Join!  |   Find Us  |   Contact Us  |   Search  |   Home
Services Catalog Research Events News About the Library
Welcome to the Hamilton County Law Library, a library serving legal professionals in Hamilton County, Ohio Welcome to the Hamilton County Law Library, a library serving legal professionals in Hamilton County, Ohio  
    
            Follow HCLawLib on Twitter          Mobile Print 
Search our online catalog for print and electronic legal resources.

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 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , 2011.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

June 13th - July 1st, 2011

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

TOPICS:
 

- Civil procedure / Actions by prisoners
- Res judicata
- Workers' compensation / Permanent disability award
- Postconviction relief
- Public construction contracts
- Crim.R. 3 and subject-matter jurisdiction
- Attorney Misconduct / Illegal act
- Public records
- Attorneys Misconduct / Neglect of client
- Final, appealable order
- Unemployment compensation
- Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
- Quo warranto
- Failure to provide notice to a party
- Attorneys Misconduct / Conflict of interest
- Attorneys Misconduct / Professional Conduct
- writ of mandamus
- Writ of procedendo
- Workers' compensation
- Employee's claim for reinstatement / Attorney fees
- Public records
- Real property taxation
- Attorneys at law / Misconduct
- Slip and Fall / Open and obvious / Ordinary care
- Diminished capacity defense / Ineffective counsel / Evidence / Insufficient / Weight / Sentencing
- Attorney Fees
- Protection order violation / Evidence / Weight / Insufficient
- Breach of contract / Unjust enrichment / Jurisdiction / Ohio's long-arm statute
- Senate Bill 10 / Megan's law / Bodyke / Reclassification / Transfer from KY
- Foreign national sovereign immunity / Jurisdiction / Fair hearing / Ineffective- Civil procedure / Actions by prisoners
- Res judicata
- Workers' compensation / Permanent disability award
- Postconviction relief
- Public construction contracts
- Crim.R. 3 and subject-matter jurisdiction
- Attorney Misconduct / Illegal act
- Public records
- Attorneys Misconduct / Neglect of client
- Final, appealable order
- Unemployment compensation
- Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
- Quo warranto
- Failure to provide notice to a party
- Attorneys Misconduct / Conflict of interest
- Attorneys Misconduct / Professional Conduct
- writ of mandamus
- Writ of procedendo
- Workers' compensation
- Employee's claim for reinstatement / Attorney fees
- Public records
- Real property taxation
- Attorneys at law / Misconduct counsel
- Workers' compensation / Additional injury
- Motion for the release of the surety
- Child / Petition for visitation
- Motion for new trial / Motion to suppress evidence / Weight Evidence
- Settlement agreement / Attorney fees
- Evidence / Weight / Insufficient / Prosecutorial misconduct / Ineffective counsel
- Divorce denied
- Evidence / Manifest weight / Sentencing / Abuse of discretion / Ineffective counsel
- Pro se / Procedure / Direct appeal / Civil Rule 60(B)
- Search and Seizure
- Procedure / Rules / Evidence / ORC 2941.25
- Appellate Review / Criminal / Postconviction / Sentencing
- Children / Child support
- Homicide / Constitutional law / Criminal / ORC 2941.25
- Homicide / Juries / ORC 2941.25
- Sentencing / ORC 2941.25
- Disability Benefits / Writ of Mandamus / Lack of Jurisdiction
- United State Sentencing Guidelines / Acceptance of Responsibility
- Bankruptcy / Chapter 7 / Mortgage / Property description
- R- Qualified immunity / Driver's Privacy Protection Act
- Motion to suppress evidence / Unlawful Seizure / Armed Career Criminal Act
- Bankruptcy / Chapter 7 / Homestead exemption
- Bankruptcy / Chapter 7 / Child Tax Credit exempt
- Collective bargaining agreement / Union / Statute of limitations
- Habeas petition / Certificate of appealability
- Federal Sentencing Guidelines
- Disability Benefits / Writ of Mandamus / Lack of Jurisdiction
- United State Sentencing Guidelines / Acceptance of Responsibility
- Bankruptcy / Chapter 7 / Mortgage / Property description
- Robinson-Patman Act / Clayton Act / Pricing scheme / Leave to amend
- Claim for Relief / Settlement Release / Conspiracy
- Sentencing calculations / Criminal history
- Bankruptcy / Chapter 7 Trustee / Real Property / Enforceable mortgage
- Petition for a writ of habeas corpus / Prosecutorial misconduct
- Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
- Employment / Hostile work environments
- Motion to suppress / Terry Stop
- Bankruptcy / Nondischargable debt / Mechanics' or materialmen's lien
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act / Unconstitutional tax / Jurisdiction
- Duty of Good Faith and Fair dealing / Contract / Termination / Attorney Fees
- National Firearms Act / Tax evasion / Double jeopardy / Jury instruction / Sentencing
- Motion for equitable relief / Rule 60 savings-clause provision / No time limitation
- 42 USC 1983 / Qualified immunity / Jurisdiction / Denial of summary judgment
- Constitutional / Equal Protection Clause / College / University / Race conscious admissions
 

Ohio Supreme Court
State ex rel. Brown v. Wauford (June 16, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2858.pdf
Res judicata - Claim for access to documents under R.C. 3125.16 already litigated.


State ex rel. Paneto v. Matos (June 16, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2857.pdf
Workers' compensation - R.C. 4123.57 - Claimant alleged that his permanent total disability award was a new or changed circumstance warranting reconsideration of the previous denial of his application for scheduled loss compensation - Court of appeals' decision upholding commission's order denying reconsideration affirmed.


State v. Everette (Slip Opinion)(June 16, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2856.pdf
Postconviction relief - Definition of transcript - The written transcript constitutes the "transcript" under App.R. 9 and R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) when both a videotape recording and written transcript of proceedings are available - Judgment reversed and cause remanded.


In re Resignation of Hanner (June 16, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3049.pdf
Attorneys at law - Resignation with disciplinary action pending - Gov.Bar R. VI(6)(C).


State ex rel. Am. Subcontractors Assn., Inc. v. Ohio State Univ. (Slip Opinion)(June 21, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2881.pdf
Public construction contracts - Bond of contractor - R.C. 153.54 and Section 8 of 2009 Sub.H.B. No. 318.


State v. Mbodji (Slip Opinion)(June 21, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2880.pdf
Criminal procedure - Crim.R. 3 and subject-matter jurisdiction - R.C. 2935.09 - Failure to review affidavit by private citizen charging a crime not a jurisdictional flaw.


Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell (Slip Opinion)(June 21, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2879.pdf
Attorney - Misconduct - Engaging in an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty or trustworthiness - Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law - Permanent disbarment.


State ex rel. Striker v. Smith (Slip Opinion)(June 21, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2878.pdf
Public records - R.C. 149.43 - Records in possession of a judge.


Disciplinary Counsel v. Raso (Slip Opinion)(June 22, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2900.pdf
Attorneys - Misconduct - Neglect of a client's matter and dishonest conduct - Six-month license suspension ordered.


In re C.B. (Slip Opinion)(June 22, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2899.pdf
Final, appealable order - R.C. 2505.02 - When a trial court denies a children-services agency's motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody, terminates the placement of temporary custody with the agency, and awards legal custody to a parent, the order is final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02.


Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (Slip Opinion)(June 22, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2897.pdf
Unemployment compensation - Just cause - When employment is expressly conditioned upon obtaining or maintaining a license, the employee agrees to the condition, and the employee is afforded reasonable opportunity to comply, failure to meet the condition is just cause for termination.


Pula v. Pula-Branch (Slip Opinion)(June 22, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2896.pdf
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act - R.C. Chapter 3115 - Domestic relations courts are authorized to decide cases brought under UIFSA - Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.


State ex rel. Zeigler v. Zumbar (Slip Opinion)(June 23, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2939.pdf
Quo warranto - R.C. 321.38 - Removal of county treasurer - Section 38, Article II, Ohio Constitution - R.C. 321.38 violates Section 38, Article II by authorizing county commissioners to remove county treasurer from office without complaint and hearing - Writ granted.


Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)(June 23, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2907.pdf
Failure to provide notice to a party - Cause remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals.


Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pheils (Slip Opinion)(June 23, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2906.pdf
Attorneys - Misconduct - Providing financial assistance to client - Conflict of interest - One-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions.


Disciplinary Counsel v. Character (Slip Opinion)(June 23, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2902.pdf
Attorneys - Misconduct - Multiple and repeated violations of the Disciplinary Rules and the Rules of Professional Conduct - Respondent disbarred.


State ex rel. Dominguez v. State (Slip Opinion)(June 29, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3091.pdf
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus - No duty to perform act requested - Judgment affirmed.


State ex rel. Hillman v. Holbrook (Slip Opinion)(June 29, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3090.pdf
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of procedendo - Acts requested had already been performed - Judgment affirmed.


State ex rel. Lackey v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)(June 29, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3089.pdf
Workers' compensation - Temporary total disability compensation - Aggravation of preexisting allowed condition - Denial of request for reinstatement of compensation after voluntary retirement not an abuse of discretion - Claimant did not demonstrate through medical evidence at time of retirement that departure from job was causally related to industrial injury - Writ denied.


State ex rel. Waiters v. Szabo (Slip Opinion)(June 29, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3088.pdf
Mandamus - Discharged city employee sought mandamus to compel her reinstatement with back pay and an award of attorney fees - Employee's claim for reinstatement was mooted when city reinstated her - Employee failed to prove entitlement to back pay or attorney fees - Court of appeals' decision affirmed.


State ex rel. Patton v. Rhodes (Slip Opinion)(June 30, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3093.pdf
Mandamus - Public records - R.C. 149.43 - County auditor has no obligation under R.C. 149.43(B) to provide access to public records by means of posting records on website - Requester of records not entitled to attorney fees or statutory damages under R.C. 149.43(C)(1).


N. Royalton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)(June 30, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3092.pdf
Real property taxation - Recent, arm's-length sale - Sale of property was recent and at arm's length, even though sale price was negotiated seven years before sale was consummated.


Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hackett (Slip Opinion)(June 30, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3096.pdf
Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Participation in employment agreement that restricts rights of an attorney to practice after termination of agreement - Consent-to-discipline agreement - Public reprimand.


Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thompson (Slip Opinion)(June 30, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-3095.pdf
Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Notarization of unsigned documents - Public reprimand.


Boles v. Knab (Slip Opinion)(June 16, 2011) 2011-Ohio-2859
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2859.pdf
Civil procedure - Actions by prisoners - Institutional policy for obtaining statement of cashier in support of affidavit of indigency - R.C. 2969.25.

 
First District Court of Appeals
[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
*** Judgment Entries ***

 
Warkietha Collins, et al. vs. John/Jane Doe Employee, et al. (June 15, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100620_06152011.pdf
Plaintiffs-appellants Warkietha and Demarcus Collins appeal from a decision of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Kroger Company and dismissing all of the Collinses' claims. The collinses argue (1) that material issues of fact exist for trial as to whether Kroger owed Warkietha a duty since it had created the hazardous condition and (2) Kroger presented no evidence showing that Warkietha had failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety. Judgment AFFIRMED.


State of Ohio vs. Gregory Schaim (June 17, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100704_06172011.pdf
Schaim has appealed his conviction for assaulting a police officer. Schaim alleges that the trial court erred in sua sponte excluding "probative evidence" of Schaim's "medical condition," in prohibiting defense counsel from mentioning Schaim's "medical condition" in closing argument, and in instructing the jury on diminished capacity when Schaim did not attempt to raise that issue at trial. He also argues (2) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, (3) his conviction was based upon insufficient evidence and against the manifest weight, and (4) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. Judgment AFFIRMED.


Phillips Law Firm, Inc vs. Contemporary Image Labeling, Inc. (June 17, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100670_06172011.pdf
Defendant-appellant Contemporary Image Labeling, Inc., ("CIL") appeals the judgment of the trial court denying its motion for attorney fees against plaintiff-appellee, the Phillips Law Firm, Inc. Judgment AFFIRMED.


State of Ohio vs. Edward Boebinger (June 17, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100631_06172011.pdf
Boebinger appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court convicting him of violating a protection order. Boebinger now contends that the conviction was based on insufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment AFFIRMED.


North American Software, Inc., vs. C. Bill Elliott (June 17, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100567_06172011.pdf
Plaintiff-appellant, North American Software, Inc. ("NAS"), appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing its breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims against defendant-appellee, C. Bill Elliott, for lack of personal jurisdiction over Elliott, a California resident. In two interrelated assignments of error, NAS now contends that the trial court erred in granting Elliot's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and in improperly weighing the evidence submitted in support of jurisdiction. Judgment AFFIRMED.


State of Ohio vs. Warren J. Sestokas (June 17, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-081055_06172011.pdf
In Kentucky, Sestokas pleaded guilty to and was convicted of sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 20 years' incarceration. Prior to released Sestokas was classified as a "lower moderate risk," which required him to annually register for ten years in the state of Kentucky. Sestokas later moved to Ohio. Sestokas received a notice from the Ohio Attorney General stating that he had been reclassified under Senate Bill 10 as a Tier III sex offender and that he was required to register with the local sheriff every 90 days for life. Sestokas alleges that his reclassification under Senate Bill 10 violates the separation-of-powers doctrine. The court holds that R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032 may not be applied to offenders previously adjudicated by judges under Megan's Law, and the classifications and community-notification and registration orders imposed previously by judges be reinstated. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and pursuant to Bodyke, Sestokas's previous classification, community-notification, and registration orders are reinstated.


State of Ohio vs. David McCoy aka Dauruwd Babel Ali (JUne 22, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100737_06222011.pdf
Defendant-appellant, David McCoy, a.k.a. Dauruwd Babel Ali, appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to prison for nonsupport of dependents. McCoy's claim that he was not subject to the court's jurisdiction because he was a member of the "Moorish Nation." McCoy argues (1) he was deprived of a fair hearing, (2) he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) the trial court erred in exercising jurisdiction over him. Judgment AFFIRMED.


Andrew Perryman vs. Sysco Corporation, et al. (June 22, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100490_06222011.pdf
Perryman appeals the trial court's judgment denying his request to allow an additional injury to his workers' compensation claim. Judgment AFFIRMED.


State of Ohio vs. Jeffrey Powell (June 24, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100553_06242011.pdf
Sureties-appellants, Bob Shropshire and Sons Bonding and Seneca Insurance Company, Inc., appeal a judgment denying their motion for release of surety. They argue that because they had secured Powell's presence by extraordinary efforts and the state had agreed to a remission of a portion of the bond forfeiture, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to approve the settlement agreement. Judgment REVERSED and REMANDED for the court to explain how it weighed the applicable factors or to apply the factors if it did not do so.


In Re: Alicia Gilmore (June 24, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100284_06242011.pdf
Gilmore appeals a decision of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court granting petitioner-appellee, Kevin Howard, visitation with the parties' daughter. She contends that he lied and withheld facts at the hearing about his alcohol and drug abuse. He lied about her denying him visitation and demanding money in exchange for visitation. Judgment AFFIRMED.


State of Ohio vs. Samuel Gray (June 24, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100143_06242011.pdf
Gray was convicted of offenses that he was knowingly in possession of cocaine and a gun. He argues (1) there was improper conduct between the bailiff and the jury, and that the trial court erred by not granting a new trial, (2) that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence, and (3) the guilty verdicts were contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence. Judgment AFFIRMED.


Covenant Dove Holding Company, LLC., et al. vs. Mariner Health Care, Inc., et al. (June 29, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100009_06292011.pdf
This appeal involves disputes arising from the transfer of operation of seven skilled nursing home facilities from defendants-appellants Mariner Health Care, Inc., and others ("Mariner") to plaintiffs-appellees Covenant Dove Holding Co., LLC, and others ("Covenant Dove") in 2008 pursuant to a written settlement agreement. Mariner now appeals from the trial court's December 9, 2009, entry granting summary judgment for Covenant Dove on its claims for breach of contract and specific performance and from the court's granting of a directed verdict in favor of Covenant Dove on Mariner's counterclaims. After the trial court had entered judgment on these motions, no issues remained for consideration by the jury, and only Covenant Dove's attorney-fee claim remained for resolution by the trial court. Judgment AFFIRMED.


State of Ohio vs. Vinnie D. Edwards (June 30, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100210_06302011.pdf
Edwards was convicted of one count of unlawful use of property in violation of R.C. 2913.04(B). Edwards argues (1) her conviction was based on insufficient evidence, (2) her convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence, (3) the assistant prosecuting attorney committed misconduct that denied her a fair trial, and (4) she was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Judgment AFFIRMED.


Mark Anderson, Sr. vs. Marva Johnette Anderson (July 1, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100603_07012011.pdf
Plaintiff-appellant Mark Anderson ("Mr. Anderson") appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County domestic relations court that denied his complaint for divorce against defendant-appellee Marva Anderson ("Ms. Anderson"). According to Civ.R. 75(M), judgments for divorce "shall not be granted upon the testimony or admission of a party not supported by other credible evidence." Judgment AFFIRMED.


State of Ohio vs. Richard Burns (July 1, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100598_07012011.pdf
Burns was found guilty of felonious assault and sentenced him to eight years' incarceration. Burns asserts (1) his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) the trial court's imposition of the maximum sentence was an abuse of discretion, and (3) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Judgment AFFIRMED.


State of Ohio vs. Stuart C. Walker (July 1, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100588_07012011.pdf
Walker appeals the judgments of the Hamilton County Municipal Court convicting him of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs and operating a vehicle without reasonable control. Walker asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29(A). He also asserts that his convictions were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment AFFIRMED.


Gerald Johnson vs. Rodney Riddle, et al. (July 1, 2011)
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-100534_07012011.pdf
On April 28, 2010, before this case had been submitted to the jury, the trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellee Gerald Johnson on his claims that defendant-appellant Rodney Riddle had violated Ohio's Real Estate Broker Act2 by providing false information regarding a real-estate transaction and by offering improper inducements to enter into a contract to purchase real estate. The trial court awarded damages in the amount of $40,000. Riddle did not appeal the directed-verdict entry. Instead Riddle filed a "motion to set aside judgment" under Civ R 60(B) in the trial court. Civ.R. 60(B) was intended to provide relief from a final judgment. The trial court denied the motion. Riddle now appeals from that order. Judgment AFFIRMED.



*** Opinions ***


State of Ohio vs. Angelo Howard (June 15, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2011/2011-ohio-2862.pdf
Where multiple offenses contained in two indictments are of the same or similar character and are part of a course of criminal conduct, they are properly joined for trial under Crim.R. 8(A). When a jury is properly instructed on the heightened scrutiny necessary to evaluate the testimony of a cooperating witness or a codefendant, the trial court does not err in failing to exclude the testimony of that witness altogether or in failing to hold a hearing to evaluate the reliability of that witness's testimony. When two offenses are committed separately or with a separate animus as to each, the offenses are separately punishable under R.C. 2941.25.


State v. Ingles (June 17, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2011/2011-ohio-2901.pdf
The common pleas court did not err in declining to grant defendant relief from his criminal convictions upon his Civ.R. 60(B) motions: the motions were reviewable as postconviction petitions under R.C. 2953.21 et seq., but they were subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because they did not satisfy R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)'s time restrictions or R.C. 2953.23's jurisdictional requirements. [But, see, PARTIAL DISSENT: Although the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to entertain defendant's motions on their merits, the court should have vacated the kidnapping sentences and remanded for resentencing on those offenses, when the original sentences had been enhanced pursuant to sexually-violent-predator specifications charged under former R.C. Chapter 2971. The court had jurisdiction to correct a void sentence; and the sentences were void when the finding that the offender was a "sexually violent predator" was not, as former R.C. 2971.01(H)(1) had required, based on a sexually-violent-offense conviction that had existed prior to the indictment charging the sexually-violent-predator specification.]


France v. France (June 22, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2011/2011-ohio-3025.pdf
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating a father's child-support obligation when the child-support order was void ab initio: the trial court did not have authority to adopt that portion of the parents' agreed entry ordering the father to pay child support to the mother when he was designated the sole residential parent and legal custodian of the five minor children, and when the parents did not have split parental rights and responsibilities. See R.C. 3119.07(A). The presumption contained in R.C. 3119.07(A) that a residential parent's child-support obligation is spent on his children and therefore shall not become part of a child-support order only applies to situations in which one parent is the residential parent and the other is a nonresidential parent. A child-support worksheet was unnecessary when a prior child-support order that had been void ab initio was being terminated. The trial court abused its discretion and acted unreasonably when it failed to make the termination of the father's child-support obligation retroactive to the date that the father had originally filed his motion to terminate: the only reason for the court's decision to set a later date was its mistaken belief that the father had failed to ask for a hearing on the motion.


Hall v. Kuwatch (June 24, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2011/2011-ohio-3050.pdf
The trial court abused its discretion by modifying the magistrate's decision on the amount of child support owed by the father, where the objecting spouse did not file a transcript of the magistrate's evidentiary hearing or a substitute to support her objection, and where the trial court did not receive any new evidence on the issue.


State v. Johnson (June 29, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2011/2011-ohio-3143.pdf
In a murder trial, the court did not violate the defendant's right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution when it permitted three adult men to testify for the state by two-way closed-circuit television: both the state and the court had witnessed firsthand the repeated intimidation of these witnesses by the defendant's friends and family during the trial; the witnesses' televised testimony was necessary to further the important public policies of justly resolving the case and protecting the well-being of the witnesses; and the reliability of the witnesses' testimony was assured when the testimony was given under oath in the presence of their counsel, and when they were subjected to a rigorous, live cross-examination before the jury, the defendant and his counsel, and the court. The defendant's convictions for felony murder, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability were not against the weight of the evidence: while the defendant's witnesses testified that he had not been present at the time of the victim's shooting, three state's witnesses testified that the defendant had pulled out a .45-caliber handgun and started shooting at the victim; and the jury did not lose its way or create a manifest miscarriage of justice when it chose to believe the state's witnesses instead of the defendant's witnesses. The trial court violated R.C. 2941.25 by separately sentencing the defendant for the felony murder and felonious assault of a single victim, when the offenses were allied offenses of similar import, and when the evidence did not permit a conclusion that the offenses had been committed either separately or with a separate animus as to each.


State v. Phelps (June 29, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2011/2011-ohio-3144.pdf
The defendant failed to demonstrate a due-process violation that required the suppression of evidence, where there was no demonstration that a police officer had failed to preserve materially exculpatory evidence, or that he had failed to preserve potentially useful evidence in bad faith. The defendant failed to establish a Batson claim of purposeful discrimination in jury selection, when the trial court's acceptance of the state's race-neutral explanations for three peremptory challenges was not clearly erroneous. Where the defendant left a bar after a scuffle with an employee, retrieved a loaded gun, reentered the bar when the door became unlocked, and fired at the employee until he killed him, the evidence showed sufficient time, reflection, and activity to satisfy the elements of aggravated murder, including prior calculation and design, even though the plan to kill was conceived in less than five minutes. The trial court erred by failing to merge the defendant's two convictions for having weapons under a disability, one in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and the other in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), where the offenses were allied offenses of similar import committed in a single course of conduct with a single animus.


State v. Baron (June 30, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2011/2011-ohio-3204.pdf
The trial court did not err under R.C. 2941.25, Ohio's multiple-count statute, in imposing separate and consecutive sentences for the offenses of murder and having a weapon while under a disability where the offenses were committed separately and with a separate animus. Firearm specifications are not subject to merger under R.C. 2941.25 because they are sentencing enhancements and not "offenses" as contemplated by the statute. The trial court did not err in ordering the sentences for two separate firearm specifications to be served consecutively because the legislature, in R.C. 2929.14(E)(1)(a), has clearly expressed its intent that a sentence imposed on a firearm specification for having a firearm on or about the offender's person while committing a felony is to be served consecutively to a sentence imposed on a firearm specification for discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle.


State of Ohio vs. Marciano Lattimore (June 15, 2011)
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2011/2011-ohio-2863.pdf
Where a police officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred, the resulting stop of the vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In moving to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless search or seizure, the defendant must raise the grounds upon which the validity of the search or seizure is challenged with sufficient particularity to give the prosecutor notice of the basis for the challenge.

 
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases
Eric Roth v. Henry Guzman (June 13, 2011)(Appeal from S.D. OH)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0155p-06.pdf
Defendants Henry Guzman, Director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, and Mike Rankin, Registrar of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, appeal from the district court's determination that they were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit in this putative class action alleging violation of the plaintiffs' rights under the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. Without challenging other aspects of the decision denying their motion to dismiss, defendants argue that their alleged conduct did not violate the plaintiffs' clearly established federal rights as delineated by the DPPA. We agree, and for the reasons that follow, we reverse.


USA v. Demetrion Gross (June 15, 2011)(Appeal from N.D. OH)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0157a-06.pdf
Defendant-appellant Demetrion Gross appeals the criminal judgment and 180-month sentence issued by the district court upon his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Gross challenges the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence based on an alleged unlawful seizure. He also disputes the determination that he was an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e), arguing that a prior conviction for escape was not necessarily a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"). For the following reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of Gross's motion to suppress as to the DNA swab and confession, reverse the district court's denial of Gross's motion to suppress as to the firearm, vacate the sentence imposed, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.


In re: James Wengerd v. (June 15, 2011)(Appeal from U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Canton)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11b0004p-06.pdf
James Mark Wengerd and Cheryl Sue Wengerd ("Debtors") appeal an order of the bankruptcy court sustaining the Trustee's objection to their homestead exemption and granting the Trustee's motion for turnover of proceeds from the sale of the Debtors' residence.


In re: Anthony Zingale v. (June 15, 2011)(Appeal from U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Cleveland)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11b0005p-06.pdf
In this appeal, Anthony M. Zingale and Barbara A. Zingale appeal the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the Chapter 7 Trustee's objection to the Debtors' claim of exemption. The Debtors are seeking to exempt the non-refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit claimed by the Debtors on their 2009 federal income tax return. The bankruptcy court held that the Debtors could not claim as exempt the non-refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit because it was not considered a "payment" under Ohio Rev. Code 2329.66(A)(9)(g). For the reasons set forth below, the Panel AFFIRMS the order of the bankruptcy court.


Frederick Bowerman v. International Union, United Automobile (June 21, 2011)(Appeal from N.D. OH)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0159p-06.pdf
Plaintiffs-appellants are machine repairmen presently or formerly employed by Chrysler Group, L.L.C. or Daimler Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") at two plants located in Toledo, Ohio. Plaintiffs claim that their union, defendants-appellees International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW") and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 12 ("Local 12"),1 breached their duty of fair representation by favoring certain skilled workers - millwrights and electricians - over plaintiffs - machine repairmen. In October 2007, the district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust internal union remedies. On appeal, this court reversed, instructing the district court to consider whether plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On remand, defendants again moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, holding that a portion of plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the remaining claims failed on their merits. On appeal, plaintiffs challenge both of these findings. Upon review, we affirm the district court in all respects.


Tyrone Noling v. Margaret Bradshaw (June 29, 2011)(Appeal from N.D. OH)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0167p-06.pdf
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the habeas petition of Tyrone Noling, who is facing the death penalty. Noling then filed with this Court a petition to file a successive petition (No. 07-3989) and a petition for a certificate of appealability (No. 08-3258). We consolidated these matters, denied the successive petition, and granted a certificate of appealability on four distinct issues. Before oral argument, Noling filed another petition to file a successive petition (No. 10-3884). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY Noling's latest motion to file a successive petition.


USA v. Michael Chiolo (June 30, 2011)(Appeal from N.D. OH)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0172p-06.pdf
Defendant Michael V. Chiolo admitted violating the terms of his supervised release by engaging in acts of domestic violence. The district court sentenced Chiolo to thirty-seven months' imprisonment for this violation, a term above the federal sentencing guidelines range of five to eleven months. The district court sufficiently explained the rationale behind its sentencing decision. Also, while the court did not expressly address some of Chiolo's non-frivolous arguments, its sentencing rationale was logically responsive to those conceptually simple arguments. For these reasons, the district court's sentence was procedurally reasonable.
 
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases
 
In re David Sutton, Jr. v. (June 14, 2011)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0156p-06.pdf
In this petition for a writ of mandamus, David Sutton, Jr., seeks an order directing the Commissioner of Social Security to exercise his discretion to reopen proceedings and reinstate a 1985 decision that awarded him disability benefits. The Commissioner has responded that Sutton is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and, alternatively, that Sutton's petition should fail on the merits. Neither of these arguments needs to be addressed, however, because the petition is not properly before this court.


USA v. Alan Mackety (June 17, 2011)(Appeal from W.D. MI)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0158p-06.pdf
Defendant Alan Mackety challenges his 300-month sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We conclude that the district court's blanket policy concerning the one-level point reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b) affected the calculation of the Guidelines range and usurped the Government's discretion to move for a reduction under 3E1.1(b), rendering Mackety's sentence procedurally unreasonable. Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing.


In re: Steven Brockman v. (June 17, 2011)(Appeal from U.S. Bankruptcy Court)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11b0006p-06.pdf
Judge. J. James Rogan, chapter 7 trustee, appeals an order of the bankruptcy court granting summary judgment in favor of American General Home Equity, Inc. on the Trustee's adversary complaint seeking to avoid a mortgage granted to American General by chapter 7 debtor Donna Brockman on the grounds that the mortgage did not properly describe the property encumbered by the mortgage.


New Albany Tractor, Inc. v. Louisville Tractor, Inc. (June 21, 2011)(Appeal from W.D. KY)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0160p-06.pdf
Plaintiff, New Albany Tractor, appeals the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ("failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted") dismissal of its complaint alleging violations of the Robinson-Patman Act, an amendment to the Clayton Act. Plaintiff also contends that it should have been allowed to amend the complaint, or, alternatively, it should have been dismissed without prejudice. The basic question before us is the effect of two recent Supreme Court decisions, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), which addressed pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("short and plain statement of the claim"). For the reasons that follow, we agree that these cases required the district court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.


Watson Carpet & Floor Covering v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. (June 22, 2011)(Appeal from M.D. TN)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0161p-06.pdf
Plaintiff-appellant Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. (Watson Carpet) is a carpet dealer in competition with Carpet Den, Inc. and its owner, Rick McCormick. Watson Carpet sued Carpet Den, McCormick, and carpet supplier Mohawk Industries, Inc., for conspiring to restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Despite Watson Carpet's detailed allegations of an agreement to restrain trade, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, invoking the Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Watson has appealed. Carpet Den and McCormick have cross-appealed the district court's ruling that the settlement release did not cover the 2007 refusal to sell. We REVERSE the dismissal of the complaint and hold that Watson Carpet adequately stated a claim for relief. With respect to the cross-appeal, we AFFIRM the district court's determination that the 2007 refusal to sell is outside the scope of the settlement release.


USA v. Roberto Ramirez-Perez (June 23, 2011)(Appeal from W.D. MI)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0162p-06.pdf
Defendant Roberto Ramirez-Perez pleaded guilty to being present in the United States after having been previously deported subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. The district court enhanced Ramirez-Perez's offense level and criminal history score because it determined that he had a 1994 drug trafficking conviction for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months. The district court then sentenced him to 70 months' imprisonment. Ramirez-Perez now appeals, challenging the district court's determination that his prior conviction resulted in a sentence that exceeded 13 months. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.


In re: Boyd Wayne Rowe v. (June 24, 2011)(Appeal from U.S. Bankruptcy Court)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11b0007p-06.pdf
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the Chapter 7 Trustee (the "Trustee") and denying summary judgment to Fifth Third Mortgage Company ("Fifth Third") on the Trustee's complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 544 seeking to avoid the mortgage held by Fifth Third on real property owned by the Debtors.


David Matthews v. Philip Parker (June 27, 2011)(Appeal from W.D. KY)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0163p-06.pdf
Petitioner David Eugene Matthews, who was sentenced to death for murder by the State of Kentucky, appeals the district court's order denying Petitioner's claims and dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part.


Valentine Grden v. Leikin Ingber & Winters PC (June 27, 2011)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0164p-06.pdf
Valentine Grden says that Leikin, Ingber & Winters, P.C. violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act in two ways. First, in a state-court debt-collection action against Grden, Leikin served Grden with a document appearing to be a motion for default judgment, although Grden had not missed the deadline for answering the complaint. Second, when Grden thereafter called Leikin to verify his account balance, Leikin responded with incorrect amounts. The district court granted summary judgment to Leikin, finding that the motion for default was not deceptive and that Leikin's communications containing the wrong amounts were not covered by the Act. We reverse as to the motion and affirm as to the balance statements.


Stephanie Williams v. CSX Transportation Co., Inc. (June 28, 2011)(Appeal from W.D. TN)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0165p-06.pdf
Plaintiff, Stephanie Williams, sued her employer, CSX Transportation Company, Inc. ("CSX"), for allegedly subjecting her to both racially and sexually hostile work environments. The district court held that Williams failed to file a document that meets the test for a "charge" with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on her claim of a sexually hostile work environment and, thus, failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. For that reason, the district court granted summary judgment to CSX on that claim. We disagree and reverse. As for Williams's racially hostile work environment claim, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to CSX at the close of Williams's case in chief. The district court reasoned that her evidence of a racially hostile work environment was not sufficiently "severe" or "pervasive" to create a jury question. On that claim, and on a collateral evidentiary issue, we affirm.


USA v. Fredrick Mays (June 29, 2011)(Appeal from W.D. TN)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0166p-06.pdf
Defendant Fredrick Mays appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm seized during an encounter with Memphis police officers. He was charged in a one-count indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. 922(g). After his motion to suppress was denied, he requested a bench trial, agreeing to stipulate to all of the elements of the offense while maintaining his right to appeal. The sole issue on appeal is whether the arresting officers had the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop and search of defendant's person. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).


In re: Russell Looney v. (June 29, 2011)(Appeal from U.S. Bankruptcy Court)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11b0008p-06.pdf
In this appeal, Russell Looney ("debtor") appeals the bankruptcy court's determination that the debt he owed to Old Republic Title Company of Tennessee ("Old Republic"), in the amount of $286,940, is nondischargeable. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.


Thomas More Law Center v. Barack Obama (June 29, 2011)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf
This is an appeal from the district court's determination that the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is constitutionally sound. Among the Act's many changes to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance, the minimum coverage provision requires all applicable individuals to maintain minimum essential health insurance coverage or to pay a penalty. 26 U.S.C. 5000A. This opinion is divided into several parts. First, it provides background on the Affordable Care Act and the minimum coverage provision. Second, it addresses this Court's jurisdiction. Third, it considers whether the provision is authorized by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Fourth, it declines to address whether the provision is authorized by the General Welfare Clause. We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.


Hometown Folks, LLC v. S & B Wilson, Inc. (June 30, 2011)(Appeal from E.D. TN)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0169p-06.pdf
Hometown Folks, LLC entered into an Agreement with S & B Wilson Corporation to buy eleven Burger King restaurants. S & B Wilson terminated the Agreement, and Hometown sued for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. After a trial, the jury found that S & B Wilson had properly terminated the Agreement but had breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and it awarded Hometown $190,907.27 in damages. Over one year later, the district court entered a partial judgment relative to the jury verdict. The district court denied specific performance and awarded Hometown $5,176.24 of the $424,282.19 in attorneys' fees and expenses that it incurred in connection with the litigation. The district court correctly denied S & B Wilson's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to the claim alleging breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. However, we REVERSE the district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law to S & B Wilson on damages. Furthermore, although the district court used an acceptable method to determine a reasonable attorneys' fee award, it applied this method incorrectly. Therefore, we REVERSE the award of attorneys' fees and REMAND for a new determination. Because we grant judgment as a matter of law to S & B Wilson on damages, we need not address Hometown's remaining claims that the district court erred in failing to enter judgment promptly after the jury verdict and in denying Hometown's claim for specific performance.


USA v. Frederick MacKinnon
USA v. Maxwell Garnett
USA v. Gary Theunick (June 30, 2011)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0170p-06.pdf
Gary Theunick, Frederick MacKinnon, and Maxwell Garnett (collectively, "Defendants") were convicted of possessing automatic weapons and making false entries on weapons application and transfer forms in violation of 28 U.S.C. 5861(d), 5861(l), and 7206(2). The Defendants raise various issues on appeal, including the constitutionality of the statutes charged, double jeopardy, discovery errors, and sentencing errors. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.


Joe Mitchell v. John Rees (June 30, 2011)(Appeal from M.D. TN)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0171p-06.pdf
Petitioner Joe Clark Mitchell appeals the district court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment, which he brought as an "independent action" in equity, as provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1). We AFFIRM.


Germaine Bomar v. City of Pontiac (July 1, 2011)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0173p-06.pdf
In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff Germaine Bomar alleges that Officer Daniel Main, the sole remaining defendant, violated her clearly established right not to be subjected to excessive force. Bomar claims that Main pepper-sprayed her in the eye and punched her in the jaw-both after she had been successfully restrained and handcuffed. In the proceedings below, Defendants denied that Main took those actions and moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed for trial and denied the motion. Main now appeals that order, and we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.


Coalition to Defend Affirmative v. Regents of the University of Mich (July 1, 2011)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0174p-06.pdf
Proposal 2 is a successful voter-initiated amendment to the Michigan Constitution. In relevant part, it prohibits Michigan's public colleges and universities from granting "preferential treatment to[] any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." Mich. Const. art. I, 26. Our task is to determine whether Proposal 2 is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fortunately, the slate is not blank. The Supreme Court has twice held that equal protection does not permit the kind of political restructuring that Proposal 2 effected. See Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982); Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969). Applying Hunter and Seattle, we find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters Michigan's political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Defendants-Appellees and order the court to enter summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs-Appellants. Also, we AFFIRM the district court's decision granting the Cantrell Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to Eric Russell, and AFFIRM the district court's decision denying the University Defendants' motion to be dismissed as parties.