|
|
Castellon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 25AP-856 | Appellant's first four assignments of error related to orders by the magistrate regarding his motion to compel discovery; motion for sanctions; and request for default judgment. Because appellant did not file motions to set aside the magistrate's orders, he waived all but plain-error on appeal. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to make plain-error arguments on appeal and thus, has failed to demonstrate reversible error. In the court's review of the record, nothing warrants the application of the plain-error doctrine. The record does not support appellant's claim that the trial court relied on inadmissible evidence in ruling on the parties' motions for summary judgment. Appellant's argument that certain claims were not barred by res judicata is without merit because the trial court never found the claims were barred by res judicata. Finally, the trial court properly found that the statements at issue were opinion and that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") official who made the statements was subject to qualified privilege. Thus, there was no genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment in favor of defendant on appellant's defamation claim was proper. | Jamison | Franklin |
8/31/2026
|
8/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3389 |
|
State v. Mejia-Estrada
| 25AP-585 | Appellant argued that his convictions of rape and gross sexual imposition were against the sufficiency of the evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence. The State introduced a digital copy of the victim’s Child Assessment Center ("C.A.C.") interview and the victim testified in court. The testimony was sufficient evidence to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the acts alleged in the indictment. The jury observed the witnesses and their demeanor and found the testimony credible. This is not the exceptional case in which evidence weighs heavily against the conviction, therefore, the conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Assignment of error No. 1 is overruled. The trial court failed to incorporate the findings to impose consecutive sentences as required in State v. Bonnell, 2014-Ohio-3177. The matter is remanded strictly for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to include the findings for consecutive terms of incarceration in the sentencing entry. Assignment of error No. 2 sustained. Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded. | Jamison | Franklin |
8/31/2026
|
8/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3390 |
|
In re Lu.M.-R.
| 24AP-647 | The trial court’s decision granting the motion of Franklin County Children Services for permanent custody was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. And because it was unnecessary for the trial court to make a reasonable efforts finding in the permanent custody decision, appellant’s challenge to that finding is unavailing. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
8/27/2026
|
8/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3344 |
|
Moore v. Moore
| 25AP-171 | On appeal from an amended decree of divorce entered after a partial reversal and remand of the original May 2021 divorce decree. The trial court properly relied on information in the 2016-2017 trial record relative to the appellee’s child support obligation from January 2020 through May 2021, the court did not abuse its discretion in calculating child support for that period, and its retroactive imposition of the newly calculated amount was proper. The court erred in summarily rejecting appellant’s requests to consider updated information relative to child support from May 2021 onward. The court’s reference to outdated versions of R.C. 3119.021 and R.C. 3119.04 was harmless. The court’s valuation of the parties’ third Ohio residence contained multiple errors that overall were in the appellant’s favor, rendering them harmless. The court had jurisdiction to enter an order that added up various debits and credits from previous judgment entries, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal. The trial court did not err in failing to divide the entirety of the parties’ property de novo, as the limited remand from this court prohibited the trial court from doing so. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. | Dingus | Franklin |
8/27/2026
|
8/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3345 |
|
State ex rel. Yauger v. Houk
| 25AP-291 | Objections to the magistrate’s decision are overruled and the court adopts the magistrate’s decision as our own, including the findings of facts and conclusions of law. Relator failed to demonstrate that respondents had a clear legal duty to provide the requested relief. | Boggs | Franklin |
8/27/2026
|
8/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3346 |
|