|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Columbus v. DeWitt
| 24AP-12 | On appeal of dismissal of operating a vehicle impaired ("OVI"), operating without license, driving with suspended license, failure to control, and refusing a chemical alcohol test while having a prior OVI conviction within the preceding 20 years, the City of Columbus asserts that the trial court committed plain error by dismissing the charges based on a violation of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Review of the record demonstrates that dismissal pursuant to R.C. 2941.401 is improper because that statute’s 180-day clock had not expired on the date of the dismissal, and dismissal based on R.C. 2945.71 is improper because the speedy trial clock was tolled between June 13, 2023 and September 19, 2023, and between October 19, 2023 and November 6, 2023 pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(H). The City of Columbus’ sole assignment of error is sustained, and the judgment dismissing the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1067 |
|
State v. Cunningham
| 24AP-260 | Order dismissing charge based on finding of incompetence to stand trial affirmed. Appellant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel in seeking second competency evaluation because she does not contest the psychologist’s observations or conclusions and did not establish a reasonable probability of a different outcome if her counsel acted differently. Trial court did not err by finding appellant incompetent to stand trial because the second evaluation report was reliable and credible evidence supporting the trial court’s decision. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1068 |
|
State v. Ndiaye
| 24AP-306 | Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress; judgment of conviction affirmed | Leland | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1069 |
|
State v. Walker
| 24AP-329 | Defendant's convictions for Rape, Kidnapping, Attempted Rape, and Felonious Assault were supported by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, Defendant failed to show on appeal that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1070 |
|
Konkel v. Ohio Parole Bd.
| 24AP-464 | Because appellant failed to raise a cognizable claim that the Ohio Parole Board denied him meaningful consideration for parole, the trial court did not err in granting the board’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1071 |
|
Hopkins v. Certificate of Qualification for Emp.
| 24AP-502 | The trial court abused its discretion in denying petition for certificate of qualification for employment under R.C. 2953.25(C)(3) without first considering the rebuttable presumption in favor of granting the petition contained in R.C. 2953.25(C)(5). Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further consideration in accordance with the statutory framework set forth in R.C. 2953.25. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1072 |
|
In re Estate of Carter
| 24AP-518 | The probate court did not err in interpreting the language in the decedent’s will that bequeathed to his daughter a motor vehicle of her choice other than “the one used by my wife.” Additionally, the probate court did not err in determining from the evidence that the motor vehicle the daughter chose did not qualify as the motor vehicle the decedent’s wife used at the time of the decedent’s death. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1073 |
|
State v. Elkhabiry
| 22AP-445 | Appellant’s convictions for aggravated murder and having a weapon while under disability, both with accompanying firearm specifications, were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, nor were they based on legally insufficient evidence, where appellant was found hiding in the trunk of his girlfriend’s car with the murder weapon minutes after a shooting. Appellant’s right to confront witnesses under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution was not violated by the state’s failure to produce the witnesses heard on the video recordings of law enforcement officers’ body-worn cameras because their statements, made minutes after the shooting, had the primary purpose of assisting the officers during an ongoing emergency and were therefore nontestimonial in nature. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1028 |
|
State ex rel. Huber v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-164 | The magistrate correctly found there was some evidence in the record supporting the commission’s order denying temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation for the period of September 7, 2022 through November 7, 2022. The magistrate further correctly found the commission’s determination denying relator’s second request for TTD compensation for an identical time period was entirely proper based upon principles of res judicata. Writ of mandamus denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1029 |
|
Wilkes v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
| 24AP-106 | Because a reasonably prudent person would foresee that vandals would use the removal of the protective fencing on the north side of an overpass to throw or drop objects onto the highway below, the Ohio Department of Transportation owed a special duty to the motorists on the highway to take adequate measures to prevent vandalism. The Ohio Department of Transportation breached its duty to a passenger in a vehicle traveling on the highway below the overpass because it took no measures to prevent future vandalism after removing the protective fencing from the overpass. A reasonably prudent person would anticipate that taking no measures to prevent vandalism would result in damage to persons and property from the projectiles launched from the overpass. Thus, the passenger’s death was a natural and probable consequence of the Ohio Department of Transportation’s negligence. Finally, the Ohio Department of Transportation was not entitled to discretionary immunity where it did not make a discretionary policy decision to take no action but, instead, took no action because it did not perceive a problem. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1030 |
|
Wilkes v. Wilkes
| 24AP-210 | Judgment reversed. Although appellant did not answer the complaint for divorce, appellant’s appearance at the final hearing and statement informing the trial court she “needed more time” to answer the complaint should have alerted the court to the fact she intended to contest some issue in the divorce. Because the trial court did not offer appellant an opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine the witnesses, or present an argument at the final hearing, the court erred by denying her a meaningful opportunity to participate in the final hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to continue the final hearing. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1031 |
|
Fong v. Faires
| 24AP-467 | The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees because it incorrectly applied the requirements of the saving statute, R.C. 2903.19. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1032 |
|
State ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-553 | On review of magistrate’s decision in this public records case, recommending dismissal of petition for writ of mandamus for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25. As relator failed to file objections, and as we have found no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, we adopt it as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law as they are set forth in the decision. Respondent Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. ("ODRC")’s motion to dismiss is granted, relator’s complaint is dismissed, and relator’s motion for default judgment is dismissed as moot. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1033 |
|
Keil v. Ohio Atty. Gen.
| 24AP-654 | The magistrate properly applied the relevant law to the facts of the case concluding that the respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted as the relators can prove no set of facts entitling them to the relief they seek in mandamus. Moreover, while the respondent did not technically comply with Loc.R. 2(E), the error is harmless and cannot provide a basis for reversal as there was no delay or prejudice from the respondent serving the relators by email. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate’s decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. The relators’ objections are overruled, and we dismiss the relators’ complaint for a writ of mandamus. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1034 |
|
C.T.F. v. A.B.M.
| 24AP-440 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in issuing its decision and judgment entry adopting the December 15, 2023 magistrate’s decision in which the magistrate granted sole custody of the parties’ minor child to Father, with parenting time for Mother to be determined, and overruling Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1036 |
|
State ex rel. Castellon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 23AP-565 | Relator filed no objection to the magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss the mandamus complaint because its accompanying affidavit failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25. Finding no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, it is adopted in full and the relator’s complaint is dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/20/2025
|
3/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-972 |
|
Robol v. Columbus
| 24AP-348 | The trial court did not err in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment on appellant’s claims related to appellees’ implementation and enforcement of COVID-19 policies and protocols. The statute of limitations bars appellant’s claims related to certain Columbus City Council meetings in 2020, and both the City of Columbus and individual employees of the city are entitled to immunity on appellant’s intentional tort claims brought under state law. Appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on his claims of infringement of his right to religious expression, deprivation of civil rights, infringement of his freedom of speech and of the press, violations of the Takings Clause, and conspiracy. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in impliedly denying the motion to compel discovery by ruling on the motion for summary judgment, and we deny appellant’s motion to take judicial notice. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/20/2025
|
3/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-973 |
|
Lutsko v. Ohio Health Corp.
| 24AP-399 | Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant’s claim alleging a violation of the right to privacy. | Leland | Franklin |
3/20/2025
|
3/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-974 |
|
State v. Arroyo-Garcia
| 24AP-535 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiff did not properly serve the defendant pursuant to Civ.R. 4.4(A)(1). The trial court, therefore, did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment based on the trial court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-913 |
|
Moe v. Yost
| 24AP-483 | R.C. 3129.02(A)(2) — GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE — MEDICAL CARE OF CHILDREN — PARENTS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS — DUE COURSE OF LAW — HEALTH CARE FREEDOM AMENDMENT: The trial court erred in applying rational basis review to parents' claim that R.C. 3129.02(A)(2)'s categorical ban on gender-affirming pharmaceutical medical care for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria violates parents’ fundamental right under the Ohio Constitution to direct and obtain medical treatment for their children that has been recommended by qualified medical professionals and is consistent with the prevailing standards of care. Such a sweeping and inflexible ban on parents’ ability to access medical care for their children is not narrowly tailored to advance the state’s articulated interest: the protection of children. Applying strict scrutiny, R.C. 3129.02(A)(2) facially violates Ohio parents’ right to substantive due process under the Due Course of Law Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Moreover, R.C. 3129.02(A)(2) facially violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment to the Ohio Constitution, as adopted by voters, because it impermissibly prohibits parents, acting on behalf of their minor children, from accessing treatment protocols in accordance with the standards of care and guidelines widely accepted in the professional medical community to treat gender dysphoria in minors by subjecting medical care providers who follow accepted medical practices to professional discipline. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for imposition of a permanent injunction as to enforcement of R.C. 3129.02(A)(2)’s categorical ban on transgender minors’ access to gender-affirming pharmaceutical medical care. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-914 |
|
Pannell v. McCall
| 24AP-473 | ADMINISTRATIVE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER – OHIO ADM.CODE 5101:12-45-05.3(D) – CONTEMPT – R.C. 2705.02: Because father did not timely object to the administrative child support order in the manner provided by Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-45-05.3(D) and uncontroverted evidence established he had actual notice of the hearing and a full and fair opportunity to appear and defend against issuance of that order, the trial court did not err in adopting, over father’s objections, the magistrate’s decision enforcing the administrative child support order as an order of the court and finding Mr. McCall in contempt for nonpayment of child support. Judgment affirmed | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-915 |
|
State v. White
| 24AP-430 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for sentencing on an alleged “hanging charge” for an offense of felonious assault underlying appellant’s felony murder conviction because the argument was barred by res judicata and based on an erroneous understanding of the felony murder conviction. | Dorrian, J. | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-916 |
|
In re Guardianship of A.K.
| 24AP-297 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s objections to a magistrate’s decision and approving and adopting the magistrate’s decision regarding the guardianship of appellant’s daughter. | Dorrian, J. | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-917 |
|
State v. King
| 23AP-727 | Appellant's convictions for purposeful and felony murder with firearm specifications were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court erred in permitting introduction of a business card representing appellant’s involvement in a rap music production business, but error did not affect substantial rights and, therefore, was harmless. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-918 |
|
Cruz v. Cruz
| 23AP-534 | Judgment affirmed. In this appeal challenging the amount ordered child support, appellant failed to rebut the presumption under R.C. 3119.03 that the trial court ordered “the correct amount of child support due,” or that the trial court abused its discretion when applying the provisions of R.C. 3119.231 that govern a downward deviation in child support based on extended parenting time with the obligor. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-919 |
|
State v. Diallo
| 23AP-496 | Appellant’s convictions affirmed because they were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Based on the record contained on direct appeal, appellant cannot establish that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call witnesses or failing to advise appellant to testify at trial. The trial court did not err by referring to a determination of appellant’s ‘guilt or innocence,’ because no reasonable juror would believe the incidental reference to innocence shifted the state’s burden of proof. The trial court committed a clerical error by including consecutive-sentence findings in the sentencing entry that were not made at the sentencing hearing, in addition to consecutive-sentence findings that were made at the sentencing hearing, but that error can be corrected through a nunc pro tunc entry. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-920 |
|
State v. Lucas
| 23AP-400 | Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. As the state concedes, the trial court erred by failing to strictly comply with the jury waiver requirements of R.C. 2945.05 before conducting the bench trial that resulted in appellant’s convictions for felonious assault and having a weapon while under disability. Appellant’s assignments of error challenging the trial court’s evidentiary rulings are moot, but remand does not moot his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Based on the testimony of the victim, which was corroborated by an audio recording of the incident, as well as the certified copies of appellant’s previous convictions, the state’s evidence was legally sufficient to convict appellant on both counts. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/13/2025
|
3/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-845 |
|
State ex rel. Papageorgiou v. Avalotis Corp.
| 23AP-689 | Some evidence in the record supported the commission’s denial of relator’s request for temporary total disability compensation. Because the commission did not abuse its discretion, the first joint objection is sustained; the second joint objection is overruled as moot; and the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. Action dismissed. | Leland | Franklin |
3/13/2025
|
3/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-846 |
|
Save Ohio Parks v. Oil & Gas Land Mgt. Comm.
| 24AP-206 | The trial court did not err in granting the motion of appellee Oil and Gas Land Management Commission’s to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1). The Commission’s approval of the seven nominations at issue in this matter was not subject to appeal under R.C. 119.12 because the approvals were not adjudicatory orders of a state agency performing a licensing function. Nor did the trial court err in finding that even if there were a right to appeal the nomination approvals under R.C. 119.12, appellants in this case lacked standing to do so. Finally, the trial court did not err in addressing the issue of standing after it had already found the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/13/2025
|
3/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-847 |
|
In re Adoption of J.H.J.
| 24AP-397 | The trial court did not err in determining birth father’s consent to the adoption was not required pursuant to R.C. 3107.07(A) where birth father failed to have more than de minimis contact with the child in the year preceding the filing of the adoption petition. Birth father did not file timely objections to the magistrate’s decision, and birth father did not demonstrate plain error from the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision that his consent to the adoption was not required. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/13/2025
|
3/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-848 |
|
State ex rel. McCartney v. Simco Mgt., Inc.
| 24AP-13 | In determining whether new and changed circumstances existed under R.C. 4123.58(G), the commission staff hearing officer committed legal error in ignoring the amendment of R.C. 4123.58(D)(3) and the report of the independent specialist that the relator is unable to work due to an allowed condition. Because the independent specialist’s report is relevant to why the relator is not working, it constitutes new and changed circumstances that affects the prior denial of permanent total disability compensation. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/6/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-753 |
|
La Riccia v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.
| 24AP-501 | The Court of Claims did not err in granting the commission’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6). Despite appellants’ framing of their claims as gross negligence, fraud, and civil conspiracy, it is clear from the face of the complaint they are seeking review and reversal of the administrative decision denying the discrimination claim, and the Court of Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review the commission’s administrative determination. Additionally, because appellants did not allege an underlying primary tort from which the loss of consortium claim could derive, appellants failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for their loss of consortium claim. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/6/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-754 |
|
State v. Nix
| 24AP-557 | POSTCONVICTION PETITION — R.C. 2953.23: The trial court did not err in dismissing defendant’s untimely petition for postconviction relief where defendant failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2953.23. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/6/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-756 |
|
State v. Berry
| 23AP-149 | JUVENILE COURT – MANDATORY BINDOVER – JURISDICTION – R.C. 2151.23(H) – POSTCONVICTION PETITION: The trial court did not err in finding it had jurisdiction to convict defendant of murder and attempted murder as an adult because the juvenile court found probable cause to believe he committed these two offenses following bindover proceedings. Moreover, because defendant’s postconviction petition was untimely and he did not argue either of the exceptions in R.C. 2953.23(A) permitting untimely postconviction petitions applied, the trial court correctly determined it lacked authority to consider the untimely postconviction petition. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/4/2025
|
3/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-716 |
|
State v. McKinney
| 24AP-409 | On defendant’s appeal of trial court ruling denying motion for de novo resentencing. Following Harper, Hudson, and Bates, trial court correctly held that defendant’s motion was barred by res judicata, as the motion did not address the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction or whether the case was properly before the trial court when decided. Assignment of error overruled and judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-680 |
|
State ex rel. Henry v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-506 | The commission abused its discretion in denying the application for temporary total disability compensation where the commission did not rely on some evidence to support the denial of compensation for the entirety of the requested period. The commission additionally abused its discretion in denying the application for compensation under R.C. 4123.56(F) without first considering the additional restrictions on the claimant’s ability to return to work stemming from the newly allowed condition. Respondents’ objections overruled; limited writ of mandamus granted; and matter remanded for reconsideration of the application for temporary total disability compensation. | Edelstein | Franklin |
2/27/2025
|
2/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-658 |
|
State v. Mohamed
| 23AP-568 | On the state of Ohio’s appeal of trial court dismissal of charges of attempted murder and felonious assault based on violation of defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The specific delay in response to the defendant’s request for discovery was troubling, but overall time expended prior to trial was not unreasonable, unconstitutional, or violative of the speedy trial statute. The trial court erred by counting 129 days against the speedy trial clock, where that time was both tolled under R.C. 2945.72(E) and constituted a reasonable period of continuance pursuant to R.C. 2945.72 (H). The state’s first assignment of error is sustained, its second assignment of error is overruled as moot, the trial court’s judgment of dismissal is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
2/27/2025
|
2/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-659 |
|
State ex rel. West v. Hoying
| 23AP-580 | Respondents filed no objection to the magistrate’s decision. The magistrate recommended that this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondents to vacate the order that found West violated the conditions of his postrelease control and to enter a new order finding insufficient evidence was presented to find West violated the conditions of postrelease control. Because there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, it is adopted and the request for a writ of mandamus is granted. | Mentel | Franklin |
2/27/2025
|
2/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-660 |
|
Kromer v. Arthritis Found., Inc.
| 24AP-360 | The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s action to enforce a charitable trust because pursuant to R.C. 109.24 the attorney general has exclusive authority to prosecute actions to enforce charitable trusts. | Jamison | Franklin |
2/27/2025
|
2/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-661 |
|
Cornerstone Managed Properties, L.L.C. v. Martin
| 24AP-460 | DORMANT JUDGMENT – REVIVOR MOTION – R.C. 2329.07 – SERVICE: The trial court did not err in denying property management company's motion for revivor of a dormant judgment entered against a former tenant because the return receipt failed to establish the judgment debtor was properly served at the intended address. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
2/27/2025
|
2/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-662 |
|
State ex rel. Barbee v. Midland Concrete & Sand Transp.
| 23AP-423 | We adopt the magistrate’s decision, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein, as our own and conclude that Relator has failed to establish a right to a writ of mandamus | Boggs | Franklin |
2/25/2025
|
2/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-624 |
|
State v. Smith
| 23AP-576 | Trial court abused its discretion by summarily holding individual in direct criminal contempt for allegedly contemptuous conduct that occurred outside the trial court’s physical presence and of which the court had no personal knowledge. Under those circumstances, the trial court was required to comply with the procedural requirements of R.C. 2705.03. Although the trial court conducted a contempt hearing, no written charge was filed with the clerk of court and no entry of the charge was made on the journal; therefore, the procedural requirements were not satisfied. | Dorrian | Franklin |
2/20/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-581 |
|
B.E.R. v. Columbus City School Dist.
| 23AP-776 | Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of driver of motor vehicle on claim for negligent operation of a motor vehicle brought by administrator of the estate of a child pedestrian. Trial court erred in failing to consider whether the heightened duty of care afforded child pedestrians applied. Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of city school district pursuant to the doctrine of political subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 on administrator’s claims for negligent operation of a motor vehicle and reckless actions. | Dorrian | Franklin |
2/20/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-582 |
|
State ex rel. Norris v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 24AP-7 | PROHIBITION — JURISDICTION — ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY: Because relator failed to demonstrate his underlying convictions and sentences were void, he cannot establish the Ohio Adult Parole Authority patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over his parole proceedings, and, thus, cannot demonstrate entitlement to a writ of prohibition. Cause dismissed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
2/20/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-583 |
|
Dunn v. Dunn
| 24AP-421 | The trial court abused its discretion in determining appellant’s income when it included nonrecurring or unsustainable income as part of its gross income calculation. Additionally, the trial court erred in making its award of child support when it imputed income to appellant without first making the required determinations pursuant to R.C. 3119.01(C)(18). Judgment reversed and remanded for the trial court to properly determine appellant’s income and issue a decision consistent with the requirements of R.C. Chapter 3119. | Edelstein | Franklin |
2/20/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-584 |
|
State ex rel. Lewis v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
| 23AP-80 | The magistrate’s decision is adopted, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein, as Relator has failed to establish a right to a writ of mandamus. | Boggs | Franklin |
2/18/2025
|
2/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-525 |
|
State v. Blacker
| 24AP-546 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion because Ohio law does not provide a procedural mechanism for a trial court to reissue a civil entry to restart the clock for filing a timely appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
2/18/2025
|
2/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-526 |
|
State ex rel. Camp v. Ferrellgas, Inc.
| 23AP-75 | Relator’s request for a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order denying relator’s request for temporary total disability (“TTD”) compensation and ordering the commission to issue an order granting him TTD compensation is denied. The commission objected to a magistrate’s decision that recommended granting the requested writ, arguing that the magistrate erred by recommending a full writ of mandamus instead of a limited writ with a remand to the commission for the commission to analyze whether relator was not working as a direct result of psychological conditions allowed in his workers’ compensation claim. Because the magistrate relied on this court’s discussion of R.C. 4123.56(F) in State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2023-Ohio-633 (10th Dist.), which the Supreme Court of Ohio has since reversed, the court does not adopt the magistrate’s conclusions of law. Based on the Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2024-Ohio-5519, relator is not entitled to TTD compensation because, when his psychological conditions rendered him unable to work, relator was not working as the direct result of reasons unrelated to his industrial injury. Commission’s objection is moot, and writ of mandamus is denied. | Boggs | Franklin |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-464 |
|
Jones v. Columbus Div. of Police
| 23AP-655 | Respondent filed no objection to the magistrate’s decision. The magistrate first found that because Columbus Division of Police ("CDP") fulfilled relator’s public records request, that issue was moot. However, the magistrate went on to conclude that CDP failed to produce the public records requested by relator within a reasonable time as contemplated by R.C. 149.43. The magistrate concluded that relator was entitled to $1,000 in statutory damage. Finally, the magistrate held that relator was not entitled to court costs as she failed to present any evidence regarding alleged bad faith, conscious wrongdoing, or ulterior motive. Because there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, it is adopted and the request for a writ of mandamus is partially granted. | Mentel | Franklin |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-465 |
|
Lakhi v. Meritra Health Care, L.L.C.
| 24AP-98 | R.C. 2329.66(A)(6)(b) and 3911.10 exempt from garnishment life insurance policies taken out for the benefit of an insured person’s spouse or children, even where the beneficiary is a co-debtor to the same creditor as the insured. R.C. 2716.13(B) binds the property of a judgment debtor in the possession of the garnishee at the time of service on the garnishee. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the appellees met their burden of proof that their life insurance policies remained in effect at the time of the trial court’s garnishment order. | Leland | Franklin |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-466 |
|