|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Burkard
| 14-24-36 | Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight; Rape; Sexual Battery; Cleric; Opinion Testimony; Evid.R. 701; Lay Witness Testimony; Plain Error; Due Process; Right to a Fair Trial; Fair and Impartial Jury; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Defendant-appellant’s convictions for rape and sexual battery are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant failed to establish that the trial court committed plain error by permitting a lay witness to render opinion testimony. Defendant-appellant has not established that the trial court violated his rights to due process and to a fair trial by not sua sponte declaring a mistrial. Defendant-appellant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. | Miller | Union |
12/29/2025
|
12/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5787 |
|
State v. Kendrick
| 16-25-04; 16-25-05 | Misdemeanor Cases Involving Petty Offenses; Effect of a Guilty Plea; Crim.R. 11(E); Merger; R.C. 2941.25; Plain Error. The trial court satisfied the requirement of Crim.R. 11(E) by informing the defendant-appellant of the effect of the plea before accepting his guilty pleas in misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses. Specifically, the trial court informed the defendant-appellant that the plea of guilty is a complete admission of his guilt. The defendant-appellant cannot establish the first element of the plain-error test—that an error occurred—because the trial court did not err by sentencing the defendant-appellant on the domestic-violence and unlawful-restraint convictions. | Zimmerman | Wyandot |
12/29/2025
|
12/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5789 |
|
State v. Allen
| 9-25-16 | Forfeiture; Mandatory Fines; Indigent Defendant; Appointed Counsel Fees; Consecutive Sentences. Trial court erred in ordering money seized to be forfeited when the issue of forfeiture was not submitted to the jury. Trial court erred in imposing a mandatory fine when defendant filed affidavits of indigency and the trial court found him to be indigent. Trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay appointed counsel fees without first determining ability to pay. Trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without making the required findings at the hearing. | Willamowski | Marion |
12/29/2025
|
12/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5785 |
|
In re C.B.
| 5-25-15 | Motion to Vacate; Petition for Postconviction Relief; Timely Appeal; App.R. 4; Motion to Strike. A trial court has the inherent authority to vacate a judgment that is void. However, the substance of a motion rather than its caption determines how a court should handle it. A motion to vacate is a petition for postconviction relief where (1) it is filed subsequent to the expiration of the time for direct appeal; (2) claims a denial of a constitutional right; (3) it seeks to void a voidable judgment; and (4) asks for the vacation of the judgment and sentence. A ruling on a motion to strike will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. When a timely notice of appeal is not filed from a final order in compliance with App.R. 4(A), an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review the issues contained therein. | Willamowski | Hancock |
12/29/2025
|
12/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5781 |
|
State v. Smith
| 9-24-53 | Sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction; Manifest weight of the evidence; Identity. The judgment of conviction and sentence entered against defendant-appellant is affirmed. | Waldick | Marion |
12/29/2025
|
12/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5784 |
|
Feasby v. Garza
| 11-25-09 | Civ.R. 60(B); Law of the Case; Timely Appeal. A Civ.R. 60(B) motion cannot be a substitute for a timely appeal and is not an alternative avenue to be used when all appeals have failed. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, legal questions that are resolved by a reviewing court in a prior appeal are the law of the case governing any later proceedings in the trial court. | Willamowski | Paulding |
12/29/2025
|
12/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5786 |
|
Starr v. Starr
| 15-25-05 | Contempt. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that wife had not adequately established contempt. | Waldick | Van Wert |
12/29/2025
|
12/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5788 |
|
State v. Dircksen
| 8-24-50 | Community-Control Violation; Substantial Evidence; Abuse of Discretion; Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. The decision of a trial court finding a community-control violation will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. A hearing on a community-control violation is not a criminal trial and the State is not obligated to prove a violation of the conditions of community control beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the State need only present substantial evidence that the offender violated the conditions of his community control. In this case, the State presented substantial evidence that the defendant-appellant violated the conditions of his community control. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendant-appellant’s community control and sentencing him to a prison term of 18 months. The sentence is supported by the record and is not otherwise contrary to law because the sentence is within the permissible statutory range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Zimmerman | Logan |
12/29/2025
|
12/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5783 |
|
In re N.A.
| 7-25-07 | Jurisdiction; Permanent Custody. Appeal dismissed as child has reached 18 years old and trial court did not retain jurisdiction. | Waldick | Henry |
12/29/2025
|
12/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5782 |
|
State v. Nevels
| 8-25-08 | Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; Presentence Investigation. Prison sentences may be imposed consecutively once the trial court makes the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). On appeal, reviewing courts are permitted under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) to examine whether the trial court's consecutive-sentences findings are supported by the record. On review, appellate courts are to apply a deferential standard in evaluating the support for these R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings. | Willamowski | Logan |
12/22/2025
|
12/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5685 |
|
In re Adoption of D.C.H.
| 3-25-08 | Adoption; R.C. 3107.07(A); Best Interest; R.C. 3107.161(C); Burden of Proof; Due Process. Due process requires that a natural parent has adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before parental rights are terminated through an adoption proceeding. Due process is a flexible concept and must meet the demands of a particular situation. Parental consent is generally required for an adoption to proceed. However, R.C. 3107.07(A) states that the consent of a natural parent is not required if a parent has failed to provide maintenance and support to the child or has failed to have more than de minimis contact with the child in the year preceding the adoption petition without justifiable cause. During the best interest phase of an adoption proceeding, the petitioners retain the burden of proof. | Willamowski | Crawford |
12/22/2025
|
12/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5684 |
|
Overmyer v. Thiebaut
| 15-25-07 | Contempt; Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d); Transcripts. Defendant-appellant did not meet her burden of affirmatively demonstrating the trial court failed to perform its obligations under Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). The trial court did not treat the civil contempt proceedings as criminal contempt proceedings. Due to defendant-appellant's failure to provide transcripts necessary to resolve certain assignments of error, the appellate court is unable to reach the merits of those assignments of error. | Miller | Van Wert |
12/22/2025
|
12/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5686 |
|
State v. Bratton
| 1-25-27 | No Contest; Explanation of circumstances; Violating a Protection Order. The State's explanation of circumstances following a no contest plea was not insufficient to convict defendant of violating a protection order. | Waldick | Allen |
12/22/2025
|
12/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5683 |
|
In re E.A.
| 3-25-02 | Notice; Legal Custody Hearing; Right to Counsel; Waiver. Mother-appellant had proper notice of the scope of the hearing and, thus, her due process rights were not violated. The trial court did not err by not appointing counsel for father-appellant where his actions indicated that he waived his right to counsel. | Miller | Crawford |
12/15/2025
|
12/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5573 |
|
State v. Wheeler
| 1-25-09 | Aggravated Robbery; R.C. 2911.01(A)(3). Defendant-appellant's conviction for aggravated robbery was supported by sufficient evidence. | Miller | Allen |
12/15/2025
|
12/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5572 |
|
Adams v. Adams
| 14-24-41 | Calculation of Child Support; Imputing Potential Income for Parent Who is Voluntarily Unemployed; Award of Spousal Support; Abuse of Discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the defendant-appellant is voluntarily unemployed and imputing potential income for him. The trial court found that the defendant-appellant left his employment eight months after the plaintiff-appellee filed a complaint for divorce, and that the defendant-appellant had an ongoing responsibility to support the plaintiff-appellee and their child. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the defendant-appellant to pay spousal support. The record shows that the magistrate carefully considered each of the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) in fashioning the award of spousal support. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. | Zimmerman | Union |
12/15/2025
|
12/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5574 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 1-25-04 | Self-Defense; Defense of Another; R.C. 2901.05(B)(1); R.C. 2901.05(B)(2); R.C. 2901.09(B). The jury did not clearly lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice in resolving conflicts in the evidence by concluding Johnson's actions were not in self-defense or in defense of another. The trial court did not commit plain error in failing to give an unrequested jury instruction on a presumption of self-defense. The trial court did not commit plain error in failing to give an unrequested jury instruction on aggravated assault as an inferior-degree offense to felonious assault. | Miller | Allen |
12/15/2025
|
12/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5571 |
|
Versa-Pak, Ltd. v. Sispack Corp.
| 10-25-10 | Civ.R. 4.1; Service by certified mail; Rebuttable presumption of valid service. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment entered against it, on the basis of the defendant's claim that it had not been validly served with the complaint. | Waldick | Mercer |
12/8/2025
|
12/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5462 |
|
State v. Baker
| 11-25-02 | Possession of marihuana; Definition of marihuana; Definition of hemp; R.C. 3719.01(M); R.C. 928.01(C); Weighing of marihuana; Admissibility of expert testimony; Failure to preserve sample of drugs used for testing; Trial court's decision on sending exhibits into the jury room; Evidence proving "knowing" possession; Motion for a new trial on basis of juror misconduct. The judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed. | Waldick | Paulding |
12/8/2025
|
12/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5463 |
|
State v. Stackhouse
| 13-25-06 | Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Drug Possession; Constructive Possession; Admission and Exclusion of Evidence; Motion in Limine; Third-Party Guilt; Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c). The defendant-appellant’s convictions for drug possession are not against the manifest weight of the evidence where his constructive possession of the drugs was supported by their discovery in plain view, his on-scene admission of ownership, and his statement about recent cocaine use. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of a third party’s prior criminal conviction because it was too remote and failed to sufficiently connect her to the crimes at issue. The trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences is supported by the record, as the defendant-appellant’s lengthy criminal history and the seriousness of the offenses demonstrate that the sentences are necessary to protect the public. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
12/8/2025
|
12/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5464 |
|
State v. Taylor
| 5-25-04 | "Knowing" possession of drugs; Sufficiency of the evidence; Manifest weight of the evidence; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to file a motion to suppress. The judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed. | Waldick | Hancock |
12/8/2025
|
12/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5460 |
|
State v. Giles
| 14-25-16 | Felony sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The trial court’s imposition of maximum, consecutive sentences is not contrary to law because the trial court did not improperly consider “other acts” evidence—namely, letters from alleged former victims about uncharged conduct and the facts of the dismissed rape charges—when imposing the defendant-appellant’s sentence. | Zimmerman | Union |
12/8/2025
|
12/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5465 |
|
State v. Kelly
| 8-25-06 | Consecutive Sentences. Trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences when the required findings were made and the record supported those findings. | Willamowski | Logan |
12/8/2025
|
12/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5461 |
|
State v. Compton
| 1-25-17 | Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Felonious Assault. The defendant-appellant’s felonious assault conviction for drug possession is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Zimmerman | Allen |
12/8/2025
|
12/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5459 |
|
State v. Havron
| 5-25-17 | Tolling of a Community-Control Sentence for Absconding; R.C. 2929.15(A)(1). More than eight years after the trial court issued a bench warrant alleging that the defendant-appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of her supervision, the defendant-appellant filed a motion to lift the bench warrant. Without any legal analysis, the trial court denied the defendant-appellant’s motion. Since the trial court never made a determination that the defendant-appellant had absconded, the defendant-appellant’s five-year term of community control was never tolled such that the trial court lacked authority to take further action because the original term of community control had long since expired. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
12/1/2025
|
12/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5373 |
|
State v. Frericks
| 10-25-08 | Right to Counsel; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Consecutive Sentence; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Defendant-appellant’s right to counsel was not violated because the hearing at issue was not a critical stage of the criminal proceedings. Defendant-appellant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court’s decision to run the sentences for each conviction consecutively was not contrary to law. | Miller | Mercer |
12/1/2025
|
12/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5374 |
|
Randall E. v. Courtney B.
| 7-25-04 | Legal Custody; Manifest Weight. Award of legal custody to grandparents was supported by the evidence. | Waldick | Henry |
12/1/2025
|
12/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5376 |
|
Dinh v. Goble
| 14-25-19 | Divorce; Spousal Support; Best Interests; Plain Error. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in divorce proceeding. | Waldick | Union |
12/1/2025
|
12/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5375 |
|
State v. Greene
| 14-25-05 | Void Sentencing Doctrine; Voidable Judgment; Res Judicata. Defendant-appellant's appeal, arguing that the trial court erred when it imposed a previously-ordered suspended prison sentence because the previously-ordered sentence was contrary to law, was barred by res judicata. | Miller | Union |
11/24/2025
|
11/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5279 |
|
State v. Butler
| 14-25-18 | Offenses Committed Prior to March 22, 2019; R.C. 2929.14(A)(1)(b); Sentence is Clearly and Convincingly Contrary to Law; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The defendant-appellant’s sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law since the trial court imposed an indefinite prison term for a first-degree-felony offense committed prior to the enactment of the Reagan Tokes Law. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the matter remanded for resentencing. | Zimmerman | Union |
11/17/2025
|
11/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5176 |
|
State v. Clark
| 8-25-04 | Intervention in Lieu of Conviction; R.C. 2951.041(F); Plain Error. For Plain error to apply, the trial court must have deviated from a legal rule; the error must have been an obvious defect in the proceeding; and the error must have affected a substantial right. R.C. 2951.041(F) governs the process of addressing an offender's failure to comply with the terms or conditions of his or her ILC. If an offender fails to comply with the terms or conditions of his or her intervention in lieu of conviction, the trial court may continue the period of the ILC, continue the ILC with additional terms or conditions, or may enter a finding of guilt and impose a sanction. | Willamowski | Logan |
11/17/2025
|
11/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5173 |
|
State v. Miller
| 2-25-05 | R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; Appeal of maximum consecutive sentences. Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review application of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Appellate court must affirm if 2929.11 and 2929.12 are considered and the sentence is within the statutory range. | Willamowski | Auglaize |
11/17/2025
|
11/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5170 |
|
In re S.D.
| 6-25-05 | Due Process; Permanent-Custody Hearing. The trial court did not err by proceeding with the permanent-custody hearing in the absence of mother-appellant. | Miller | Hardin |
11/17/2025
|
11/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5172 |
|
Stone v. Humphress
| 5-25-06 | Contempt. Trial court erred by finding that appellee was not in contempt of court given the trial court's prior final decisions that were not appealed. | Waldick | Hancock |
11/17/2025
|
11/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5171 |
|
State v. Bonifas
| 15-25-02 | Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight; Aggravated Menacing. Defendant-appellant’s conviction for aggravated menacing is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Van Wert |
11/17/2025
|
11/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5177 |
|
State v. Loy
| 13-25-09 | Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Motion to Sever; Consecutive Sentences. The convictions were supported by credible evidence and does not indicate that the jury lost its way creating a manifest injustice. As such, the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's decision not to sever the charges was not in error when no prejudice was alleged. Trial court made the required findings to impose consecutive sentences and the evidence supported the findings. | Willamowski | Seneca |
11/17/2025
|
11/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5175 |
|
Piacentino v. Heinz
| 9-24-51 | R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). Final appealable order; Preliminary Injunction. The trial court's judgment entry denying defendant-appellant's petition for a preliminary injunction is not a final, appealable order. | Miller | Marion |
11/17/2025
|
11/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5174 |
|
State v. Averesch
| 12-24-05 | Motion to Suppress; Identified Citizen Informant; Reasonable Articulable Suspicion; Forfeiture; Excessive Fines. Motions to suppress present mixed questions of law and fact. When a dispatcher's information comes from an informant, courts must examine the tip to examine its weight and reliability. Informants fall into three general categories: (1) anonymous informants; (2) known informants; and (3) identified citizen informants. Information from an identified citizen informant is generally considered to be more reliable. The forfeiture of a vehicle pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(c)(v) is a fine used to punish an offender. To determine whether an in personam forfeiture under this provision is excessive, courts are to examine whether the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense. | Willamowski | Putnam |
11/10/2025
|
11/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5106 |
|
State v. Hesseling
| 1-24-34 | Major Drug Offender Specification; R.C. 2929.14(B)(11); Drug Trafficking; Drug Possession; Constructive Possession; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Accomplice Jury Instruction; R.C. 2923.03(D). The trial court did not err in imposing a prison term for each of the major drug offender specifications. Defendant-appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel failing to file a motion to suppress and failing to object to certain alleged hearsay statements. The trial court did not commit plain error in failing to provide a cautionary instruction pursuant to R.C. 2923.03(D) concerning accomplice testimony. | Miller | Allen |
11/10/2025
|
11/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5102 |
|
Bigler v. Haynes
| 9-25-10 | Appellate Rules of Procedure; Record; Appellate Review; Transcript. Appellate review is strictly limited to the matters contained in the record. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court erred on appeal. App.R. 16 requires that the appellant provide arguments to substantiate the assignments of error raised on appeal. | Willamowski | Marion |
11/10/2025
|
11/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5105 |
|
State v. Bolen
| 6-25-12 | Allied Offenses; Consecutive Sentences; Crim.R. 11 Colloquy; Guilty Plea. In order to impose consecutive sentences, the trial court must make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Allied offenses of similar import are to merge at sentencing. Merger is not required where offenses are dissimilar in import; were committed separately; or committed with separate animus. In examining a Crim.R. 11 colloquy to determine if a plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, a reviewing court examines whether (1) the trial court has complied with the relevant provisions of the rule; (2) whether any failure to fully comply with the rule requires a demonstration of prejudice to vacate the plea; (3) whether the defendant has demonstrated prejudice where required for a failure to comply with Crim.R. 11. | Willamowski | Hardin |
11/10/2025
|
11/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5104 |
|
State v. Horton
| 1-24-62 | Motion to Suppress; Consent to Search; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Custodial Interrogation. The trial court did not err in denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress the drugs found during the search of his home because his consent to the search was freely and voluntarily given. Trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to timely file a motion to suppress on Miranda grounds because defendant-appellant did not show such a motion had a reasonable probability of success. Defendant-appellant's drug possession conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Allen |
11/10/2025
|
11/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5103 |
|
In re R.P.
| 1-25-05 | Restitution; R.C. 2152.20; Receiving Stolen Property; 2913.51(A). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of restitution suffered by the victim as a direct and proximate result of appellant's delinquent act. | Miller | Allen |
11/3/2025
|
11/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4997 |
|
State v. Shipley
| 14-25-02 | Sufficiency of the Evidence; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Robbery; R.C. 2911.02(A)(3); Theft; R.C. 2913.02(A)(1); Force; Prosecutorial Misconduct; Witness Vouching; Commenting on Decision Not to Testify; Misstatement of Law. The defendant-appellant’s robbery conviction is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant was not deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. | Zimmerman | Union |
11/3/2025
|
11/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5001 |
|
State ex rel. Pelmear v. Henry Cty. Land Reutilization Corp.
| 7-25-05 | Open Meetings Act; R.C. 121.22; Discovery; Civ.R. 26(B); Civ.R. 34; Discovery Sanction; Admission of Evidence; Injunctive Relief; Burden of Proving an Open Meetings Act Violation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the relator-appellant’s objection to the respondents-appellees’ reliance on its exhibits or by admitting the respondents-appellees’ exhibits at trial because the relator-appellant failed to use the proper procedural tools under Civ.R. 34 to obtain the documents. Because the relator-appellant failed to satisfy his burden of proving that the respondents-appellees violated Ohio’s Open Meetings Act under R.C. 121.22(F), the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the relator-appellant’s requested injunctive relief. | Zimmerman | Henry |
11/3/2025
|
11/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4998 |
|
In re Adoption of T.M.Z.
| 13-25-07 | CONTESTED ADOPTION; R.C. 3107.01(A); NO CONTACT WITH MINOR; JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; R.C. 3107.161(B); BEST-INTEREST DETERMINATION; ABUSE OF DISCRETION; ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE; R.C. 3107.031; HOME STUDY. The record does not contain credible evidence that the biological mother intentionally concealed the minor child’s whereabouts. Therefore, the trial court’s determination that the biological father-appellant was without justifiable cause for his failure to have contact with the child during the one-year period immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record reflects that the trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 3107.161(B) in making its best-interest determination. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the petitioner-stepfather’s adoption petition. The trial court appointed an assessor to conduct a home study of the petitioner-stepfather’s home. The purpose of a home study is to ascertain whether a person seeking to adopt a minor is suitable to adopt. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the assessor’s report filed in compliance with R.C. 3107.031. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
11/3/2025
|
11/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5000 |
|
In re G.N.
| 10-24-09 & 10-24-10 | Permanent Custody; Best Interest; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; In Camera Interview; Evidence; Hearsay; Kinship. The trial court’s decision granting the Agency permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mother-appellant’s motion for an in-camera interview. Mother-appellant and Father-appellant’s arguments relating to the shelter-care hearing and adjudication hearings were not timely. | Miller | Mercer |
11/3/2025
|
11/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4999 |
|
State v. Clay
| 8-25-01 | Review of consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); Misstatement of name of crime by trial judge at sentencing. The judgment of sentence is affirmed. | Waldick | Logan |
10/27/2025
|
10/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4905 |
|
State v. Gingerich
| 14-25-10 | Misdemeanor Sentencing; R.C. 4511.21; R.C. 2929.22; R.C. 2929.24. The trial court sentenced the defendant-appellant to 60 days in jail with 30 days suspended on a third-degree misdemeanor. Absent an affirmative showing that the trial court failed to consider the applicable statutory factors, this court will presume that the trial court considered the criteria set forth in R.C. 2929.22 when imposing a misdemeanor sentence. | Zimmerman | Union |
10/27/2025
|
10/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4908 |
|
Hoover v. Pfeifer
| 16-25-06 | Easements; Civ.R. 15(B); Motions to Amend Pleadings to Conform to the Evidence; Standing; Summary Judgment; Declaratory Judgment. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment, declaratory judgment, and a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees. | Waldick | Wyandot |
10/27/2025
|
10/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4909 |
|