|
|
State ex rel. Hofbauer v. Uhle
| L-26-00107 | Per Mayle, J., because respondents have shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we grant respondents’ motion for summary judgment, deny Hofbauer’s cross-motion for summary judgment, deny Hofbauer’s remaining motion, and dismiss Hofbauer’s complaint in its entirety. | Mayle | Lucas |
10/14/2026
|
10/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4038 |
|
In re A.W.
| H-26-012 | Per Mayle, J., the trial court findings that A.W. could not be placed with his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), and that termination was in the best interest of the child were supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. As such, we affirm the decision to terminate mother’s parental rights to A.W. | Mayle | Huron |
10/13/2026
|
10/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4028 |
|
State v. Wilhelm
| L-25-00274 | Per Osowik, J., Appellant’s Right of Allocution was not violated; R.C. | Osowik | Lucas |
10/9/2026
|
10/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3990 |
|
State v. Sims
| L-25-00234 | Per Osowik, J., The presumption of community control under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) does not apply to multiple offenses. The trial court did not consider impermissible factors in the imposition of sentence. The sentence is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Lucas |
10/6/2026
|
10/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3936 |
|
State v. James
| WD-26-011 | Duhart. Summary denial of challenge based on trial court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11. | Duhart | Wood |
10/2/2026
|
10/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3903 |
|