| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. J.L.S.
| 23AP-69 | Appellant’s convictions for gross sexual imposition and attempted rape were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; appellant’s convictions and sentence affirmed, but matter remanded to trial court for limited purpose of properly calculating appellant’s jail-time credit. | Leland | Franklin |
2/5/2026
|
2/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-363 |
|
State ex rel. Diewald v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Bur. of Sentence Computation
| 23AP-89 | MANDAMUS – SENTENCE COMPUTATION: On petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the Bureau of Sentence Computation to modify petitioner’s aggregate prison sentence imposed in six different cases from three different counties, the magistrate properly found that petitioner must serve all definite prison sentences before he can begin serving the indefinite prison sentence. As such, petitioner has not established a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the bureau was under a clear legal duty to provide it. Writ denied. | Edelstein | Franklin |
2/5/2026
|
2/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-364 |
|
State v. Christian
| 23AP-677, 23AP-678, 23AP-679 | On appeal from a conviction and 36-month prison term for domestic violence, as well as the revocation of community control and consecutive 16-month prison term from two prior domestic violence convictions. Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury did not lose its way in believing the victim’s account, which was supported by physical evidence and first responders’ testimony. The state did not commit prosecutorial misconduct by suggesting inferences about credibility that could be drawn from specific evidence and testimony at trial. The trial court’s failure to include consecutive-sentencing findings in its judgment entry was a clerical error that could be cured by a nunc pro tunc entry. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Cause remanded for a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry. | Dingus | Franklin |
2/5/2026
|
2/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-365 |
|
State ex rel. OneSource Emp. Mgt., L.L.C. v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-615 | Petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Magistrate did not err in his determination that OneSource failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the commission was under a clear legal duty to provide it. | Boggs | Franklin |
2/5/2026
|
2/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-366 |
|
J.M.P. v. J.R.P
| 25AP-544 | R.C. 3113.31 — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER — APPELLATE REVIEW: Because the transcript from the full hearing on appellee’s petition for a domestic violence civil protection order was not included in the record under App.R. 9, and in the absence of any apparent procedural error by the trial court or cognizable argument or legal authority supporting appellant’s assignments of error, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings and affirm the trial court’s judgment issuing a protection order against appellant pursuant to R.C. 3113.31. Judgment affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
2/5/2026
|
2/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-367 |
|
Reece v. Davis-Williams
| 24AP-725 | The trial court erred by requiring proof of success in the underlying claim, and the decision with regard to the amount of damages is reversed. The some-evidence standard is appropriate where an attorney’s grievous conduct has prevented a plaintiff from proving the underlying case. An attorney’s representation of the value of a case is relevant in a malpractice action against that attorney under such circumstances. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. | Mentel | Franklin |
2/3/2026
|
2/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-328 |
|
Porter v. United Dairy Farmers
| 25AP-251 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when granting appellee’s motion to dismiss appellant’s complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Appellant purported to assert a civil rights violation arising from allegations of threatening behavior by appellee’s employee in a convenience store, but such a claim is not cognizable against a non-state actor for private conduct. Even if appellant’s allegations are construed as a claim for an intentional tort such as battery, appellee could not be held vicariously liable for acts of an employee that fall outside the scope of employment. | Mentel | Franklin |
2/3/2026
|
2/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-329 |
|
Dyer's Manufactured Hous. Community v. McCoy
| 25AP-264 | The trial court erred in denying intervenor’s motion to vacate based on the mootness doctrine. Because the trial court could grant intervenor an effectual, meaningful remedy if it determined plaintiff obtained the underlying judgment through fraud, the case and motion to vacate are not moot. Also, the trial court erred in determining that intervenor had not timely filed her motion for sanctions pursuant to R.C. 2323.51. Intervenor filed her motion within 30 days of the judgment granting the writ of execution, which is a final judgment. | Jamison | Franklin |
2/3/2026
|
2/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-330 |
|
Rascon v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce
| 25AP-504 | CIV.R. 12(B)(6) – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS – R.C. 2743.16: The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against the Ohio Department of Commerce for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion regarding unclaimed funds paid to a third party because it was filed more than two years after plaintiff learned that the department’s unclaimed funds division paid the funds at issue to someone else. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.16(A), the statute of limitations for all civil actions against the state is two years. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of pleading facts establishing the discovery rule or equitable tolling should have applied as an exception to the department’s statute-of-limitations defense. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
1/29/2026
|
1/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-276 |
|
State ex rel. Wright v. Franklin Cty. Mun. Court
| 25AP-562 | The magistrate recommends granting respondent’s motion to dismiss relator’s original action pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, this court adopts the magistrate’s decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with the magistrate’s decision, we grant the motion and dismiss the action. | Dingus | Franklin |
1/29/2026
|
1/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-277 |
|
State ex rel. Garrison v. Brown
| 25AP-566 | Realtor filed for a Writ of Mandamus ordering Respondent to dismiss his case. Realtor has not proven he has a clear legal right to this relief. Mandamus denied. Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted. | Jamison | Franklin |
1/29/2026
|
1/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-278 |
|
SER Liquidation Dealz, L.L.C. v. Hummer
| 25AP-488 | Petitioner has not shown he is entitled to either a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition. Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein, and grant respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismiss petitioner’s action in its entirety. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
1/22/2026
|
1/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-193 |
|
State v. Michie
| 25AP-299 | Defendant-appellant’s postconviction motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to vacate or set aside his sentence for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as they raised issues he either did litigate previously or could have litigated previously. Trial court’s judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
1/20/2026
|
1/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-163 |
|
Rhoades v. Ohio State Racing Comm.
| 25AP-443 | Racing Commission order imposing penalties for violating its regulations based on a positive blood test result for D-methamphetamine in a racehorse was not in accordance with law because the Commission failed to establish that it had promulgated a rule or issued an order classifying D-methamphetamine as a prohibited foreign substance. Common pleas court decision affirming Racing Commission order reversed and remanded. | Dorrian | Franklin |
1/15/2026
|
1/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-113 |
|
State v. Scheaffer
| 25AP-571 & 25AP-572 | CRIM.R. 32.1 – POSTSENTENCE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA – RES JUDICATA: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas under Crim.R. 32.1 without a hearing. Because defendant’s challenge raised issues that could have been raised on direct appeal and was not based on evidence outside of the record, res judicata applied. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
1/15/2026
|
1/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-114 |
|
State v. Abdi
| 24AP-312 | The trial court erred in dismissing appellee's indictment based on Double Jeopardy and Allied Offense grounds. | Jamison | Franklin |
1/13/2026
|
1/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-91 |
|
S.L. v. L.R.
| 25ap-173 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, nor did the trial court commit plain error in its decision to allow S.L. to claim K.L. for tax benefits. | Boggs | Franklin |
1/13/2026
|
1/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-92 |
|
Estate of Branscomb v. OhioHealth Corp.
| 25AP-373 | A judgment entered against a deceased plaintiff is void due to the trial court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff. Because a void judgment is not a final, appealable order, the appeal is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | Jamison | Franklin |
1/13/2026
|
1/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-93 |
|
Klickovich v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
| 24AP-446 | Appellant’s second assignment of error was not rendered moot by virtue of our determination regarding his first assignment of error and remand to the trial court. Thus, upon remand, in addition to conducting the proper review as set forth in R.C. 119 in the first instance as instructed in our prior decision, the trial court is hereby instructed to consider and rule upon the assignments of error asserted by appellant in the trial court. Application for reconsideration granted. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-31 |
|
State v. Houser
| 24AP-651 | The trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty of one count of gross sexual imposition and three counts of rape. Appellant fails to show that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to secure expert testimony, present a sufficient opening statement, and properly cross-examine witness J.B. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-32 |
|
H.C. v. C.P.
| 25AP-328 | The trial court erred in granting appellee’s request for a civil stalking protection order against appellant. The record contained no competent, credible evidence to support the order. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-33 |
|
Momentum Freight Logistics Corp. v. Benie Logistics Inc.
| 24AP-263 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly found the purchaser, Benie, breached the parties’ Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) by failing to provide the seller, Momentum, with both the $69,269.00 and the $257,999.32 Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC") policy holder dividend payments. Evidence from the BWC demonstrated that both payments were dividend reimbursements calculated based on the premiums an employer paid in 2019. Because both payments were a “premium dividend reimbursement” for the 2019 policy period, the APA obligated Benie to provide both payments to Momentum in a timely fashion. The trial court did not err by finding that Momentum could pierce the corporate veil of Benie. Competent and credible evidence demonstrated the owners of Benie, Elizabeth and Russell Dawson, operated Benie as their alter ego, used their control over Benie to commit a fraudulent transfer and civil theft, and that Momentum suffered damages as a result of the Dawsons’ control and wrongful conduct of Benie. The economic loss rule did not bar Momentum’s claim for civil theft but did bar Momentum’s claims for fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy, because the damages resulting from the fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy were the same as the damages resulting from the breach of contract. However, because the trial court did not award any damages attributable to the fraudulent transfer or civil conspiracy claims, there was no aspect of the trial court’s judgment to reverse. | Mentel | Franklin |
1/6/2026
|
1/15/2026
| 2025-Ohio-5738 |
|
Alapini v. SK Food Group
| 25AP-314 | Appellant’s assignments of error, which challenged the trial court’s determination that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies because he did not allege in his charge to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission that he had been constructively discharged, were moot because appellant did not assign as error the trial court’s independent determination that his claims of discrimination and retaliation predicated on constructive discharge were time-barred under R.C. 4112.052(C). Trial court’s judgment is affirmed on that unchallenged basis. | Boggs | Franklin |
1/6/2026
|
1/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-17 |