|
|
State ex rel. Omni Fiber, L.L.C. v. Springfield
| 2026-CA-42 | Because the relator did not appeal the service director’s failure to act on its right-of-way permit application, the respondents’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is granted. Relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of administrative appeal. Relator’s motion for leave to amend the petition is denied as futile. Writ of mandamus denied. | Per Curiam | Clark |
10/16/2026
|
10/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4070 |
|
Cavalry SPV I, L.L.C. v. Meier
| 2026-CA-6 | In this appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment against him in appellee’s collection action, the trial court did not err in concluding that appellant was properly served by certified mail in accordance with Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a). The signed certified mail return receipt for the summons sent to appellant’s address raised the presumption of valid service. Upon receiving appellant’s testimony and evidence at the hearing on his motion, the trial court reasonably exercised its discretion in not crediting appellant’s testimony disclaiming proper service. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant relief from final judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) because he did not establish that he had a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief were granted, as required by the rule. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Darke |
10/16/2026
|
10/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4065 |
|
State v. Mail
| 2026-CA-20 | At disposition, the court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
10/16/2026
|
10/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4068 |
|
State v. Miller
| 30795 | State appeals from appellee’s acquittal on failure to provide one’s personal information under R.C. 2921.29(A)(1). The trial court erred in concluding that appellee was not in a “public place” for purposes of R.C. 2921.29(A)(1) when he was seated in the back seat of a police cruiser that was parked on a public roadway. However, because the State cannot appeal the trial court’s not-guilty finding, judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
10/16/2026
|
10/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4069 |
|
State v. Gallion
| 2026-CA-12 | The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior bad acts. Appellant was not specifically implicated in a breaking and entering investigation, no other act by appellant was introduced, and even without the allegedly tainted testimony, the evidence of appellant’s guilt was overwhelming. The trial court did not err in admitting a purportedly incomplete officer’s body camera recording of appellant’s statements. Evid.R. 106 is implicated only when a portion of a recorded statement is admitted into evidence, and it is undisputed that the video played for the jury encompassed the entire exchange between appellant and the officer. Appellant did not object to the trial court’s procedures that allowed jurors to question witnesses, and he fails to demonstrate plain error in the trial court’s lack of full compliance with Crim.R. 24. Appellant’s conviction of having weapons while under disability is not against the manifest weight of the evidence and is supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
10/16/2026
|
10/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4066 |
|