Court Rulings

In this post-divorce proceeding the self-employed father of the parties' two children sought a reduction in his child support obligation on the ground that his income had substantially decreased. The mother of the children opposed the petition, asserting that Father was attempting to hide income by referring income-producing business to his brother, who was also self- employed in the same trade Mother also sought an increase in support due to Father's increase in income and modification of the parenting plan. The trial court held that Father was voluntarily underemployed and that the proof of his income was not credible concluding that neither party had carried their burden of proof the court denied both petitions insofar as each sought modification of the child support obligation. The court denied Mother's proposed modification of the parenting plan and both parties' request for an award of counsel fees for services rendered in the proceeding. Both parties appeal. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the denial of Father's petition to modify his support obligation and the order denying his counsel fees we reverse the trial court's holding that Father was underemployed and remand the case for a determination of whether income should be imputed to Father and, if so, whether there has been a significant variance such as to justify an increase in his support obligation we vacate the order denying Mother's petition to modify the parenting plan and remand the case for the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Rule 52.01 and, in its discretion, for further consideration we vacate the order denying Mother attorney's fees.

R.C. 1547.41, operating a watercraft after sunset, R.C. 2921.29, failure to produce identification, Fifth Amendment right to travel, law enforcement jurisdiction on Lake Erie, R.C. 4705.01, R.C. 2301.33, judicial practice of law, code of judicial conduct, Crim.R. 11(A), R.C. 1901.20, municipal court jurisdiction, manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Interstate travel is a fundamental right but the right to intrastate travel, whether by motor vehicle or watercraft, is a privilege. The CMRD Unit has authority to enforce the law on Lake Erie within Cuyahoga County extending to the international boundary line between the United States and Canada. Crim.R. 11(A) allows a trial court to enter a not guilty plea on behalf of a defendant that refuses to plead. Appellant's convictions are supported by the manifest weight of the evidence, subsuming the sufficiency challenge.

FLSA, Class Certification- Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of an FLSA class pursuant to 29 USC 216(b) based on a clock-in and clock-out rounding policy. The magistrate found that potential plaintiffs were identified and submitted affidavits. However, the magistrate found evidence of a widespread discriminatory practice lacking because defendant did not uniformly enforce the clock-in and clock-out rounding policy and, therefore, that plaintiffs could not prove a violation as to all plaintiffs. Thus, the magistrate recommended denial of conditional class certification.

This appeal concerns an employee who made preparations to start a competing business while still employed by his old company. Todd Heins ("Heins") was a manager working for Leslie's Poolmart, Inc. ("Leslie's"), a nationwide pool supply business, at its Bartlett Hills location in the Memphis, Tennessee area. Jay Karcher ("Karcher"), while a customer in Leslie's Bartlett Hills store, approached Heins one day while he was working with an idea about starting a new pool supply business. Heins was intrigued and followed up with Karcher to found Blue Wave Pool Supply of Memphis, LLC ("Blue Wave"). Heins resigned from Leslie's before Blue Wave opened for business. Heins' friend and Leslie's employee Chad Pitcock ("Pitcock") also resigned and went to work for Blue Wave. Leslie's sued Blue Wave, Heins, Pitcock, and Karcher ("Defendants," collectively) in the Chancery Court for Shelby County ("the Trial Court") for, among other things, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, and inducement to breach contract. After a trial, the Trial Court found in favor of Defendants and dismissed Leslie's complaint with prejudice. Leslie's appeals. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Appellants appeal the granting of summary judgment, arguing that the bank failed to show that it was the holder of the note and mortgage. The bank was able to present an affidavit of employee with sufficient personal knowledge of the transaction that summary judgment was properly granted. Judgment affirmed.

This action arises out of an incident in which an instructor with the Eagleville High School's Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps pulled a stool from beneath a student participant in a JROTC competition while the student was sitting on it, causing injury to the student. The student's parents brought suit against the Rutherford County Board of Education under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act to recover for her injuries. Following a trial, the court dismissed the suit, holding that the instructor's actions were not within the scope of his employment, and therefore, the Board's immunity from suit was not removed. Plaintiffs appeal. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's holding that the instructor acted outside the scope of his employment, and as a consequence, the Board retained immunity from suit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.