Articles

All Content


9,713 Posts found
Previous • Page 245 of 972 • Next
Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jan 5, 2021

The Petitioner, Justice Ball, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, carjacking, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and evading arrest and his effective fifteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 31, 2020

On November 25, 2020, the defendant in this case, the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department, issued a resolution closing every school in the county—public, private, and more to the point here, parochial—for grades 7-12, effective December 4. The shutdown’s purpose was to slow the spread of COVID-19. Yet—in the same county—gyms, tanning salons, office buildings, and a large casino have remained open. The plaintiffs here are nine Christian schools (three suing in their own names, another six as part of a coalition) who argue that the closure of their schools, when measured against the more favorable treatment afforded these secular actors, amounts to a prohibition of religious exercise in violation of the First Amendment. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin the resolution as applied to their schools, reasoning that it was a neutral law of general application, as defined by the Supreme Court’s precedents. We respectfully disagree with that determination and grant the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 30, 2020

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Paul Dorsa filed suit under the False Claims Act against Miraca Life Sciences, Inc., alleging unlawful retaliation. Miraca sought to dismiss the retaliation claim because Dorsa—a former Miraca executive—had agreed to binding arbitration as a provision of his employment agreement with the company. The district court denied Miraca’s motion to dismiss because it found that the arbitration clause did not cover Dorsa’s retaliation claim. Miraca appeals the district court’s order and Dorsa seeks to dismiss the appeal. Because the district court’s order was not a final order, and because the narrow provision of the Federal Arbitration Act that authorizes immediate appeals of certain interlocutory orders does not apply here, the court lacks jurisdiction.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 30, 2020

The Petitioner, Kendrick Watson, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to conspiracy to introduce marijuana into a penal facility, money laundering, aggravated assault, being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, and conspiracy to possess more than three hundred pounds of marijuana in exchange for a total effective sentence of seventeen years as a Range I, standard offender. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he had been denied due process prior to and during the plea process. The Petitioner also contended that the post-conviction court should recuse itself. The post-conviction court denied the recusal motion and denied post-conviction relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 30, 2020

The Petitioner, Justice Ball, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, carjacking, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and evading arrest and his effective fifteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 30, 2020

In this matter involving the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her two minor children, who were eight and seven years of age, respectively, at the time of trial, the trial court determined that there were three statutory grounds supporting termination: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, and (3) persistence of the conditions leading to the Children’s removal. The trial court further found clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 30, 2020

This is an appeal from a case between a nonprofit development management association and a condominium unit owner regarding the unit owner’s failure to pay monthly fees as well as a special assessment approved by the Board of the association. The trial court held in favor of the association, finding that it was well within its authority to assess both the monthly fees as well as the special assessment against the unit owner. The unit owner now appeals. For the reasons contained herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 30, 2020

This appeal involves a personal injury action stemming from an automobile accident. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff’s filing fell outside of the applicable statute of limitations. In granting dismissal, the trial court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.03. For the same reasons, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decisions and remand.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 29, 2020

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. This civil rights action arises from the death of eight-year-old Gabriel Taye, who died by suicide on January 26, 2017. Taye was a third-grade student at Carson Elementary School, part of the Cincinnati Public Schools (“CPS”) system in Cincinnati, Ohio. The plaintiffs-appellees (collectively, “the Plaintiffs”)—Karen Meyers (as Administratrix of the Estate of Gabriel Taye) and Taye’s parents, Cornelia Reynolds and Benyam Taye—filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Cincinnati Board of Education (“the Board”); now-retired Cincinnati Public Schools Superintendent Mary Ronan; former Carson Elementary principal, Ruthenia Jackson; former Carson Elementary assistant principal, Jeffrey McKenzie; and former Carson Elementary school nurse, Margaret McLaughlin (collectively, “the CPS Defendants”). The Plaintiffs also alleged against Jackson, McKenzie, and McLaughlin state law tort claims of wrongful death, intentional infliction of serious emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and failure to report child abuse. Additionally, the Plaintiffs brought a claim of spoliation against the Board, Ronan, Jackson, and McKenzie, as well as a claim of negligence against McLaughlin.

In lieu of filing an answer to the original complaint, the Board, Ronan, Jackson, and McKenzie moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ state law claims, in part on the grounds that they are entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 2744. The district court denied the motion to dismiss on those grounds. On appeal, Jackson and McKenzie argue that they are entitled to governmental immunity with respect to the Plaintiffs’ state law claims because the amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish that their conduct was “reckless” as a matter of law. Because we find that the Plaintiffs’ amended complaint sufficiently alleges facts that establish that Jackson and McKenzie behaved recklessly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Jackson and McKenzie’s motion to dismiss, holding that they are not entitled to governmental immunity under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Dec 29, 2020

Following two unsuccessful lawsuits filed by the instant plaintiff in federal district court, a foreclosure on the plaintiff’s home, and a successful unlawful detainer action filed in general sessions court by the purchaser of the home at foreclosure, the plaintiff filed this action against multiple defendants in the chancery court, seeking an order setting aside the foreclosure and a temporary injunction prohibiting her eviction. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the instant action on the basis of res judicata. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.


Previous • Page 245 of 972 • Next