|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Phillips
| 18CA3667 | OVI, MANIFEST WEIGHT - Appellant's conviction for OVI, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Smith | Ross |
6/17/2019
|
6/20/2019
| 2019-Ohio-2460 |
|
Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
| 18CA3661 | CIVIL - SUMMARY JUDGMENT, NEGLIGENCE. OPEN AND OBVIOUS. ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION TO THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOCTRINE - The trial court's grant of summary judgment was affirmed where the hazard at issue was open and obvious, Plaintiff testified at deposition she would have seen the hazard had she looked, and where the attendant circumstances exception to the open and obvioius doctrine did not apply. | Smith | Ross |
6/14/2019
|
6/19/2019
| 2019-Ohio-2425 |
|
State v. Elkins
| 17CA14 | CRIMINAL - Trial court erred by admitting other acts evidence but error was harmless and no ineffective assistance of counsel or cumulative error occurred and Appellant's conviction for aggravated murder with firearm specification was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | McFarland | Lawrence |
6/14/2019
|
6/19/2019
| 2019-Ohio-2427 |
|
State v. Morgan
| 18CA13 | CRIMINAL-STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL-MAXIMUM SENTENCE-CRIM.R.9. Although the Criminal Rules of Procedure are not statutes, the same interpretation rules apply. Failure to issue a summons pursuant to Crim.R.9 was harmless error where Appellant's prior bond on felonious assault charge was in effect but Appellant was indicted on a separate offense of attempted murder, although the counts arose from the same set of circumstances. Appellant's 11-year maximum sentence for attempted murder was clearly and convincingly supported by the record despite Appellant's argument that the court focused on the seriousness factors, failed to obtain a presentence investigation report, failed to recognize that Appellant acted under strong provocation, that substantial facts mitigated his conduct, that he had previously led a law-abiding life, and that the circumstances leading to the crime were not likely to reoccur. Simply because the court did not balance the factors in the manner Appellant desires does not mean that the court failed to consider them or that clear and convincing evidence shows that the court's findings are not supported by the record. | Smith | Meigs |
6/13/2019
|
6/17/2019
| 2019-Ohio-2385 |
|
New Holland v. Murphy
| 18CA6 | CIVIL-BURDEN OF PROOF FOR STATUTORY INJUNCTION - Trial court erred by requiring Village to prove by clear and convincing evidence that injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm and that no adequate remedy at law existed in a case involving a statutory injuncction. For statutory injunction to issue, Village only needed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that a zoning violation occurred. | Smith | Pickaway |
6/13/2019
|
6/19/2019
| 2019-Ohio-2423 |
|
State v. Keefer
| 19CA2 | CRIMINAL - Trial court erred in suppressing evidence when it found the good-faith exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) to the exclusionary rule did not apply. We find the evidence of Appellant's drug activity should be admitted at trial. | McFarland | Hocking |
6/13/2019
|
6/19/2019
| 2019-Ohio-2419 |
|
In re K.M.F.
| 19CA1 & 19CA2 | Adoption–trial court’s finding that father lacked justifiable cause for failing to have more than de minimis contact with children not against the manifest weight of the evidence when father did not present any evidence to establish justifiable cause; any error with trial court’s alternate finding harmless error. | Abele | Highland |
6/12/2019
|
6/20/2019
| 2019-Ohio-2451 |
|
State v. Fisher
| 18CA27 | CRIMINAL - Appellant's violation of community control was more than a technical violation and trial court did not err in terminating the same and imposing prison term. | McFarland | Athens |
6/11/2019
|
6/19/2019
| 2019-Ohio-2420 |
|
Graf v. Nelsonville
| 18CA28 | Political subdivision employee immunity–appellant did not present evidence that established genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether employees entitled to statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6); evidence not of Civ.R. 56 quality but instead based on supposition, innuendo, and hearsay | Abele | Athens |
6/10/2019
|
6/17/2019
| 2019-Ohio-2386 |
|
State v. Simpson
| 18CA18 | Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance when counsel failed to argue that R.C. 2929.141 operates as a bill of attainder at the time of sentencing, nor does R.C. 2929.141 operate as a bill of attainder, nor was appellant’s conviction for receiving stolen property against the manifest weight of the evidence, nor was appellant entitled to R.C. 2929.23(A) immunity from prosecution for a violation of R.C. 2929.13, having a weapon under disability. | Abele | Washington |
6/3/2019
|
6/10/2019
| 2019-Ohio-2271 |
|