|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Dixon
| L-25-00087 | Per Mayle, J., the trial court made all three consecutive sentence findings required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing but failed to include its finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) in its sentencing judgment entry, so appellant’s sentence is reversed and remanded for the limited purpose of entering a nunc pro tunc judgment entry that incorporates the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) finding. | Mayle | Lucas |
12/19/2025
|
12/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5668 |
|
Mary Ann Lauer Living Revocable Trust v. McManus
| L-25-00113 | Trial court is not required to include a factual basis or legal reasoning in its entry granting summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate where the claim is barred by res judicata. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion to amend the complaint where the amendment would be futile. Trial court abused its discretion when it denied without a hearing a motion for sanctions that had arguable merit. | Sulek | Lucas |
12/19/2025
|
12/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5669 |
|
State v. Patterson
| OT-24-044 | The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress where during a lawful traffic stop, a canine’s free air sniff alerted to the presence of narcotics | Sulek | Ottawa |
12/19/2025
|
12/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5671 |
|
Lause v. Lause
| WD-25-004 | Trial court abuses its discretion when it denies motion to modify child support without completing the statutorily required worksheet. Motion to change custody properly denied where movant does not demonstrate a change of circumstances. Motion to reallocate child tax exemption properly denied where movant presents no evidence to overcome the presumption that the credit shall go to the residential parent. | Sulek | Wood |
12/19/2025
|
12/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5670 |
|
State v. Tavarez
| WD-24-077 | Trial court not required to inform defendant that his guilty plea may be used against him in a later trial pursuant to R.C. 2937.09 because that section applies to preliminary examinations upon arraignment, not to a change of plea to an indictment. | Sulek | Wood |
12/19/2025
|
12/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5672 |
|
State v. Wojciechowski
| WD-25-010 | Duhart. (1) Affirming imposition of consecutive sentences following revocation of community control sanctions. (2) Revocation was properly based on appellant’s non-technical violations of community control supervision. (3) Imposition of a prison sentence following revocation of community control sanctions does not violate principles of double jeopardy. | Duhart | Wood |
12/19/2025
|
12/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5673 |
|
Bell’s Landscaping & Lawn Servs., L.L.C. v. Owens Corning Sales, L.L.C.
| L-25-00068 | Per Mayle, J., unresolved issues of fact remain. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing count one of appellant’s complaint, breach of contract, under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). | Mayle | Sandusky |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5602 |
|
State v. Brown
| L-25-00025 | Duhart. Manifest weight of the evidence. Domestic violence. Assault. | Duhart | Lucas |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5603 |
|
State v. Hubbard
| L-25-00073 | Guilty plea will not be vacated for not being knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made where the trial court did not completely fail to comply with the nonconstitutional notification requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b) and where the defendant does not demonstrate prejudice in that the plea would not have otherwise been made. | Sulek | Lucas |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5604 |
|
Lucas Cty. Children’s Servs. v. Kujawski
| L-25-00141 | Zmuda, J, writing for the majority, affirms the judgment, dismissing the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), finding the allegations in the complaint asserted a claim for damages arising from alleged negligence toward her children, with no personal claim alleged by appellant, appearing pro se. Appellant is not an attorney and not permitted to appear as counsel for her children. | Zmuda | Lucas |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5605 |
|
State v. Overton
| L-24-1209 | Trial court properly convicted and sentenced appellant for murder with firearm specification after being found competent to stand trial and pleading no contest. Judgment affirmed. Osowik | Osowik | Lucas |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5606 |
|
State v. Walker
| L-24-1159 | Sulek, J. Appellant’s murder and kidnapping convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence. Any error in excluding nonhearsay text messages was harmless. The court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for a mistrial. Appellant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and there was no cumulative error. | Sulek | Lucas |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5607 |
|
State v. Allen
| L-24-1116 | (Mayle) Although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw plea to the extent that motion was based upon claims that are barred by res judicata, the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing to the extent that same motion was based upon a separate claim, asserted by a third-party affidavit, that the state fabricated DNA evidence against the appellant. | Mayle | Lucas |
12/12/2025
|
12/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5555 |
|
State ex rel. Harris v. Copley
| L-25-00224 | A request for the names of three officers is a request for information. It is not a valid public-records request. | Sulek | Lucas |
12/12/2025
|
12/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5558 |
|
State v. Williams
| L-25-00059 | Appeal from the trial court’s imposition of the applicable costs of supervision, confinement, and appointed counsel as part of defendant’s sentence. Costs of supervision are not applicable because defendant was sentenced to prison, not community control. Costs of confinement are supported by the record considering defendant’s age and work history. Costs of appointed counsel are contrary to law because they are a civil assessment and cannot be included as part of the sentence. | Sulek | Lucas |
12/12/2025
|
12/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5560 |
|
McNalley v. Keiser
| L-25-00106 | Per Mayle, J., plaintiff purported to challenge constitutionality of R.C. 2323.43(A)(3) as applied, but failed to articulate presently-existing facts explaining why statute was unreasonable and arbitrary as applied to him. As such, plaintiff’s challenge was facial, requiring heightened burden of proof that was not met. Trial court found that argument can be made on case-by-case basis that caps are unreasonable and arbitrary for catastrophic injuries, but cited nothing supporting this conclusion here. | Mayle | Lucas |
12/12/2025
|
12/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5561 |
|
State v. Perkins
| L-24-1222 | Per Osowik, J., Trial court’s failure to consider factors set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b) did not render defendant’s sentence contrary to or not “authorized by law.” Trial court imposed the parties’ jointly-recommended sentence and, therefore, did not exercise discretion in fashioning defendant’s sentence. Defendant’s sentence is unreviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). | Osowik | Lucas |
12/12/2025
|
12/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5562 |
|
State v. Carter
| WM-24-021 | Zmuda. Affirming conviction on Carter’s no contest plea, because Carter failed to establish prejudice resulting from the trial court’s overstatement of the maximum possible term of a driver’s license suspension. | Zmuda | Williams |
12/12/2025
|
12/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5556 |
|
State v. Plassman
| F-24-010 | Osowik, J., trial court judgment is affirmed. This is an untimely successive post-conviction motion. None of the exceptions of R.C. 2953.23(A) apply. | Osowik | Fulton |
12/12/2025
|
12/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5557 |
|
State v. Howard
| L-25-00040 | Duhart. The trial court’s verdict was supported by the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. | Duhart | Lucas |
12/9/2025
|
12/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5486 |
|
State v. McKenzie
| L-25-00052 | Judgment reversed and matter remanded for application of Bruen to as-applied challenge to R.C. 2923.13, where trial court failed to apply Bruen test, and no factual record from which appellate de novo review might determine the issues. | Zmuda | Lucas |
12/9/2025
|
12/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5487 |
|
State v. Eitniear
| L-24-1261, L-24-1280 | Per Mayle, J., although officer was using motor vehicle that did not have flashing, oscillating, or rotating colored light mounted outside on top of vehicle, as required by R.C. 4549.13, he was not on duty for exclusive or main purpose of enforcing traffic laws, and was, therefore, not incompetent to testify under R.C. 4549.14 and Evid.R. 601(B)(4). | Mayle | Lucas |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5445 |
|
State v. Hardin
| L-24-1268, L-24-1269 | Per Osowik, J., the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. | Osowik | Lucas |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5446 |
|
Herris v. Estate of Michel
| L-24-1298 | Trial court properly granted summary judgment to appellee because appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Judgment affirmed. Osowik. | Osowik | Lucas |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5447 |
|
State v. Hodges
| L-24-1156 | Duhart. R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) is constitutional on its face. The matter is remanded to the trial court for factual findings on the record in connection with Hodges’s as-applied challenge to the statute. | Duhart | Lucas |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5448 |
|
State v. Johnson
| L-25-00017 | Because Johnson filed an untimely postconviction petition, and because he failed to meet the requirements of R.C. 2953.23 for doing so, the trial court did not err when it summarily denied his petition without a hearing. | Sulek | Lucas |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5449 |
|
G.M. v. T.B.
| L-25-00080 | Per Mayle, J., based on evidence in the record, trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. The magistrate erred by allowing appointed counsel to withdraw without fully considering whether appellant waived her right to appointed counsel. Appellant’s argument relating to objections is moot because the case is being remanded for a new contempt hearing. | Mayle | Lucas |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5450 |
|
Jefferson Capital Sys., L.L.C. v. McDuffey
| L-25-00142 | Per Mayle, J., trial court erred by granting summary judgment in appellee’s favor because genuine issue of material fact remained regarding account holder’s identity. | Mayle | Lucas |
12/5/2025
|
12/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5451 |
|
Apple-Chamberlain v. Apple
| WD-24-045 | Per Osowik, J., operating agreement did not provide sole means for dissolving company or preclude dissolution under R.C. 1706.47(B). No-contest provision of trust not triggered by lawsuit where purported “contest” succeeded and plaintiff-trustee did not object to reasonable interpretation of trust. Trust protector not validly appointed because appointment was not requested by current beneficiary of sub-trust. Agreements not invalid for lack of full date in acknowledgment and absence of signers’ titles. | Osowik | Wood |
12/2/2025
|
12/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5388 |
|
In re Da.C.
| L-25-00154, L-25-00155, L-25-00156, L-25-00157 | The juvenile court did not err by terminating mother’s parental rights and denying grandmother’s legal custody motion. R.C. 2151.414(E) | Sulek | Lucas |
11/26/2025
|
11/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5338 |
|
Bennett v. Esmond
| L-25-00096 | Per Mayle, J., trial court erred by finding that appellant was not entitled to additional damages and attorney fees under R.C. 5321.16(C). Landlord was not entitled to withhold any of appellant’s security deposit, so entire amount was wrongfully withheld, and landlord’s liability under the statute was mandatory. | Mayle | Lucas |
11/25/2025
|
11/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5299 |
|
State v. Kitto
| L-24-1199 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority reverses and remands for new trial where trial court improperly excluded evidence based on procedure of Crim.R. 16 | Zmuda | Lucas |
11/25/2025
|
11/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5301 |
|
State v. Brentlinger
| L-25-00033 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority finds merger of numerous counts related to child pornography not appropriate, where charges arose from the capture of separately recorded and saved images of a child depicted nude or in sexually oriented materials or engaged in sexual activity; state’s cross appeal well taken where trial court merged two counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition, and the conduct was separately completed and recorded before the commission of the next act, and merger was not appropriate. | Zmuda | Lucas |
11/25/2025
|
11/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5302 |
|
State v. Russell
| L-23-1301 | Judge Duhart. Affirmed trial court’s suppression of medical records obtained from hospital with a grand jury subpoena instead of a warrant. Found a reasonable expectation of privacy in the medical records and that the good faith exception did not apply. | Duhart | Lucas |
11/25/2025
|
11/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5306 |
|
State v. Gill
| WM-24-022 | Trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the defendant made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea, was afforded a full hearing on the motion, and where his reason for withdrawal was merely a change of heart. Defendant’s remote appearance at plea hearing not plain error where he consented to appearing remotely and there is no reasonable probability that the result would have been different if he appeared in person. | Sulek | Williams |
11/25/2025
|
11/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5300 |
|
State v. Lucas
| OT-25-002 | Duhart. Affirming trial court judgment because the trial court did not completely fail to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b), and because Lucas failed to show prejudice resulting from the alleged failure. Because Lucas’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lucas’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. | Duhart | Ottawa |
11/25/2025
|
11/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5303 |
|
State v. McMillon
| WD-24-085 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms appellant’s conviction finding that the trial court did not err when it admitted the victim’s 911 call as evidence at trial. | Zmuda | Wood |
11/25/2025
|
11/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5304 |
|
State v. Pringle
| WD-25-017 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, finds a matter of law that appellant’s assigned error is not subject to this court’s review. Judgment affirmed. | Zmuda | Wood |
11/25/2025
|
11/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5305 |
|
State v. Finnerty
| OT-24-032 | Duhart. Evidence. Sufficiency. Manifest weight. Admissibility. Restitution. | Duhart | Ottawa |
11/21/2025
|
11/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5260 |
|
State v. Black
| S-25-001 | Duhart. Black’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, as the court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when it advised Black of his Constitutional rights and, further, when it asked him at the conclusion of the colloquy whether he had understood everything up to that point. In addition, Black’s sentence to a term of imprisonment to be served at a local detention facility -- rather to a term of community control -- was not contrary to law, as it was in accordance with R.C. 2929.13(B)(1) and R.C. 2929.34(B)(3)(i) and (ii). | Duhart | Sandusky |
11/21/2025
|
11/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5261 |
|
Pool v. Dad's Place
| WM-24-020 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, finds that the trial court erred when it failed to review appellant’s claim that appellee violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution under a strict scrutiny standard and failed to address appellant’s claim under the Ohio Constitution’s Conscience Clause. Matter is remanded to trial court to address these errors. | Zmuda | Williams |
11/21/2025
|
11/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5262 |
|
State v. Hudson
| L-24-1230 | Per Osowik, J., State/City concedes error with respect to the sole assignment of error. The record shows no compliance with Crim.R 11( E) by the trial court before accepting the no contest plea. Upon review, the plea and sentence of appellant is vacated in the trial court case No. TRD-20-08413. The case is remanded for further proceedings. | Osowik | Lucas |
11/21/2025
|
11/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5258 |
|
State v. Mosley
| L-24-1292 & L-25-00013 | Judge Duhart, Conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Duhart | Lucas |
11/21/2025
|
11/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5259 |
|
State v. Cardell
| L-25-00006 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms the judgment, finding the state disproved the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, based on review for manifest weight of the evidence. | Zmuda | Lucas |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5197 |
|
State v. Bagley
| WM-25-007, WM-25-008 | Offenses of Aggravated Possession of Drugs and Attempted Having a Weapon Under Disability do not merge for purposes of sentencing. | Osowik | Williams |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5196 |
|
State v. Roman
| WD-25-012 | This is not an opinion of the court. The single assignment of error is based only on the trial court’s consideration of the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The appeal may be summarily disposed as R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit a substitution of the judgment of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with those enumerated revised code sections. | Osowik | Wood |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5198 |
|
Fremont Cutting Dies, Inc. v. Trigo Quality Solutions US, Inc.
| S-25-022 | In a breach of contract action, the trial court properly applied the law when it found that the defendant damaged the exterior warehouse walls and that the appropriate amount of damages was the reasonable cost to repair those walls. The trial court’s findings in that regard are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Sulek | Sandusky |
11/14/2025
|
11/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5167 |
|
In re Ki.K.
| S-25-014, S-25-015, S-25-016 | Judge Duhart. Children in agency’s temporary custody for over 12 of 22 months. Children have behavioral issues and sexualized behaviors with each other which mother cannot handle. Children were not mother’s priority. Mother failed to implement skills from case plan services. Mother had an on-going relationship and contact with domestically violent partner. | Duhart | Sandusky |
11/14/2025
|
11/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5168 |
|
State v. Syph
| L-24-1155 | Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. Trafficking in cocaine conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Lucas |
11/7/2025
|
11/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5075 |
|
State v. Lockett
| L-25-00086 | Per Mayle, J., trial court made the required findings in support of consecutive sentences both at sentencing hearing and in judgment entry. Trial court’s findings are clearly and convincingly supported by record. | Mayle | Lucas |
11/7/2025
|
11/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5076 |
|