|
|
Feldman v. Klosterman
| C-250658 | SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT— REPUDIATION — DUE PROCESS: The trial court did not err as a matter of law by granting defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement where the record reflects that the parties agreed to enter into a mutual release of claims, with no additional terms, and plaintiff’s counsel did not oppose the motion to enforce or request an evidentiary hearing. The trial court did not err by dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice where the parties agreed to a mutual release of all claims with no additional terms. The trial court did not violate plaintiff’s due-process rights by enforcing the settlement agreement where no medical documentation exists in the record to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for a continuance. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/7/2026
|
10/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3944 |
|
State v. Books
| C-260116 | CRIMINAL DAMAGING — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — RESTITUTION: Defendant’s conviction for criminal damaging was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the State presented video evidence of defendant repeatedly jumping on the victim’s truck. The trial court’s restitution award was supported by competent, credible evidence where the victim testified about the damage to his truck and introduced the repair estimate as evidence. | Nestor | Hamilton |
10/7/2026
|
10/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3946 |
|
Borovicanin v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Assn.
| C-260335 | PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION — FINAL ORDER — R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) — PERSONAL JURISDICTION — BREACH OF CONTRACT — IMPLIED DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING — VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION — ARBITRARY — WAIVER — ATHLETIC ELIGIBILITY — ABUSE OF DISCRETION — IRREPARABLE INJURY — PUBLIC INTEREST: A trial court’s order granting a preliminary injunction was a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) where, even though a permanent injunction seeking the same relief had been requested, the injunction altered the status quo and defendant could not obtain meaningful relief following an appeal after final judgment. Where defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Ohio by transacting business with its member institutions in the state, and where plaintiffs’ lawsuit was directly related to defendant’s contact with the forum, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas had personal jurisdiction over defendant, a nonresident of Ohio. Plaintiffs did not have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their breach-of-contract claim where the record failed to establish that defendant, a voluntary, self-governing association, acted arbitrarily in failing to apply a revised Bylaw on the eligibility of student-athletes to student-athletes who had already exhausted their eligibility at the time that the revised Bylaw took effect and in denying eligibility waivers to plaintiffs. The trial court abused its discretion in enjoining defendant from denying plaintiffs a fifth season of athletic eligibility, as well as from enforcing the Transfer Portal requirements with respect to plaintiffs, where plaintiffs did not have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their breach-of-contract claim, other student-athletes would be harmed by the injunction, and the public-interest considerations either weighed neutrally between the parties or tipped slightly in defendant’s favor, even though plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/2/2026
|
10/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3885 |
|
State v. Sweeten
| C-250664 | RESTITUTION — ECONOMIC LOSS — RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: Where the State failed to show that defendant, who was convicted of receiving the victim’s stolen gun, repainted the victim’s gun, which caused an economic loss, and failed to provide evidence of the amount of economic loss resulting from the gun’s new paint job, defendant cannot be responsible for paying restitution to the victim for the economic loss from the paint job. The trial court erred in computing the amount of restitution owed because the record contained insufficient evidence from which it could compute a proper restitution figure, and the amount ordered was simply the approximate difference between the costs of the victim’s original stolen gun and the replacement purchased by the victim. | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/30/2026
|
9/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3842 |
|
State v. Ellington
| C-260033 | CRIM.R. 33(B) — MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL — UNAVOIDABLE PREVENTION: The trial court properly denied defendant’s delayed motion for a new trial where defendant failed to comply with the first step of Crim.R. 33(B)’s mandatory two-step procedure: defendant was required to seek and obtain an order granting leave to file the delayed motion for a new trial. Defendant did not comply with Crim.R. 33(B) by arguing that he was unavoidably preventing from discovering the evidence upon which his new-trial motion depends in his delayed motion for a new trial where Crim.R. 33(B) requires defendants to obtain an order granting leave before filing the new-trial motion. See State v. McAlpin, 2026-Ohio-148. | Bock | Hamilton |
9/30/2026
|
9/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3843 |
|