|
|
State v. Saunders
| C-250519 | R.C. 4731.41 – R.C. 4731.34 – R.C. 4731.291 – PRACTICING MEDICINE WITHOUT A LICENSE OR CERTIFICATE – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: The trial court did not err in convicting defendant of practicing medicine without a license or certificate in violation of R.C. 4731.41 because conducting ultrasounds outside of a clinical setting was outside the scope of defendant’s residency program. Defendant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the State presented testimony of two victims and videos of the ultrasounds that defendant performed on the victims. | Nestor | Hamilton |
7/8/2026
|
7/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2591 |
|
Sherman v. Sherman
| C-250579 | DECREE OF DIVORCE — SEPARATION AGREEMENT — CONTRACT INTERPRETATION — AMBIGUITY — EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE: In finding that wife’s assumption of the mortgage on the marital residence would not remove husband from financial liability, the trial court enforced the terms of the parties’ decree of divorce and separation agreement rather than modifying them. Where the term “financial liability” in the parties’ decree of divorce and separation agreement was ambiguous, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent and finding that an impact on husband’s benefits with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs was a form of financial liability. | Crouse | Hamilton |
7/8/2026
|
7/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2592 |
|
West v. Cincinnati
| C-250586 | R.C. 9.68 — ATTORNEY FEES — ABUSE OF DISCRETION — LODESTAR CALCULATION — BLOCK BILLING: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to set forth the lodestar calculation that it had used to determine an award of fees where the court awarded the specific amount of fees that had been requested, which was based on a lodestar calculation, and the appellate court was able to conduct a meaningful review of the award. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to review the submitted invoices for block-billed time entries and exclude any block-billed entries from the award of fees. Where plaintiff filed a civil action challenging a municipal ordinance as being in conflict with R.C. 9.68 in the court of common pleas, but had to file a nearly identical challenge in the municipal court where charges against plaintiff under the challenged ordinance were pending because defendants argued the municipal court was the proper venue for the challenge, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees for time spent challenging the ordinance in the municipal court. [But see DISSENT: The plain language of the statute limits attorney-fee awards to only fees incurred in a civil action brought by a party who successfully challenges a gun-restriction ordinance as conflicting with R.C. 9.68(A).] Where plaintiff only prevailed on part of his R.C. 9.68 challenge to a municipal ordinance, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to reduce a fee award to correspond with the extent that plaintiff prevailed in the challenge where all challenges, both successful and unsuccessful, involved a common core of facts and legal theories and it was not feasible to divide the amount of attorney fees incurred on each claim. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in including fees incurred preparing and defending the request for fees in a fee award. | Crouse | Hamilton |
7/8/2026
|
7/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2593 |
|
PHI Health, L.L.C. v. Custom Design Benefits, L.L.C.
| C-250606 | IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACTION — NO SURPRISES ACT — FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT — STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — OHIO ARBITRATION ACT: The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim to enforce an independent dispute resolution entity’s award under the federal No Surprises Act because that law did not create an express or implied private right of action. The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint because plaintiff cannot rely on an express right of actions under the Federal Arbitration Act or the Ohio Arbitration Act to raise claims seeking to enforce an independent dispute resolution entity’s award issued under the federal No Surprises Act. | Bock | Hamilton |
7/8/2026
|
7/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2594 |
|
Owensby v. Underwood
| C-250614 | CIV.R. 60(B) — MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT — PARTY — APP.R. 3(B) — NOTICE OF APPEAL — JURISDICTION — APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL: Only parties to an action may seek relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a judgment or entry that is not designated in a notice of appeal. | Crouse | Hamilton |
7/8/2026
|
7/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2595 |
|