|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Stewart
| 23AP-203 | The trial court did not err in denying defendant-appellant’s motions for acquittal made pursuant to Crim.R. 29. The evidence is sufficient to support his convictions for felonious assault with a firearm specification. Further, the verdicts for same are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/16/2024
|
4/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1448 |
|
State ex rel. Thistledown v. Person
| 23AP-20 | The magistrate's decision contained no error of law or other defect on its face. Therefore, we adopt as our own the magistrate's decision finding that the commission did not abuse its discretion when it found that relator was entitled to TTD compensation, and that the commission’s order granting reconsideration of the SHO’s order denying TTD compensation did not lack any legal basis supporting continuing jurisdiction over the case.. Accordingly, relator's request for a writ of mandamus is denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/16/2024
|
4/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1449 |
|
State ex rel. Universal Metal Products, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-608 | Commission did not abuse its discretion in granting claimant’s VSSR application because there was some evidence in the record to support a finding that relator was aware that one of the levers on the press claimant was operating had been disabled. Relator’s objection overruled and magistrate's decision adopted. Writ of mandamus denied. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/16/2024
|
4/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1450 |
|
State v. Stanford
| 21AP-351 | The trial court properly allowed the admission of other acts, brought appellant to trial within the time required by statute, and sentenced him to consecutive prison terms and the maximum available prison term. Appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective, and there was sufficient evidence for the conviction. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/16/2024
|
4/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1451 |
|
State ex rel. Freedom Ctr. v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-87 | The magistrate properly applied the relevant law to the salient facts in reaching the conclusion that relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. Dr. Kistler’s report is “some evidence” upon which the commission properly relied in finding that respondent Singletary was entitled to PTD benefits Objections overruled; magistrate's decision adopted, and complaint dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1376 |
|
State v. Ellison
| 23AP-5 | Appellant’s conviction and sentence for aggravated murder with a firearm specification is reversed, because appellant was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. Appellant was completely deprived of counsel at critical stages leading up to the trial court’s vacation of his initial guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agreement with state, to the lesser offense of murder with a firearm specification. Prosecutors twice met and talked with appellant outside the presence of appellant’s counsel during critical stages of the proceedings. Appellant was also denied the right to the effective assistance of counsel at the hearing during which the trial court vacated his initial guilty plea. The trial court’s last-minute appointment of replacement counsel who had no relationship with appellant and no knowledge of appellant’s case beyond what he was told in the moment by prosecutors did not afford appellant effective assistance of counsel. Under the circumstances, the likelihood that any replacement lawyer, even a fully competent one, could have provided effective assistance was so small that a presumption of prejudice was appropriate. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1377 |
|
Rastaturin v. 3165 Curtis Knoll Drive, L.L.C.
| 23AP-500 | Appellants failed to provide timely notice of termination, causing the lease agreement to automatically renew for the following month. The trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate's decision in favor of appellee and denying appellants' objection. Judgment affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1378 |
|
State ex rel. Stone v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 23AP-626 | The magistrate's decision contained no error of law or other defect on its face. Therefore, we adopt as our own the magistrate's decision finding that that the motion of OAPA to dismiss the action based on relator’s failure to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C). Accordingly, relator's request for a writ of mandamus is denied, and relator’s motion to transfer the case to the accelerated calendar is found moot. Complaint dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1379 |
|
State v. Metters
| 21AP-692 | Trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of reckless assault and convicted appellant of felonious assault of a peace officer because the evidence, when construed in appellant’s favor, permitted a reasonable trier of fact to find that appellant acted recklessly rather than knowingly. Judgment reversed and case remanded for a new trial. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/9/2024
|
4/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1338 |
|
Hall v. Bricker
| 23AP-140 | DIVORCE – FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT – MARITAL ASSET VALUATION – MARITAL ASSET DIVISION – R.C. 3105.171: Trial court erred in valuing and dividing marital assets, assigning marital debt to husband as separate property, and in finding that husband engaged in financial misconduct. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/9/2024
|
4/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1339 |
|
State ex rel. Hayes v. Phipps
| 23AP-562 | Complaint for a writ of mandamus dismissed. The decision of the magistrate recommending dismissal for the complaint's failure to adhere to the pleading requirements of the Ohio Civil Rules, to which no party objected, is adopted. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1286 |
|
Holloway v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 23AP-477 | Though R.C. 2969.25(A) is not grounds for dismissal here, dismissal of the action is appropriate nonetheless due to Holloway’s failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) and 2731.04. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
4/2/2024
|
4/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1248 |
|
State v. R.L.W.
| 23AP-209 | The trial court erred in concluding that it was not the appropriate venue to rule on defendant’s application to seal the records of the dismissal of a charge against defendant for aggravated robbery. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/2/2024
|
4/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1249 |
|
Columbus City School Dist. v. State
| 24AP-60 | Trial court order granting the motion to quash a deposition subpoena filed by a non-party Ohio legislator and modifying the subpoena pursuant to Civ.R. 45(C) to permit plaintiff-appellees to submit twenty written deposition questions was not a final, appealable order where plaintiff-appellees has not submitted any deposition questions and the record was insufficiently developed to establish that the questions would result in the disclosure of any information protected by legislative privilege. Motion to dismiss granted; appeal dismissed. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1217 |
|
State v. Berk
| 23AP-518 | Trial court did not err in denying motion, whether construed as a petition for postconviction relief or a motion for relief from judgment. As a postconviction petition, petition was untimely, and appellant conceded he was aware of facts at time of trial and report was not new evidence. Neither was relief justified under Civ.R. 60(B) when motion was untimely and appellant failed to address required elements or set forth a basis for relief. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1218 |
|
State ex rel. Gideon v. Page
| 23AP-492 | PROHIBITION – CIV.R. 60(B) –SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ENFORCEMENT – SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION — EMINENT DOMAIN: General division of common pleas court does not patently and unambiguously lack subject-matter jurisdiction over city's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B) or motion to enforce settlement agreement in eminent domain action where property owner claimed settlement documents materially differed from terms of parties’ agreement and refused to execute the settlement documents. Objections to magistrate’s decision overruled; magistrate’s decision adopted; writ of prohibition denied. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1219 |
|
State v. Peoples
| 23AP-374 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the 2008 corrected judgment entry nunc pro tunc to reflect the sentence imposed in 2002 without holding a resentencing hearing. Appellant’s motion for resentencing is also barred by res judicata. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1220 |
|
Rinehart v. Rinehart
| 23AP-233 | Trail court erred when it equally divided the premarital equity in the parties’ residence because the weight of the evidence showed that home was purchased prior to the marriage, appellant paid the downpayment out of his own separate bank account, and appellee failed to produce any evidence to support her claim that she contributed more than $1,300 toward the down payment. Judgment reversed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1221 |
|
State ex rel. Foulkrod v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-52 | Finding no error in the magistrate’s findings of fact or conclusions of law, we adopt the magistrate’s decision and grant relator’s request for a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its fee-controversy letter regarding a fee dispute between realtor and her former legal counsel and to conduct further proceedings as may be required to resolve the dispute in accordance with law. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1222 |
|
Freeman v. Ohio Elections Comm.
| 23AP-14 | Judgment affirmed. The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting appellants’ contention that the Ohio Elections Commission refused to allow appellants’ attorney to testify. The common pleas court did not err by rejecting appellants’ due process violation claim, because the substance of the complaints alleged violations of R.C. 3517.10(A)(1) and (2) and 3517.13(B) and (C), and because appellants knew the charges against them and had a reasonable opportunity to defend against those charges at the hearings before the commission. Pursuant to R.C. 3517.992(A)(1), the commission properly imposed the fine against the candidate, Allen Freeman, for his committee’s violation of R.C. 3517.13. Because appellants did not raise their vicarious liability argument during the administrative proceedings, they waived the argument. The $50,000 fine was authorized by law, and the commission properly imposed the fine against both Freeman and his committee. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1223 |
|
State ex rel. Davidson v. John T. Lohrer Constr. Co.
| 22AP-465 | The decision of the magistrate, to which no party filed objections, is adopted. Because the claimant was unable to work as a direct result of the allowed surgery that was necessitated by his workplace injury, he is entitled to temporary total disability compensation under R.C. 4123.56(F). Writ of mandamus granted. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1224 |
|
State ex rel. Emmer-Lovell v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-356 | Commission failed to engage in complete analysis of whether job offer was made in good faith before terminating claimant’s TTD compensation over refusal of suitable alternate employment. Relator’s objections to magistrate decision sustained in part and overruled in part; limited writ of mandamus granted. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1225 |
|
State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-112 | The magistrate properly determined that the commission did not abuse its discretion and that there was some evidence to support invoking the commission’s continuing jurisdiction because of a mistake of fact and denying temporary total disability compensation. Compensation was based on claimant’s testimony that he was unable to work due to occupational illness and the medical evidence did not support the assertion. Writ of mandamus denied. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1226 |
|
Jacobs v. Great S. Shopping Ctr., L.L.C.
| 23AP-231 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee in this trip and fall case. Appellee did not owe a common-law duty to appellant as to the sidewalk in disrepair because this hazard was open-and-obvious. Nor did appellant demonstrate a duty under City of Columbus ordinances requiring a sidewalk to be properly maintained. A city ordinance that simply requires abutting property owners to maintain and repair sidewalks in accordance with certain standards and criteria does not impose a duty on those owners to pedestrians, but an obligation to assist the city in that maintenance and repair. Judgment affirmed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
3/28/2024
|
3/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1180 |
|
State ex rel. Massimiani v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 23AP-371 | Relator’s original action for a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Adult Parole Authority to grant him additional days of jail-time credit is moot because relator has been released from incarceration. Finding no error in the magistrate’s findings of fact or conclusions of law, we adopt the magistrate’s decision, grant the parole authority’s motion for summary judgment, and deny realtor’s request for a writ of mandamus. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/28/2024
|
3/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1181 |
|
State ex rel. Parrish v. Walter Randolph & Carl Fritschi
| 22AP-134 | The magistrate did not err in concluding R.C. 4123.58(G) is not unconstitutionally retroactive, and the commission did not abuse its discretion in determining relator failed to present evidence of new and changed circumstances to permit the commission to hear the merits of relator’s third application for permanent total disability compensation. Writ of mandamus denied. | Luper Schuster, J. | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1135 |
|
State ex rel. Hineman v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-149 | Objections to magistrate’s decision overruled and requested writ of mandamus denied; Industrial Commission properly construed R.C. 4123.56(F) and some evidence supported commission’s decision to deny TTD compensation. | Leland | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1136 |
|
State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine's Towing, Inc.
| 22AP-264 | The magistrate did not err in finding R.C. 4123.58(G) is not unconstitutionally retroactive or in determining relator is entitled to a limited writ of mandamus ordering the commission to (1) specifically state the evidence the commission relied on in reaching its decision, and (2) briefly explain the reasoning for its decision that relator did not demonstrate new and changed circumstances. Limited writ of mandamus granted. | Luper Schuster, J. | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1137 |
|
State ex rel. Culver v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-292 | Mandamus action for violation of a specific safety requirement (VSSR) after employee died from nitrogen asphyxiation. Industrial Commission abused its discretion in concluding nitrogen was not a toxic gas when interpretation added words to the plain language of former Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-01(B)(4) and rendered the phrase “hazardous concentrations” devoid of meaning. Relator’s objection sustained and limited writ granted. | EDELSTEIN | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1138 |
|
State v. K.A.C.
| 23AP-86 | In an appeal from two rape convictions pursuant to R.C. 2907.02 involving a minor less than 13 years old, appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel was ineffective concerning the failure to disclose an intention to claim alibi, that the convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence or are against the manifest weight of the evidence, that the trial court erred in failing to strike a statement by the prosecutor during closing argument, or cumulative error. Judgment affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1139 |
|
Zibaie v. Zibaie
| 23AP-87; 23AP-484 | The trial court did not deprive appellant of due process during the divorce proceedings, did not abuse its discretion in allocating parental rights and responsibilities under R.C. 3109.04, did not deprive appellant of due process in the contempt proceedings, and did not err in amending the contempt entry through Civ.R. 60(A). Additionally, the judgment entry finding appellant did not purge her contempt was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1140 |
|
Karr v. Salido
| 23AP-96 | The trial court did not err in granting directed verdicts in an automobile injury case where the plaintiff did not have expert medical testimony to show proximate cause between the accident and soft-tissue injuries and did not provide evidence of his vehicle’s value immediately before and immediately after the accident. The trial court did not err in denying a motion for a new trial and plaintiff did not show any evidence of judicial bias. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1141 |
|
Cotten v. Chambers-Smith
| 23AP-100 | Relator’s action for mandamus is dismissed because the affidavit did not contain all of the information required by R.C. 2969.25(A). Strict compliance is required, and dismissal is proper. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1142 |
|
Morris v. Keith
| 23AP-150 | Finding no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate's decision, we adopt magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, we sua sponte dismiss this action. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1143 |
|
State v. Sharifi
| 23AP-217 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, as appellant has failed to establish a manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of the plea. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1144 |
|
Littler v. Janis
| 23AP-360 | Trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing action for failure to prosecute under Civ.R. 41(B)(1). | Leland | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1145 |
|
Foy v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 23AP-556 | Court of Claims did not err when it dismissed appellant’s complaint against ODRC alleging false imprisonment because the facts alleged in the complaint conclusively show that ODRC confined appellant pursuant to a facially valid judgment entry of conviction and sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/26/2024
|
3/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1146 |
|
State v. Sylvester
| 23AP-296 | The trial court complied with our remand instructions, from State v. Sylvester, 10th Dist. No. 21AP-530, 2022-Ohio-3798, by resentencing appellant to concurrent prison terms. Judgment affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
3/21/2024
|
3/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1041 |
|
Sykes v. Sykes
| 23AP-295 | Judgment of the trial court reversed and remanded for court to indicate the basis for its valuation of the marital residence. | Leland | Franklin |
3/21/2024
|
3/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1042 |
|
Miller Transp., Inc. v. Hocking Athens Perry Community Action
| 23AP-124 | The trial court did not err in finding that Miller failed to plead a claim for declaratory relief. The allegations in the Amended Complaint clearly show that Miller is not a party to the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") Master Agreement; therefore, he cannot bring claims pursuant to it, whether they be direct claims or claims via declaratory judgment. Furthermore, Miller has cited to no authority supporting its right to bring a private cause of action under the FTA Master Agreement. Neither did the trial court err in finding that Hocking Athens Perry Community Action, as Project Administrator ("HAPCAP") did not breach the Contract and in dismissing Miller’s claim for breach of the Procurement Regulations. The Contract clearly and unambiguously provides that HAPCAP has the sole and exclusive option to extend the Contract and has the right to reject any pricing quoted for additional periods. It further clearly does not require HAPCAP to issue a second Request for Proposal ("RFP"), and neither does the Procurement Regulations. Finally, the trial court did not base its dismissal of Miller’s Amended Complaint for failure to join a necessary party but instead pointed out that it had warned Miller to join Barons yet Miller had failed to do so. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/19/2024
|
3/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1017 |
|
State v. Clinton
| 23AP-236 | Because appellant did not establish grounds for accepting the application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.74(B)(1), the trial court was not required to comply with R.C. 2953.75 in connection with appellant’s petition for postconviction relief. R.C. 2953.21(I) precluded appellant from raising the ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel during postconviction proceedings as grounds for relief in an appeal from the denial of his petition. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/19/2024
|
3/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1018 |
|
Norris v. Basden
| 23AP-305 | Plaintiff-appellant, a woman allegedly injured while being transported from a hospital wheelchair to her husband’s car, failed to demonstrate the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants based on the complaint containing time-barred medical claims pursuant to R.C. 2305.113(A) and (E) and after previously denying appellant’s Civ.R. 75(F) motion for an extension of time to oppose summary judgment and striking appellant’s subsequent attempt to file an untimely brief in opposition to summary judgment. Judgment affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
3/19/2024
|
3/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1019 |
|
Warsame v. Trans Am Trucking, Inc.
| 23AP-311 | The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff-appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a judgment of dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claim arose out of an automobile accident that occurred in Tennessee, and defendant was a Kansas corporation. In dismissing plaintiff’s claim, the trial court held that the lawsuit had no connection to Franklin County, Ohio, and was therefore beyond the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, as defined in R.C. 1901.18(A). Because plaintiff’s claim did not fall within the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, he could not establish the existence of a meritorious claim. Nor did plaintiff establish the other prerequisites for relief from judgment, pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/19/2024
|
3/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1020 |
|
State v. Deese
| 23AP-418 | Period of pre-trial house arrest did not qualify as confinement for purposes of determining jail-time credit; therefore, trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for jail-time credit. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/14/2024
|
3/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-936 |
|
Khasawneh v. Aldamen
| 23AP-276 | Because appellant did not make hearing transcript necessary for resolution of his assigned error part of the appellate record as required by App.R. 9, did not file objections to the magistrate's factual findings or legal conclusions as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b), and did not argue on appeal that the domestic relations court committed plain error when it granted wife's motion for contempt for failure to pay child support, we must presume regularity of the proceedings below and validity of the trial court's judgment without reaching the merits of appellant's sole assignment of error. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/14/2024
|
3/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-937 |
|
Zinsmeister v. Gillen-Zinsmeister
| 22AP-714 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the pre-decree sale of the marital residence and was a final appealable order. The trial court also did not violate Appellant’s due process rights in scheduling briefing deadlines informally. Appellant’s third assignment of error stems from an interlocutory order over which this court lacks jurisdiction and is dismissed. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/14/2024
|
3/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-938 |
|
State v. Newell
| 21AP-648 | Appellant entered his guilty plea voluntarily because the trial court warned appellant that it could impose a sentence greater than the jointly recommended sentence, and it did not promise any particular sentence to appellant. An appellate court may not review a felony sentence for an abuse of discretion. The Reagan Tokes Law is not facially unconstitutional. | Leland | Franklin |
3/14/2024
|
3/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-939 |
|
State ex rel. Duncan v. Chambers-Smith
| 23AP-66 | Because relator failed to file a postsentence motion in the trial court pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) regarding alleged errors pertaining to jail-time credit, the availability of a plain and adequate remedy at law precludes the issuance of a writ of mandamus on such grounds. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/12/2024
|
3/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-926 |
|
State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 23AP-604 | In accordance with magistrate's recommendation, action dismissed. | Leland | Franklin |
3/12/2024
|
3/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-927 |
|
Hayes v. Baldwin
| 23AP-685 | Magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and the petitioner’s complaint for a writ of habeas corpus is sua sponte dismissed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/12/2024
|
3/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-928 |
|