|
|
Queen City Cleaning, L.L.C. v. I74 Wired, L.L.C.
| C-250643 | BREACH OF CONTRACT — DAMAGES — PENALTY — LIQUIDATED DAMAGES — MANIFEST WEIGHT: Where the amount of damages for a potential breach of contract was not uncertain or difficult to determine at the time that the contract was entered, the trial court did not err in failing to apply a contractual late-fee provision because the provision constituted a penalty, rather than a valid liquidated-damages clause. The trial court did not err in declining to apply a contractual late-fee provision rather than reforming the provision to impose a commercially-reasonable rate. The trial court’s award of damages was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the court awarded the amount of damages stipulated to by the parties, along with statutory interest, and where the damages compensated the nonbreaching party for the loss suffered from the breach. | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/23/2026
|
9/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3706 |
|
State v. Cooper
| C-250671 | BATSON CHALLENGE — VOIR DIRE — EVID.R. 404(B) — PLAIN ERROR: Where the trial court asked questions about the prosecutors’ subjective intent and personal beliefs to determine if they were motivated by a discriminatory intent in exercising a peremptory challenge, the trial court did not fail to follow the procedure set forth in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Where the State offered two race-neutral explanations to justify its exercise of a peremptory challenge, and where one of those explanations was supported by the record, the trial court did not err in failing to find that the State’s offered explanation was pretextual. In determining whether a race-neutral explanation provided by the State was pretextual because the State did not also excuse another juror who fit within the offered explanation, the comparative juror must be an otherwise-similar nonminority juror. Where defendant failed to raise an Evid.R. 404(B) objection during trial, defendant was limited to a plain-error argument on appeal. The appellate court will not analyze plain error where defendant fails to make a plain-error argument. | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/23/2026
|
9/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3707 |
|
Love v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
| C-260017 | MOTION TO DISMISS — CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — JURISDICTION — R.C. 2305.01 — R.C. 2506.01 — 42 U.S.C. 1983 — R.C. 2305.10 — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: Where the complaint asserted a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and invoked the trial court’s jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2305.01 and the Ohio Constitution, Section 4, Article IV, the trial court erred in determining that plaintiff was appealing a county determination of neglect and that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2506.01. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint asserting a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 where the complaint was filed outside of the two-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.10(A). | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/23/2026
|
9/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3708 |
|
State v. Gowie
| C-260096, C-260097 | R.C. 2929.14 — CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES: The trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was vacated where the court failed to make the required proportionality finding in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences. | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/23/2026
|
9/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3709 |
|
State v. Wilson
| C-250494 | MOOTNESS: The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s appeal from two misdemeanor convictions for aggravated menacing where defendant’s appeal was moot: defendant had fully served his sentences, had not moved for a stay of execution, and did not demonstrate that he would suffer an ongoing collateral legal consequence arising from his convictions. | Bock | Hamilton |
9/18/2026
|
9/18/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3658 |
|