|
|
Estate of Gardner v. Krans
| C-250457 | MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — R.C. 2305.113 — R.C. 2305.15 — DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE — CIV.R. 56(C) DISCOVERY — TOLLING STATUTE: Because plaintiff failed to send the 180-day letter to defendant doctor, R.C. 2305.113 does not extend plaintiff’s medical negligence claim, and it is barred by the statute of limitations. Because defendant doctor is not a resident of Ohio, the tolling statute found in R.C. 2305.05 violates the dormant Commerce Clause as applied to defendant and the statute of limitations was not tolled while defendant was absent from the state. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s Civ.R. 56(C) discovery request because plaintiff failed to support her motion with an explanation as to why she could not present sufficient evidence without the additional discovery. | Nestor | Hamilton |
7/15/2026
|
7/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2698 |
|
In re D.D.
| C-250545, C-250546, C-250547 | SUFFICENCY — JUVENILE ADJUDICATION — DELINQUENCY — AGGRAVATED MENACING — IDENTIFICATION: Appellant’s delinquency adjudications for conduct that if committed by an adult would constitute three counts of aggravated menacing were not supported by sufficient evidence where the prosecution failed to prove defendant’s identification as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt. | Moore | Hamilton |
7/15/2026
|
7/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2699 |
|
Weisman v. Durrani
| C-250099, C-250241 | DIRECTED VERDICT — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — R.C. 2305.113 — CIV.R. 42 — JOINDER — HEARSAY — EVID.R. 803(21) — REPUTATION — EVID.R. 406 — HABIT — EVID.R. 702 — EXPERT TESTIMONY — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — EVID.R. 403 — CUMULATIVE TESTIMONY — CUMULATIVE ERROR: In a medical-malpractice action, where plaintiff’s trial testimony established that her medical-malpractice claims were filed outside of the limitations period set forth in R.C. 2305.113(A), the trial court erred in failing to grant defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the claims. The trial court abused its discretion in joining two medical-malpractice actions for trial where the actions did not share a common question of law or fact and lacked a substantial overlap in the issues, facts, and evidence. [But see DISSENT: “Commonality” under Civ.R. 42(A) and Civ.R. 23 does not have the same meaning because the rules serve different purposes, and it is inappropriate to graft Civ.R. 23’s meaning of commonality for class actions onto Civ.R. 42’s joinder requirement, which addresses consolidation and is intended as a case-management tool. Wilson v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-2279, ¶ 125 (1st Dist.) (Moore, J., dissenting).] The trial court erred in allowing an expert witness for plaintiffs to offer hearsay testimony where no foundation had been offered to establish that the testimony was admissible as habit evidence under Evid.R. 406 or character evidence under Evid.R. 803(21). The trial court erred in allowing one of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses to testify beyond his expertise as a radiologist. The trial court erred in allowing plaintiffs to present cumulative expert testimony where the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its potential harm. Where the jury instructions as a whole did not mislead the jury, the trial court did not err in issuing a jury instruction on defendant doctor’s absence from trial. The cumulative effect of the errors that occurred at trial was not harmless and required reversal. [But see DISSENT: Because joinder was not improper, a reversal based on cumulative error is not warranted.] | Crouse | Hamilton |
7/10/2026
|
7/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2639 |
|
In re B.W.
| C-250301 | JUVENILE — CUSTODY — NONPARENT — UNSUITABILITY — DUE PROCESS — EVIDENCE: The juvenile court did not violate mother’s due-process rights to the care and custody of her child where the court found that an award of custody to mother would be detrimental to the child and where that finding was supported by a preponderance of the evidence: the nonparent and child shared a loving bond, mother and child did not share a similar bond, and removing the child from the only home she could remember would be traumatic. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in considering the guardian ad litem ("GAL")’s testimony where the GAL complied with rules requiring the GAL to attend hearings, remain objective, observe the child with each parent or caregiver, visit proposed residences, review necessary records, and provide timely recommendations. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to appellee nonparent where there was competent, credible evidence to support the court’s determination that it was in the child’s best interest to award custody to appellee nonparent. | Bock | Hamilton |
7/10/2026
|
7/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2640 |
|
State v. Saunders
| C-250519 | R.C. 4731.41 – R.C. 4731.34 – R.C. 4731.291 – PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE OR CERTIFICATE – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: The trial court did not err in convicting defendant of practicing medicine without a license or certificate in violation of R.C. 4731.41 because conducting ultrasounds outside of a clinical setting was outside the scope of defendant’s residency program. Defendant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the State presented testimony of two victims and videos of the ultrasounds that defendant performed on the victims. | Nestor | Hamilton |
7/8/2026
|
7/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2591 |
|