|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Williams
| CA2025-05-036 | Trial court did not err by dismissing the petition for postconviction relief, as appellant failed to meet the threshold statutory requirements for consideration of a successive petition for postconviction relief. | Siebert | Butler |
11/3/2025
|
11/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4985 |
|
Smith v. Mercy Health-Clermont Hosp., L.L.C.
| CA2024-02-010 | Trial court did not err in dismissing medical-malpractice claims as time-barred where plaintiff filed second action before first action was dismissed, rendering second action independently untimely under saving statute, and third action was filed more than one year after first dismissal. | Hendrickson | Clermont |
11/3/2025
|
11/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4986 |
|
State v. Sullivan
| CA2025-02-011 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community control where he admitted to violating his community control and the trial court was free to consider a multitude of factors when deciding to revoke appellant's community control, including the nature of the violation at issue, the manner in which the condition was violated, and any other relevant circumstances in the case. | Hendrickson | Clermont |
11/3/2025
|
11/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4987 |
|
State v. Coleman
| CA2025-03-017 | The trial court did not err by declining to merge appellant's convictions for aggravated robbery and abduction where the evidence shows the offenses were committed with distinct import, at different times, and with a separate animus. Appellant's convictions were supported by the manifest weight of the evidence where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. The jury, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Trial counsel was not ineffective for not raising meritless issues. In addition, there was no reason to second-guess counsel's strategic decision not to object, and appellant failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had counsel objected. | Siebert | Clermont |
11/3/2025
|
11/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4988 |
|
State v. Hagens
| CA2024-07-045 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of rape and eight counts of pandering sexually-oriented material involving a minor where his claims could have been raised on direct appeal to this court and were therefore barred by res judicata. Even if his claims were not barred by res judicata, appellant failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that a withdrawal of his plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. | Byrne | Warren |
11/3/2025
|
11/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4989 |
|
State v. Thomas
| CA2024-12-083 | Appellant's conviction for aggravated murder was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where testimony and evidence was presented at trial firmly establishing that appellant had shot and killed the victim with prior calculation and design and that such evidence establishing appellant had acted with prior calculation and design, which included posts that appellant had made to Facebook, was properly admitted by the trial court at trial as relevant other-acts evidence. However, the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was contrary to law where the trial court failed to make the necessary consecutive sentence findings, thereby necessitating reversal of the trial court's decision sentencing appellant to a total, aggregate sentence of 40 to 42 years to life in prison and remand to the trial court for the limited purpose of resentencing. | Piper | Warren |
10/27/2025
|
10/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4895 |
|
State v. Pelfrey
| CA2024-12-088 | Trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress evidence where the police had reasonable suspicion of Operating a Vehicle Impaired ("OVI") to justify conducting field sobriety tests, those tests were administered in substantial compliance with applicable standards, and the test results supported probable cause to arrest. Appellant's unelicited, voluntary custodial statements were admissible without Miranda warnings. | Piper | Warren |
10/27/2025
|
10/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4896 |
|
State v. Fleenor
| CA2025-01-004 | Appellant appeals decision revoking intervention in lieu of conviction ("ILC") and imposing jail term. Court did not abuse its discretion in revoking ILC. Appellant violated ILC by failing to pay restitution and failing multiple drug tests. Court took judicial notice that appellant had been terminated from community control and released from jail, rendering his assignments of error challenging jail-time credit and sentence as moot. | Byrne | Warren |
10/27/2025
|
10/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4897 |
|
Wilson v. Pettiford
| CA2025-03-003 | Trial court did not err in modifying custody where competent evidence supported changed circumstances and that modification served the child's best interest. | M. Powell | Fayette |
10/27/2025
|
10/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4894 |
|
State v. Crawford
| CA2025-02-010 | The trial court properly dismissed defendant's postconviction petition for relief asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court was not required to hold a hearing or appoint counsel before dismissing the petition because defendant did not present substantive grounds for relief. The arguments he raised could have been raised on direct appeal by his new counsel and were not supported by evidence outside of the trial record. | Siebert | Clermont |
10/27/2025
|
10/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4892 |
|
State v. Chisenhall
| CA2025-03-018 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal on 15 counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor where the victim's testimony established that appellant, a 43-year-old man, engaged in vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, digital penetration, fellatio, and cunnilingus with the 14-year old victim. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request for a mistrial where limited testimony about "nude photographs" and a "video" of the victim did not adversely affect appellant's substantial rights or interfere with his right to a fair trial. The trial court did not commit plain error in not merging certain counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor where the offenses, though committed close in time to one another, involved separate, distinct sexual acts. Trial counsel was not ineffective for not arguing merger of certain offenses where the offenses were not allied and such arguments would have been futile. | Hendrickson | Clermont |
10/27/2025
|
10/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4893 |
|
State v. Madden
| CA2024-10-125 | The trial court did not err in imposing a repeat violent offender sentence enhancement because: (1) Ohio law did not require the court to state whether the sentence enhancement was mandatory or discretionary; (2) the trial court's consideration of the defendant's risk of recidivism and the seriousness of his crime when deciding the length of the sentence enhancement did not amount to unconstitutional judicial fact finding; and (3) Ohio law does not require a juvenile court to relinquish jurisdiction for a juvenile conviction to serve as the basis of determining whether a defendant is an repeat violent offender. Moreover, the defendant's request to represent himself at trial was not "unequivocal" when he later withdrew the request. Finally, the trial court did not err in permitting a victim representative to remain in court despite serving as the first witness because a victim's representative is entitled to assert all rights afforded to victims under Ohio law, including exemption from witness separation orders at trial. | Siebert | Butler |
10/27/2025
|
10/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4891 |
|
State v. Cummings
| CA2025-01-0010; CA2025-01-0011; CA2025-01-0012; CA2025-01-0013 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
10/20/2025
|
10/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4778 |
|
State v. Gay
| CA2025-05-040 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
10/20/2025
|
10/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4779 |
|
State v. Terry
| CA2025-05-007 | The trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was improper where the sentencing entry conflated the necessary findings and made a different finding from that made at the hearing. | Siebert | Fayette |
10/20/2025
|
10/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4781 |
|
State v. Longnecker
| CA2024-11-082 & CA2024-11-083 | Defendant's unrecorded oral statement to investigator was not subject to disclosure under the plain text of Crim.R. 16(B). Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted investigator's testimony regarding defendant's unrecorded oral statement and did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion for a mistrial. | Piper | Clermont |
10/20/2025
|
10/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4780 |
|
Hidaoui v. Hidaoui
| CA2025-03-016 | The domestic relations court did not err by interpreting the parties' shared parenting plan as giving appellee the final decision-making authority with respect to the medical care of appellant's and appellee's child where the plain language used in the parties' shared parenting plan unambiguously provided that, if there was a dispute over an issue with respect to the child's medical care, it was appellee who was afforded with final decision-making authority. | Piper | Warren |
10/20/2025
|
10/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4784 |
|
State v. Martinez
| CA2024-11-021 | Defendant's conviction for marijuana possession was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the State presented evidence that the substance recovered from the defendant's car was marijuana and not hemp. | M. Powell | Madison |
10/20/2025
|
10/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4786 |
|
Harder Invests., L.L.C. v. Perin-Tyler Family Found., L.L.C.
| CA2024-06-044 & CA2024-06-047 | Trial court did not err in allowing landlord to charge both a 10% supervisory fee and separate property management fee under a commercial lease's common area maintenance ("CAM") provisions where fees compensated different economic costs and management fees reflected reasonable market rate for substantial in-house services. Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to landlord on CAM charges where lease requiring submission of "actual CAM charges" did not create implicit obligation to provide supporting documentation and interpretation presented pure question of law. Trial court erred in dividing commercial property into developed and undeveloped portions for real estate tax calculations where lease unambiguously defined the property as the entire parcel and contained no provision authorizing division for real estate taxes. Trial court did not err in declining to enforce lease's penalty and interest provisions where claimed penalties were 85 times the actual underpayment, both parties breached the lease, and payment disputes stemmed from landlord's errors in CAM calculations. | Byrne | Clermont |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4706 |
|
Price v. Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc.
| CA2024-12-096 | Trial court erred by granting car dealership's motion to stay proceedings without first determining whether the agreement to arbitrate was valid. | M. Powell | Clermont |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4707 |
|
State v. Davis
| CA2025-01-008 | Trial court did not err in denying suppression where officer had reasonable suspicion for stop-line violation despite faded markings and defendant voluntarily produced marijuana justifying vehicle search. | M. Powell | Butler |
10/6/2025
|
10/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4620 |
|
Cincinnati Enquirer v. Butler Cty. Sheriff's Office
| CA2025-05-054 | A court of claims erred by adopting a special master's report and recommendation ordering a county sheriff's office to create and provide to a local newspaper a call log setting forth a list of the telephone calls made by an inmate who was housed in the county jail for nearly six years while awaiting trial where the request was not made for an existing record as that term is defined by R.C. 149.011(G) but for information regarding the inmate's activities thereby falling outside the auspices of Ohio's public records act as codified under R.C. 149.43. | Piper | Butler |
10/6/2025
|
10/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4621 |
|
State v. Schneider
| CA2025-05-044 | The trial court did not err by denying appellant's request for intervention in lieu of conviction where appellant was not statutorily eligible for such intervention under R.C. 2951.041(B)(10) given that appellant was charged with fourth-degree felony failing to comply with the order or signal of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), an offense that would result in appellant's driver's license being suspended and appellant being disqualified under R.C. Chapter 4506 from operating a commercial motor vehicle. | Piper | Butler |
10/6/2025
|
10/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4625 |
|
State v. Hake
| CA2025-01-001 | Trial court did not violate defendant's right to counsel of his choice when it appointed counsel for the defendant at a status of defense counsel conference during which the defendant appeared without having retained a new counsel. At a plea hearing, State's promise to dismiss a count of passing bad checks if the defendant paid restitution to the victim by the date of sentencing was not illusory because the trial court advised the defendant during the plea hearing that it could sentence him that day. | M. Powell | Preble |
10/6/2025
|
10/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4622 |
|
Stephens v. Spahn
| CA2024-11-022 | Plaintiff's wrongful death claim was properly dismissed by the trial court because plaintiff, who would be the beneficiary of that claim, did not do so within four years of the underlying malpractice that resulted in the decedent's death. Plaintiff's arguments that Ohio's statute of repose is unconstitutional were waived because the arguments and claim were not presented to or considered or decided by a lower court. WITH DISSENTING OPINION | Siebert | Madison |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4509 |
|
State v. Franklin
| CA2025-03-017 | The jury's verdict finding appellant was the operator of the truck who took police on a high speed chase after receiving an order or signal of a police officer to bring the truck to a stop was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where there was competent and credible evidence identifying appellant as the operator of the truck in question. The trial court also did not err, plain or otherwise, by failing to merge for purposes of sentencing appellant's convictions for failing to comply with the order or signal of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) and driving under suspension in violation of R.C. 4510.11(A) where the offenses were committed separately, one at the moment appellant began operating a truck with a suspended license and the other when appellant failed to comply with the order or signal of a police officer to bring the truck to a stop. | Piper | Warren |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4510 |
|
Goodykoontz v. Harris
| CA2025-03-022 | Inmate appeals decision dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus. Inmate's petition defective for failing to comply with statutory requirement of attaching commitment papers. Inmate's arguments could have been asserted through other means, such as a direct appeal or postconviction relief. Inmate did not state grounds for habeas relief and had other adequate remedies at law. | Byrne | Warren |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4511 |
|
Etter v. Etter
| CA2025-04-025 | Wife failed to meet her burden to provide competent and credible evidence showing husband intended the check he gave to wife for their marital home purchase to be a gift. Husband provided competent and credible evidence to support the trial court's property classifications. (1) A $198,000 check with "gift" in the memo line was not a gift from husband to wife where both parties testified the money was to be used by Wife to purchase their shared marital home; (2) money for the down payments on marital home and rental homes could be traced back to husband's accounts and thus remained his separate property; (3) other purchases of personal property by husband could be traced back to husband's accounts. | Siebert | Warren |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4512 |
|
Hoelzer v. Kacachos
| CA2024-12-141 | The common pleas court erred when it granted an estate's motion to dismiss, as probate courts lack jurisdiction over breach of contract claims and declaratory judgment claims involving contracts. The jurisdictional priority rule only applies when two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, and one is invoked first. The probate court did not have jurisdiction to resolve the contractual issue at issue and therefore the jurisdictional priority rule did not apply. WITH DISSENTING OPINION | Siebert | Butler |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4506 |
|
State v. Gates
| CA2025-01-004 | Trial court did not err in failing to award jail-time credit when granting defendant's judicial release to community control where statutory requirement for jail-time credit calculations applies only when imposing prison sentences. | M. Powell | Butler |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4507 |
|
State v. Thompson
| CA2025-01-006 | The defendant's conviction for aggravated menacing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | M. Powell | Butler |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4508 |
|
State v. Taylor
| CA2025-05-039 | Anders no error | Per Curiam | Butler |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4514 |
|
Gherman v. Culberson
| CA2025-01-001, CA2025-01-002, CA2025-01-003, CA2025-01-004 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence appellants attempted to present at the final hearing where that evidence was not disclosed in accordance with the trial court's scheduling order. The trial court did not err in granting civil stalking protection orders against appellants where there was ample credible evidence that appellants repeatedly threatened to cause appellees and appellee's children physical harm and engaged in other troublesome behaviors on a regular basis. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's petition for a civil stalking protection order against appellee where appellee denied engaging in the behavior described by appellant and such behavior could be characterized as merely annoying to appellant, not warranting a civil protection order. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a civil stalking protection order where the terms of the order bear a sufficient nexus to the conduct that the trial court is attempting to prevent and were designed to ensure the safety of the persons protected by the order. | Hendrickson | Clinton |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4513 |
|
State v. Stevens
| CA2025-02-007 | Appellant's conviction for domestic violence is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. During the bench trial, the trial court heard testimony from the victim and a responding police officer. The victim testified that appellant backed her into a bedroom, screamed at her, slapped the phone she was holding, and threatened to "send [her] to heaven today." She further testified that she was frightened and that appellant's behavior was uncharacteristic, describing him as "really angry" and saying "It wasn't even [like] him." Most notably, she testified "I thought he was going to really hurt me." While appellant argues differently, the trial court, as trier of fact, was in the best position to evaluate the evidence and assess witness credibility. | Siebert | Clinton |
9/22/2025
|
9/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4405 |
|
Mann v. Muktarian
| CA2025-01-004 | The domestic relations court did not err in its decisions regarding the amount and duration of its spousal support and child support awards, the division of property, or in its denial of the wife's request for a distributive award being issued to her from her former husband's separate property where none of the domestic relations court's decisions were unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable so as to constitute an abuse of discretion when considering, among other things, the length of the parties' marriage and the standard of living that the parties established during their marriage. | Piper | Clermont |
9/22/2025
|
9/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4404 |
|
In re J.S.R.
| CA2025-04-003 | Trial court erred when it proceeded with a hearing on the surname change of Mother's child where Father only raised it for the first time at the hearing and Mother had no notice the issue would be litigated. | Piper | Preble |
9/22/2025
|
9/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4407 |
|
Bank of New York Mellon v. Cox
| CA2025-02-006 | Trial court's order disbursing funds to the property owners was a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1), as the order affects a substantial right and effectively determines the action, preventing future relief. Trial court erred by disbursing proceeds from a foreclosure sale to the property owners without resolving or accounting for a lien held by a party claiming a superior interest. | Siebert | Madison |
9/22/2025
|
9/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4406 |
|
State v. Edmonson
| CA2025-01-006; CA2025-01-007 | Trial court committed clerical error requiring nunc pro tunc correction where judgment entry incompletely described plea agreement terms by omitting reference to dismissed sexual motivation specification that eliminated defendant's life sentence exposure. Defendant's constitutional challenge to validity of guilty plea was moot where court determined that sexual motivation specification was eliminated from kidnapping charge, removing the factual basis for the due process claim. Trial court's imperfect plea colloquy did not invalidate defendant's guilty plea where defendant received adequate information about the charge through multiple sources and failed to demonstrate prejudice under Crim.R. 11(C). Trial court committed clerical error by mischaracterizing defendant's felonious-assault conviction as first-degree felony when statute classifies offense as second-degree felony, warranting correction through nunc pro tunc entry. | M. Powell | Clermont |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4314 |
|
In re Z.P.
| CA2025-04-027 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Clermont |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4315 |
|
In re A.Y.
| CA2025-04-028 | The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to the Department of Job and Family Services where (1) Father willingly appeared before the trial court and did not contest the court's personal jurisdiction; (2) the juvenile court's order, when read in its entirety, adequately described the reasonable efforts taken to prevent the removal of the child; (3) trial counsel's stipulation to prior evidence and testimony was part of trial strategy and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the case worker and GAL's testimony were not hearsay simply because they were not asked to substantiate their findings. | Siebert | Clermont |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4316 |
|
State v. Teeters
| CA2024-12-145 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4311 |
|
State v. Wilburn
| CA2025-01-009 | Defendant's conviction for failure to comply with a police officer's orders under R.C. 2921.331(A) was supported by sufficient evidence. | M. Powell | Butler |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4312 |
|
D00TZ 606, L.L.C. v. Dennis
| CA2025-04-035 | There was a presumption of proper service of the complaint by ordinary mail pursuant to Civ.R. 4.6(D) where the complaint was not returned and where service occurred at the same address appellant personally listed as his address in subsequent filings. Appellant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing in the action without raising the defense in either his answer or in a motion filed prior to the filing of his answer. Appellate court was without jurisdiction to consider arguments relating to an order that appellant failed to timely appeal. | Hendrickson | Butler |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4313 |
|
State v. Cornett
| CA2024-12-135; CA2024-12-136; CA2024-12-137 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
9/8/2025
|
9/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3183 |
|
State v. Wright
| CA2025-03-032 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
9/8/2025
|
9/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3184 |
|
Snider Crossing L.L.C. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Rev.
| CA2025-01-005 | School district not required to prove jurisdictional prerequisites for property tax complaint at initial filing. Jurisdiction properly established where statutory requirements existed at filing and were confirmed through administrative proceedings. Board of Tax Appeals did not err in refusing to dismiss school district's property tax complaint where district presented appraiser testimony and documentation sufficient to support statutory jurisdictional allegations at board of revision level. Board of Tax Appeals did not err in finding school district met jurisdictional requirements where sale price exceeded statutory thresholds. Board of Tax Appeals did not err in finding entity transfer constituted qualifying "sale" under property tax statute where LLC ownership transfer accomplished economic equivalent of real estate conveyance. Board of Tax Appeals did not err in allowing discovery to proceed during jurisdictional challenge where taxpayer failed to seek protective orders and school district had independently obtained transaction information through public sources. | M. Powell | Warren |
9/8/2025
|
9/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3189 |
|
In re J.K.
| CA2025-04-028 | The juvenile court's decision granting permanent custody of two of appellant's children to a children services agency was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence given the juvenile court's finding the evidence presented at trial clearly and convincingly showed that the problems that led to the children's removal from appellant's care had not been substantially remedied by appellant. This included, most notably, appellant's alleged continued and ongoing physical abuse of the children at issue. | Piper | Warren |
9/8/2025
|
9/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3190 |
|
State v. Venters
| CA2024-10-064 | Appellant's conviction for gross sexual imposition was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's actions in moving and restraining the victim's legs with his arm so that he could reach under her clothing to touch her pubic area was sufficient "force" for the offense of gross sexual imposition. Appellant's 18-month prison term was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Hendrickson | Warren |
9/2/2025
|
9/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3111 |
|
Bell v. Cedar Fair, LP
| CA2024-11-080 | The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the amusement park on the basis that the patrons failed to establish that the cell phone came from a rider on the roller coaster. There was a reasonable inference to support the patrons' claims and credibility issues are reserved for the role of the factfinder, not the court on summary judgment. However, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the amusement park for a different reason. In this case, the patrons failed to present expert testimony to establish the relevant standard of care. This was necessary because duty of care concerns the adequacy and placement of protective netting, a matter requiring specialized knowledge beyond the understanding of an ordinary juror. | Byrne | Warren |
9/2/2025
|
9/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3112 |
|
State v. Smith
| CA2025-01-008 | The appellate court did not have authority to review appellant’s jointly recommended and agreed upon sentence of five to seven-and-one-half years in prison following his guilty plea to five counts of second-degree felony trafficking in drugs and two counts of third-degree felony trafficking in drugs, nor did appellant receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to negotiate a lesser sentence for appellant when considering appellant’s trial counsel successfully negotiated a plea offer that significantly limited appellant’s exposure had he decided to take the matter to trial. | Piper | Warren |
9/2/2025
|
9/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3113 |
|