Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in October, 2012
by
In 2004, Ohio passed a law criminalizing the distribution of mifepristone, also known as RU-486, unless the distribution complied with protocols and gestational time limits identified by the FDA when mifepristone was first approved in 2000. Ohio Rev. Code 2919.123. Mifepristone, in combination with misoprostol, was the only form of medical abortion offered by Planned Parenthood in Ohio. Planned Parenthood’s Ohio regional clinics and two of its doctors challenged the Ohio Act. The district court entered a preliminary injunction to cover the Act’s failure to make an exception for circumstances involving the health and life of the mother, but the Act has otherwise been in force since February 2011. Following resolution of certified questions by the Ohio Supreme Court, the district court entered summary judgment that: the Act was no longer unconstitutionally vague; did not violate a woman’s right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment; and did not impose an undue burden on a woman’s Fourteenth Amendment right to choose abortion. Whether the Act unduly burdens a woman’s right to health and life under the Fourteenth Amendment was held for trial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the vagueness and bodily-integrity claims. View "Planned Parenthood SW OH Region v. DeWine" on Justia Law

by
In 1994 Nathan was discovered in a hotel room, having suffered severe trauma to her head. Her jewelry was missing. Nathan died that afternoon. Police investigated three hotel employees who had prior criminal histories, eventually focusing on Jones. Police discovered that Jones had injured his hand on the day Nathan was killed and had filed a claim for workers’ compensation for an injury classified as a fist-to-mouth injury. Jones stated that he hurt his hand cleaning a banquet room. A search of Jones’s car produced Nathan’s pendant and a master key to the hotel. A jury convicted Jones on aggravated felony murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery, and recommended the death penalty. The Ohio Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence. Jones unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief and, in 2001, filed an unsuccessful habeas petition in federal district court. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that the state trial court improperly admitted evidence that Jones exercised his right to counsel; that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, and counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to discover the withheld evidence; and that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate a history of crime at the hotel.View "Jones v. Bagley" on Justia Law

by
Circle C contracted to construct buildings at the Fort Campbell military base. The agreement included determinations of hourly wages for electrical workers. Circle C has had government contracts for 20 years; its co-owner and a bookkeeper attended training on the prevailing wage requirement for federal government contracts. PT was Circle C’s subcontractor on 98 percent of the electrical work, but did not have a written contract. Circle C provided PT with the wage determination excerpts from its contract, but did not explain the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3142) prevailing wage requirements nor verify whether PT submitted its own payroll certifications, nor monitor PT’s eight employees’ work on the project, nor take measures to ensure payment of proper wages. One of the PT electricians claimed violation of the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(2). The Department of Labor found inaccurate or false payroll certifications. The district court awarded treble damages: $1,661,423.13. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, but remanded for recalculation of the damages. Circle C, an experienced contractor, made false statements, acted in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information, and the false statements were “material” to the government’s decision to make payment.View "Wall v. Circle C Constr., L.L.C." on Justia Law