|
|
State v. McKenzie
| 1-25-67 | Second Amendment; Weapons Under Disability; R.C. 2923.13(A)(2); R.C. 2923.13(A)(3); Facial Constitutional Challenge; As-Applied Constitutional Challenge; Plain Error; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Opinion Testimony; Sufficiency of the Evidence; Manifest Weight of the Evidence. Ohio’s weapons-under-disability statute, R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (A)(3), is not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment because the legislature may constitutionally disarm individuals who have committed inherently dangerous crimes. The statute is constitutional as applied to the defendant-appellant because his prior convictions for burglary and felony drug offenses establish a presumption of dangerousness justifying his disarmament. The defendant-appellant’s conviction for having weapons while under disability was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective. | Zimmerman | Allen |
7/27/2026
|
7/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2869 |
|
WIN Waste Innovations of Seneca Cty., L.L.C. v. Washington Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
| 5-25-28 | Administrative appeals; R.C. 2506.04; Zoning. The trial court erred in determining that the board of zoning appeals erred in finding that the project sought to be constructed by the plaintiff-appellee was a borrow-pit and not a pond or a lake. | Waldick | Hancock |
7/27/2026
|
7/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2870 |
|
State v. Spiegel
| 5-26-05 & 5-26-06 | Reimbursement. Trial court did not err by ordering extra $100 in reimbursement. | Waldick | Hancock |
7/27/2026
|
7/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2871 |
|
Blake v. Blake
| 17-26-01 | R.C. 1701.91; Judicial dissolution of corporations; Civ.R. 56; Summary judgment. The judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, on a claim seeking corporate dissolution of a corporation pursuant to R.C. 1701.91, is affirmed. | Waldick | Shelby |
7/27/2026
|
7/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2872 |
|
State v. Hiles
| 17-26-02 | R.C. 2951.03; factual errors in PSI. No factual errors in the PSI were alleged at the hearing. Rather there was a disagreement as to what the facts meant. Even if the trial court should have made findings, the failure to do so was not prejudicial as the facts were testified to by the victim at the sentencing hearing. | Willamowski | Shelby |
7/20/2026
|
7/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2753 |
|