|
|
In re M.R.
| 25AP-765 | CONTEMPT — JUVENILE — CUSTODY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to find father in contempt of court for multiple alleged violations of an agreed custody order where the record supported the trial court’s determinations that father did not prevent mother from contacting the child, fail to timely provide mother with medical and school records, fail to meet the child's needs, or otherwise violate the agreed custody order. Furthermore, the agreed custody order did not provide mother or maternal family with visitation rights; rather, it permitted supervised in-person visits within father’s discretion as the sole custodian and residential parent. Thus, father’s failure to respond or agree to any of mother's visitation requests did not, under the facts and circumstances of this case, rise to the level of contempt. Judgment affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
9/30/2026
|
9/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3861 |
|
Main & Nelson Station, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
| 25AP-786; 25AP-860 | Because the appellant did not timely appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals decision, this court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals. Therefore, the appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and these appeals are dismissed. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/30/2026
|
9/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3862 |
|
Forhan v. Ohio House of Representatives
| 25AP-895 | Judgment affirmed. The Court of Claims did not err by finding that witness interview notes, taken by attorneys retained to act as special counsel for the House of Representatives (“House”), were personal notes and not public records. The requestor had the burden to prove the interview notes were public records, and he failed to carry his burden. The requestor failed to demonstrate that the interview notes were created for a reason other than the convenience of the individual note-taker, that anyone besides the note’s creator had access to or used any of the notes, or that anything required the attorneys to maintain the interview notes. The requestor’s arguments asserting the interview notes contained information that was not otherwise publicly available and/or that the notes contained information related to wrongdoing were irrelevant. Because the interview notes were not public records the House had no obligation to produce the notes. The Court of Claims did not err by finding that the report drafts were public records, because the attorneys created the drafts pursuant to delegated public duties and the drafts documented House activities. The House failed to carry its burden to prove that the drafts were exempt from disclosure either as trial preparation records or based on the attorney-client privilege. | Leland | Franklin |
9/30/2026
|
9/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3863 |
|
Arndts v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio
| 26AP-165 | Trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss and in denying appellant’s motion for leave to amend complaint. | Leland | Franklin |
9/30/2026
|
9/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3864 |
|
State ex rel. Mattox v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-703 | The magistrate recommends denying relator’s request for a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order finding that respondent employer did not violate a specific safety requirement. Relator has filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. Following our independent review of this matter, we find that the magistrate has properly determined the pertinent facts and appropriately applied the law. We therefore overrule relator’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. In accordance with the magistrate’s decision, we deny relator’s requested writ of mandamus. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/29/2026
|
9/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3823 |
|