|
|
DSWDWK, L.L.C. v. Airgas USA, L.L.C.
| C-250580 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT — ECONOMIC LOSS RULE — CONVERSION — TRESPASS TO CHATTELS — BREACH OF CONTRACT — TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT: The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule where plaintiff’s tort claims for conversion, trespass to chattels, and tortious interference with a contract did not rest on an independent duty outside of the parties’ contract. The trial court erred in denying defendant’s counterclaim for breach of contract on the basis of waiver, as a nonbreaching party may continue to perform under the contract and sue to collect damages. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
8/12/2026
|
8/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3092 |
|
Arndts v. Univ. of Cinti Med. Ctr.
| C-250687 | DEFAMATION PER QUOD — CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — SPECIAL DAMAGES — FRAUD — R.C. 2307.60 — PARTICULARITY — CIV.R. 9(B) — FAILURE TO REPORT ABUSE — R.C. 5101.63 — BIDDLE — RES JUDICATA: The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s defamation claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), where the claim was premised on defamation per quod, and plaintiff failed to plead special damages. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s fraud claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), where she failed to plead each claim with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B). The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s failure to report abuse claim under R.C. 5101.63 for failure to state a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) where plaintiff cited no authority that R.C. 5101.63 states a civil cause of action. The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s unauthorized disclosure of medical information cause of action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) where the complaint sufficiently alleged, under state law, that a hospital shared her medical information with unauthorized individuals without her consent. See Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp., 86 Ohio St.3d 395, 401 (1999). The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s state-law claim for the unauthorized disclosure of medical information based on res judicata pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), because res judicata generally involves examining evidence outside the four corners of the complaint. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
8/12/2026
|
8/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3093 |
|
Gauthier v. Gauthier
| C-250189, C-250190, C-250617 | CIV.R. 41(A) — VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL — JURISDICTION — CONTINUANCE — COUNSEL — ABUSE OF DISCRETION: A voluntary dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(b) did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the assignment of an attorney-fee judgment, which was a collateral issue not related to the merits of the action. The trial court abused its discretion in denying a party’s request for a continuance where the party had not been granted prior continuances, requested the continuance to seek counsel, was elderly and spoke limited English, was questioned by the court while unsworn and was not subject to cross-examination, and was noticeably confused, and where there were allegations that the signature of the party had been forged on the document that was under scrutiny at the hearing. | Crouse | Hamilton |
8/7/2026
|
8/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3046 |
|
State v. Burton
| C-250548 | APPELLATE JURISDICTION — FINAL ORDERS — R.C. 2945.67 — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — OHIO CONST., ART. IV, § 3(B)(2) — MOTIONS TO DISMISS — MOTIONS FOR LEAVE: Although R.C. 2945.67(A) permitted the State to appeal the municipal court’s denial of the State’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the order because it was not a “judgment[] or final order[]” as required by Ohio Const., art. IV, § 3(B)(2), and State ex rel. Leis v. Kraft, 10 Ohio St.3d 34 (1984). | Crouse | Hamilton |
8/7/2026
|
8/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3047 |
|
State v. Noonan
| C-260024 | MANIFEST WEIGHT — ASSAULT — CREDIBILITY — PHYSICAL HARM — HAIR-PULLING: Defendant’s conviction for assault was not against the manifest of the evidence where the trial court’s finding that defendant had pulled the victim’s hair out of her head was supported by victim testimony and photographs, and where no evidence so undermined the victim’s credibility as to require the trial court to discredit her testimony. Where the evidence supported a finding that defendant had physically pulled substantial amounts of the victim’s hair out of her head, the trial court permissibly found that the victim had suffered “physical harm” within the meaning of R.C. 2903.13(A) and 2901.01(A)(3). | Crouse | Hamilton |
8/7/2026
|
8/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3048 |
|