|
|
Keller v. Keller
| C-250337 | DIVORCE — DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS — SEPARATE PROPERTY — CHILD SUPPORT — EQUITABLE DIVISION – R.C. 3119.05(P): The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it equitably divided the parties’ marital property where the court’s classification and division of property was supported by the record. The court did not err in requiring Father to share the dependent-child income tax exemption with Mother where parenting time was essentially equal and it was equitable to do so. The trial court did not err in requiring that child-care expenses should be paid through child support, because R.C. 3119.05(P) mandates that child-care costs are paid through child support. The trial court abused its discretion when it adopted a percentage division of child-care costs that was not supported by the record. | Moore | Hamilton |
9/2/2026
|
9/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3422 |
|
State v. Reed
| C-250632 | SECOND AMENDMENT — BRUEN — GUNS — WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY — R.C. 2923.13 — CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS — R.C. 2923.12 — JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS: The Second Amendment prohibited the State’s prosecution of defendant for having a weapon while under disability where the State failed to provide sufficient historical support for its presumptively-permanent disarmament of defendant based on a prior juvenile adjudication for complicity to aggravated robbery. Compare State v. Thacker, 2024-Ohio-5835 (1st Dist.). [But see DISSENT: Defendant’s disability is presumptively not permanent because he has two statutory avenues to remove the disability: R.C. 2923.14 provides a mechanism to obtain relief from a disability and sealing the record would relieve the disability, see id. at ¶ 113-114 (Winkler, J., dissenting), and therefore his prosecution for having a weapon while under a disability was not prohibited by the Second Amendment.] The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss his prosecution for carrying concealed weapons as violating the Second Amendment, because our Nation’s history shows that states may prohibit some or all of their citizens from carrying concealed. State v. Hall, 2025-Ohio-1644 (1st Dist.). | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/2/2026
|
9/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3423 |
|
State v. Smith
| C-250639 | ASSAULT — SELF-DEFENSE — EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT — CREDIBILITY : Defendant’s conviction for misdemeanor assault is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court found that the State disproved multiple elements of defendant’s self-defense claim and defendant only challenged the trial court’s findings under one element of his self-defense claim; and where defendant failed to show that the victim’s account of defendant striking the victim in response to the victim telling the defendant to leave was internally contradictory, directly impeached, or fantastical. | Bock | Hamilton |
9/2/2026
|
9/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3424 |
|
State v. Smith
| C-250657 | SPEEDY TRIAL – MOTION TO DISMISS – DISCOVERY DEMAND – CRIM.R. 47 – CRIM.R. 12: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entertaining an oral motion to dismiss because trial courts are permitted to hear oral motions under the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds because the State was still within its statutory time to bring defendant to trial. | Nestor | Hamilton |
9/2/2026
|
9/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3425 |
|
Krabacher v. Durrani
| C-250113, C-250520 | CIV.R. 50(B) — JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT — CIV.R. 59(A) — MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL — CONSOLIDATED TRIALS — CIV.R. 42 — COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT —HEARSAY — EVID.R. 803(21) — HARMLESS ERROR — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — CUMULATIVE ERROR — FUTURE MEDICAL DAMAGES — SETOFF — PREJUDGMENT INTEREST: The trial court abused its discretion under Civ.R. 42 in joining plaintiffs’ medical-malpractice claims for trial where plaintiffs’ cases did not present a common question of law or fact, but the court’s error was harmless where the record did not disclose any prejudice to defendants. [See CONCURRENCE: Even assuming, without deciding, that the trial court erred in joining the causes for trial, the error was harmless error where the record fails to show that the error affected the defendants' substantial rights.] The trial court erred in allowing an expert witness for plaintiffs to offer hearsay testimony where no foundation had been offered to establish that the testimony was admissible under Evid.R. 803(21). Where the jury instructions as a whole did not mislead the jury, the trial court did not err in issuing a jury instruction on defendant doctor’s absence from trial. The cumulative effect of the court’s errors in consolidating plaintiffs’ cases for trial and in admitting inadmissible hearsay was harmless. The trial court did not err when it denied defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as it related to the jury’s future-damages awards, because the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s awards. The trial court erred in denying defendants’ request for a setoff where this court has held that intentional tortfeasors are entitled to a setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A). The trial court did not err by awarding plaintiffs prejudgment interest, and the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendants failed to make a good-faith effort to settle the cases while plaintiffs made a good-faith effort to do so. | Moore | Hamilton |
8/28/2026
|
8/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3368 |
|