|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
In re Disinterment of Glass
| 30565 | Appellant’s deceased spouse and appellee were parties to this case and gave deposition testimony. The deposition testimony was designated confidential in a stipulated protective order, which upon motion was modifiable. Appellant filed a motion to modify the protection order to use in a separate civil suit portions of the deposition testimony. The trial court erred by using a Civ.R. 60(B) standard to overrule the motion; instead, the trial court’s decision was left to its discretion. Considering the family relationship between the parties, which negates any assertion of confidentiality, and the potential relevance of the deposition testimony to the pending litigation, any decision denying appellant’s modification motion would be an abuse of discretion. Judgment reversed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5433 |
|
State v. Creamer
| 2024-CA-75 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s request for a trial continuance. The trial court did, however, violate R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(e) by imposing a prison term for a firearm specification attached to appellant’s offense of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle; accordingly, that portion of appellant’s sentence is contrary to law. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to give a jury instruction on aggravated assault as an inferior-degree offense to felonious assault, and appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to request such an instruction during trial. Judgment affirmed in part and modified in part, and matter remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of issuing a new sentencing entry. (Huffman, J., concurring.) (Tucker, J., concurring in both the majority opinion and the concurrence.) | Hanseman | Greene |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5430 |
|
State v. Gray
| 2025-CA-13 | The record supports the trial court’s finding that appellant had the ability to pay costs associated with community control revocation. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Champaign |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5431 |
|
State v. Yarbrough
| 30498 | The trial court erred in notifying appellant that under the Reagan Tokes Law, he would be entitled to counsel at a hearing to determine whether an additional prison term should be imposed during his incarceration. The trial court fundamentally altered the advisement required by the Reagan Tokes Law, so appellant’s sentence was contrary to law. The trial court’s judgment is reversed with respect to appellant’s sentence, and this matter is remanded for the sole purpose of providing appellant with the proper notice under the Reagan Tokes Law. Judgment affirmed in all other respects. | Huffman | Montgomery |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5437 |
|
State v. Little
| 2024-CA-58 | Appellant’s no-contest pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary where the trial court informed him in a reasonable manner that he was waiving his right to a jury trial. Due to an over one-year delay in ruling on appellant’s motion to dismiss an indictment and the lack of explanation in the record for the lengthy delay, appellant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. Convictions vacated and appellant ordered discharged. | Lewis | Clark |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5436 |
|
Jones v. Jones
| 2025-CA-16 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee’s motion to terminate her shared parenting plan with appellant and awarding her sole custody of their children. The record supported the trial court’s findings that granting custody to appellee was in the best interest of the children. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5435 |
|
State v. Hurley
| 2024-CA-25 | The trial court correctly declined to merge the offenses of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and aggravated vehicular assault as allied offenses of similar import. The record supports the trial court’s imposition of a five to seven-and-a-half-year prison sentence for aggravated vehicular assault. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Champaign |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5432 |
|
In re Williams
| 2025-CA-17 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion to terminate a custody condition prohibiting her boyfriend, a convicted sex offender, from having any contact with her minor child. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5434 |
|
Maxe v. Rosa
| 30466 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by terminating the parties’ shared-parenting plan and by designating appellee as the legal custodian and residential parent of the parties’ minor child. The trial court also did not err by ordering appellant to pay his share of work-related childcare expenses. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
11/26/2025
|
11/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5325 |
|
Martin v. James
| 30476 | The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) where the two named defendants were a decedent and a bank that was not a party to the alleged promissory note between appellant and decedent. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
11/26/2025
|
11/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5324 |
|
State v. Morgan
| 30385 | Appellant’s conviction for domestic violence was not supported by sufficient evidence where the State failed to prove the victim was a family or household member. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Lewis | Montgomery |
11/26/2025
|
11/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5326 |
|
State v. Gary
| 2025-CA-7 | Appellant’s convictions arose from separate and distinct acts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and the trial court did not err in declining to merge the two offenses at sentencing. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Darke |
11/26/2025
|
11/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5323 |
|
State v. Cope
| 30457 | The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a pat-down of appellant conducted during a lawful traffic stop. The State failed to establish that the deputy sheriff had a reasonable, objective basis for conducting the pat-down after he ordered appellant to exit the vehicle in preparation for a canine free-air sniff. Judgment reversed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
11/26/2025
|
11/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5321 |
|
State v. Elzey
| 2025-CA-22 | Appellant’s conviction for aggravated menacing was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State’s failure to disclose material impeachment evidence did not violate Brady or Crim.R. 16 where the impeachment evidence was discovered during trial and where counsel was given the opportunity to conduct a full cross-examination using the impeachment evidence. Appellant’s right of allocution was not violated during his sentencing hearing and the trial court’s decision to impose the maximum sentence for appellant’s aggravated menacing offense was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court did not commit plain error by allowing appellant’s sole defense witness to testify by writing down her answers to counsels’ questions and having those answers read to the jury by an unsworn court bailiff. Appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by agreeing to have the witness questioned in this manner. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
11/26/2025
|
11/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5322 |
|
State v. O'Neal
| 2025-CA-14 | Appellant’s guilty plea to three counts of misuse of credit cards was made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner because the trial court advised him of the effect of his plea. However, the court erred when it failed to calculate jail-time credit at sentencing with respect to those charges. Judgment reversed in part and remanded for the specific purpose of calculating jail-time credit. In all other respects, appellant’s judgments of conviction are affirmed. | Epley | Miami |
11/21/2025
|
11/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5249 |
|
State v. Celaya
| 2025-CA-4 | Appellant’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance in defense of appellant’s charges of aggravated possession of drugs and failure to appear. Record shows counsel utilized debatable trial strategies. Trial counsel was also not ineffective by not filing a motion to suppress. Counsel lacked any basis to request suppression of the drug evidence seized by the deputy sheriff. The absence of a motion to suppress related to appellant’s other encounter with the deputy was not prejudicial because no evidence related to appellant’s possession offence was discovered during that interaction. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Champaign |
11/21/2025
|
11/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5246 |
|
State v. Monroe
| 2025-CA-6 | The record did not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
11/21/2025
|
11/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5248 |
|
In re Z.A.
| 2025-CA-39 | The trial court did not err by granting permanent custody of mother’s children to the public children services agency because they could not be returned to mother within a reasonable time and because it was in the best interest of the children to be placed in the permanent custody of the agency. The trial court also did not err in not granting mother a six-month extension to complete her case plan because an extension was not requested, and the record showed that an extension would not have facilitated mother’s compliance with her case plan. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
11/21/2025
|
11/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5247 |
|
State v. Wheeler
| 2025-CA-9 | Facts supported police’s reasonable, articulable suspicion that appellant had operated a vehicle while under the influence of drugs, so he was properly detained for field sobriety testing. Based on the field sobriety testing and the totality of circumstances, police had probable cause to arrest appellant for operating a vehicle impaired ("OVI"). Trial court correctly overruled appellant’s motion to suppress. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
11/14/2025
|
11/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5165 |
|
State v. Boyle
| 2025-CA-10 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a default judgment against appellant declaring him to be a vexatious litigator. Appellant failed to answer appellee’s complaint or respond to appellee’s default judgment motion. Given the record of appellant’s numerous prior unsuccessful civil actions that appellee submitted in support of its request, appellant was clearly a vexatious litigator. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
11/14/2025
|
11/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5160 |
|
State v. Krupp
| 2025-CA-6 | Appellant’s conviction for domestic violence was against the manifest weight of the evidence where appellee failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had not acted in self-defense. Judgment reversed. | Lewis | Darke |
11/14/2025
|
11/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5162 |
|
State v. McLaughlin
| 30440 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw waiver of indictment following appellant’s withdrawal of his plea agreement. The trial court complied with the requirements under R.C. 2941.021 when accepting appellant’s waiver of indictment on a bill of information, and appellant had no absolute right to withdraw waiver. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
11/14/2025
|
11/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5163 |
|
State v. Day
| 2025-CA-30 | The State’s failure to include the mens rea element of appellant’s felony drug possession offense in its oral statement of the facts at appellant’s no-contest plea hearing did not strip the trial court of its authority to find appellant guilty of the offense where the recitation did not negate any element of the offense. Appellant never objected to the State’s recitation of facts at the plea hearing and failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from the State’s omission. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
11/14/2025
|
11/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5161 |
|
Tsonis v. Anesthesiology Servs. Network, Ltd.
| 30345 | Trial court granted summary judgment to hospital, anesthesia practice, and two medical providers on appellants’ medical claims on the ground that the appellants’ action was untimely. Under the 2019 amendments to R.C. 2305.113(B), appellants were not required to give actual notice of their potential claims to extend the one-year statute of limitations. Genuine issues of material fact existed on whether appellants’ 180-day letters to the hospital and individual defendants were delivered within the limitations period; appellants presented evidence that the statute of limitations did not run for a period following appellant’s procedure due to the effects of her related brain injury. Trial court abused its discretion in denying appellants an opportunity to conduct discovery on whether the individual defendants were out of state for personal reasons during the limitations period. Judgments reversed and remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
11/14/2025
|
11/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5164 |
|
Morse Rd. Dev., L.L.C. v. Centerville
| 30358 | The trial court did not err in reversing the Centerville City Council’s denial of a site-plan application filed by appellees to develop a parcel of real estate. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the proposed development was consistent with the use and character of surrounding properties. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
11/7/2025
|
11/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5065 |
|
Morse Rd. Dev., L.L.C. v. Centerville
| 30387 | The trial court did not err in reversing the Centerville City Council’s denial of a site-plan application filed by appellees to develop a parcel of real estate. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the proposed development was consistent with the use and character of surrounding properties. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
11/7/2025
|
11/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5066 |
|
State v. Krieger
| 30324 | The trial court did not err by failing to suppress statements appellant made to law enforcement officers where appellant’s Miranda rights were not violated and where appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived those rights. The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the defense of accident with regard to appellant’s felony murder and felonious assault charges was harmless error given that appellant was acquitted of those charges. Appellant’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by choosing to have the jury instructed on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter as opposed to the defense of accident lacks merit because that decision was a matter of trial strategy that cannot form the basis of an ineffective assistance claim. Appellant’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Lastly, the trial court did not err by failing to merge appellant’s involuntary manslaughter and having weapons while under disability offenses at sentencing. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
11/7/2025
|
11/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5063 |
|
State v. Thompson-Rivers
| 2024-CA-65 | The trial court did not err in refusing to merge the offenses of felonious assault and discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited premises because the offenses are dissimilar in import and significance. Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to dismiss the weapons under disability charges where the disability was predicated on a juvenile adjudication. There was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of one count of improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation, and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. But insufficient evidence sustained a conviction of a second count of improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation. The perceived inconsistency in the testimony of a State’s witness did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct because there is no reasonable probability that it affected the outcome of the trial. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. | Lewis | Clark |
11/7/2025
|
11/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5067 |
|
State v. Barber
| 30342 | Appellant’s due process rights were not violated when the indictment charged him with two counts of rape and two counts of sexual battery, all of which alleged the same timeframe and described the offenses in terms of their statutory elements. Ohio law permits the use of statutory language in charging instruments, and the child victim described multiple incidents of the charged crimes during her forensic interview and her trial testimony. Appellant was informed of the basis of the indictment when the court held a pretrial hearing concerning the admissibility of the victim’s forensic interview. Appellant’s claim of insufficient evidence for his second rape and sexual battery convictions is based on alleged contradiction in the victim’s testimony. Credibility is not involved in sufficiency analysis, and the victim testified to multiple incidents of sexual abuse. The State presented sufficient evidence establishing the elements of those offenses. Finally, the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for appellant’s two convictions of rape of a child under ten years of age. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
11/7/2025
|
11/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5061 |
|
State v. Charles
| 2025-CA-2 | Appellant did not object and, therefore, waived the issue of his ability to pay financial sanctions and court costs for his misdemeanor offenses for purposes of appeal. Because appellant pled guilty to attempted theft and obstruction, the court was not required to make findings of guilt based upon any explanation of circumstances. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Miami |
11/7/2025
|
11/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5062 |
|
State v. Mallory
| 2025-CA-18 | The trial court erred by not allowing the victim a chance to be heard at the plea hearing in violation of Marsy’s Law. Judgment is reversed and remanded for a new plea hearing to be held in accordance with Marsy’s Law. | Epley | Darke |
11/6/2025
|
11/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5064 |
|
State v. Ackerman
| 2025-CA-25 | Conceded error. The trial court failed to specify at appellant’s sentencing hearing the total number of days of jail-time credit to which she was entitled or to provide her an opportunity to be heard on the issue. The trial court further failed to provide at the sentencing hearing all the notifications set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) in connection with its imposition of an indefinite prison sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law. Judgment is reversed in part and remanded solely for the trial court to specify the total number of days of jail-time credit to which appellant was entitled as of the date of her sentencing; to allow appellant the opportunity to be heard on the issue of jail-time credit; and to properly advise her of the notifications set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). Judgment affirmed in all other respects. | Huffman | Clark |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4966 |
|
State v. Kanyamihigo
| 2025-CA-12 | The trial court strictly complied with its obligation under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) to advise appellant a guilty plea would waive his right “to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4970 |
|
State v. Damico
| 2025-CA-18 | The appeal is moot because appellant has completely served the jail sentences that he challenges on appeal and has not shown that he has suffered any collateral disability from his convictions. Appeal dismissed. | Lewis | Miami |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4968 |
|
State v. Smith
| 2025-CA-8 | The trial court did not err in failing to dismiss a charge against appellant based on a speedy-trial violation. While appellant was incarcerated in federal prison, he failed to follow the statutory procedure to demand a trial within 180 days on his pending Ohio charge. Appellant’s later-appointed counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to raise the foregoing issue. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Darke |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4973 |
|
State v. Hudson
| 2025-CA-11 | Appellant’s conviction for violating a protection order was based on sufficient evidence. Circumstantial evidence supported the conclusion that appellant was found at the complainant’s residence, a prohibited location. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4969 |
|
Landers v. Montgomery Cty. Veterans Serv. Comm.
| 30370 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees in appellant’s defamation claim. The statements made by a commissioner and employee were protected by a qualified privilege. The trial court did err in granting more than $200,000 in back pay as a result of Open Meetings Act violations because such an award is not contemplated by the statute. Finally, the trial court did not err when it failed to grant appellant attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, salary, and benefits. Attorney fees are not available for pro se litigants, and pre- and post-judgment interest, salary, and benefits are not contemplated by the statute. Judgment reversed as to back pay but affirmed in all other respects. The case will, however, be remanded to the Montgomery County Veterans Service Commission to terminate appellant in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. | Epley | Montgomery |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4971 |
|
Reilly v. Rastegar
| 30445 | The trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment was not a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(6) because it did not determine the constitutionality of the cap on noneconomic damages in R.C. 2323.43(A)(3). Appeal dismissed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4972 |
|
Columbus State Community College v. Chanthunya
| 30486 | Appellant was properly served by e-mail with appellee’s motion for summary judgment and written requests for admission. Based on appellant’s failure to respond to the requests, the trial court did not err in deeming the matters at issue admitted. The deemed admissions and an affidavit accompanying appellee’s motion established appellee’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on appellant’s non-payment of a delinquent student account. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4967 |
|
State v. Sheppard
| 2024-CA-50 | Under the doctrine of res judicata, appellant was precluded from moving to withdraw his guilty pleas on the grounds that they were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. By means of a stipulation in appellant’s plea agreement, he waived his argument that his murder and felonious assault offenses were allied offenses of similar import. Nothing in the record demonstrates manifest injustice or that the trial abused its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion to withdraw his pleas. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4882 |
|
State v. Dearth
| 2025-CA-16 | Appellant’s conviction for assault was based upon sufficient evidence, and it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4879 |
|
State v. Bell
| 30467 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s motion seeking the disclosure of public records related to his murder case. Appellant was incarcerated for his convictions in the murder case, and the trial court reasonably concluded that the requested records did not support any justiciable claim of appellant, as required for access to the records under R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4873 |
|
State v. Brown
| 2025-CA-19 | The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to tell appellant a guilty plea would waive his ability to challenge the trial court’s overruling of a motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds. Judgments affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4874 |
|
State v. Daniels
| 2025-CA-21 | The sentence imposed on appellant for complicity to felonious assault was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law because it was within the statutory range for the offense and the trial court stated in its sentencing entry that it had considered the principles and purposes of sentencing of R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12. Based on the authority of State v. Hacker, 2023-Ohio-2535, appellant’s indefinite sentence imposed under the Reagan Tokes Law did not violate her constitutional right to due process. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4876 |
|
State v. Rivera
| 2025-CA-10 | The sentence pronounced orally by the trial court at appellant’s first sentencing hearing was not a final order, so at appellant’s subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court did not err when it entered a final judgment entry of conviction that increased appellant’s sentence. The three-year delay between appellant’s original sentencing hearing and imposition of her sentence was wholly attributable to her failure to appear for court and did not warrant discharge. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4881 |
|
Sholar v. Sholar
| 30550 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for disqualification of appellant’s counsel under Prof.Cond.R. 3.7(a). Appellant did not respond to appellee’s motion within the time provided by Civ.R. 6(C)(1). The uncontested facts stated in appellee’s affidavit accompanying her motion provided sufficient support for the trial court’s conclusion that appellant’s counsel was a necessary witness and that none of the exceptions of Rule 3.7(a) applied. The trial did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion without a hearing and disqualifying appellant’s counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4883 |
|
State v. Dearmond
| 2025-CA-29 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced appellant to a jail term following his no contest plea to assault, a first-degree misdemeanor. The court’s decision was based on sound reasoning. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4878 |
|
State v. Hall
| 2025-CA-2 | The record fails to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on defense counsel allowing appellant to plead guilty without raising a speedy-trial argument. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4880 |
|
In re A.B.
| 2025-CA-24 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err by overruling appellant’s motion to terminate or modify a previous order granting legal custody of her minor child to her parents. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Miami |
10/17/2025
|
10/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4771 |
|
In re K.S.
| 2025-CA-28 | The trial court did not err when it granted permanent custody to the children services agency over the objection of the children’s former legal custodian. The children had been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and it was in the best interest of the children. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
10/17/2025
|
10/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4773 |
|