on the Greers for negligently underpaying their taxes. The Greers challenged, inter alia, the amount of those penalties in the Tax Court, arguing that they had made a remittance in 1995 that paid their tax liability and thus reduced their penalties. The Tax Court rejected this argument, and the Greers appeal. We affirm because the 1995 court-ordered refund of the Greers’ payment, with interest, negated the effect of that payment on their penalty obligation.
 
Becky Matheny v. Tenn. Valley Authority (Feb. 19, 2009) (Appeal from M.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0060p-06.pdf
-  This is an admiralty action arising out of a collision in which the wake of the Defendant-Appellant Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) tugboat Patricia H capsized a small fishing boat. Plaintiff Ronald Matheny, a passenger in the fishing boat, died as a result. After a bench trial, the district court concluded that Matheny’s death was caused by the negligent operation of the tugboat and that the TVA was not entitled to limitation of liability under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 30505 (West 2007), because the captain’s actions were within the privity or knowledge of TVA. The TVA appeals. We REVERSE in part and REMAND for further proceedings.
 
Lynette Barrett v. Whirlpool Corporation (Feb. 23, 2009) (Appeal from M.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0065p-06.pdf
-  Lynette Barrett, W. T. Melton, and Treva Nickens (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), employees or former employees of Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”), appeal a grant of summary judgment in favor of Whirlpool in this racediscrimination and retaliation case. Plaintiffs allege that they were discriminated against on the basis of their friendships with and advocacy for certain African-American coworkers in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“§ 1981”). The district court found that Plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite degree of association with their African- American co-workers to support their claim of discrimination based on such association and that, in any case, Plaintiffs were not subjected to a hostile work environment or retaliation. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Plaintiffs Barrett and Melton and against Nickens on her retaliation claim, REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Nickens on her hostile work environment claim, and REMAND for trial on that claim.
 
USA v. Holden (Feb. 24, 2009) (Appeal from M.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0066p-06.pdf
-  This appeal involves convictions arising out of an investigation into false reporting of pollutant levels in wastewater discharged by a water treatment facility in Mount Pleasant, Tennessee. Mike Holden, the operator of the plant, was convicted of knowingly falsifying and concealing material facts in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1001(a), and of falsifying documents with the intent to impede an investigation within the jurisdiction of the EPA in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1519. His father, Larry Holden, the Superintendent of Public Works for Mount Pleasant, was convicted of knowingly falsifying and concealing material facts in a matter within the jurisdiction of the EPA. The Holdens challenge their convictions on four grounds. First, they argue that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that Marty Roddy had been treated for marijuana dependency in 1992. Second, they argue that the district court committed plain error by admitting into evidence a negative evaluation of the plant from before the charged period. Third, they argue that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit statements by Mike Holden under the “rule of completeness.” Fourth, they argue that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to find James Larry Holden guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We find that no reversible error occurred at trial, and we thus AFFIRM.
 

Daily Case Updates