|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Houtz
| 6-24-05, 6-24-06 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; Crim.R. 11; Substitution of Counsel. Defendant-appellant's prison sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Defendant-appellant did not demonstrate that his plea was anything other than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant's request for new counsel. | Miller | Hardin |
3/24/2025
|
3/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1008 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 9-23-82 | Speedy Trial; R.C. 2945.71; R.C. 2945.72; R.C. 2945.73; Indictment; Crim.R. 7(D); Motion to Amend Indictment; Trafficking in Cocaine; Trafficking in Heroin; Trafficking in a Fentanyl-Related Compound; Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight; Merger. Defendant-appellant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. The trial court did not err by granting the plaintiff-appellee’s motion to amend the indictment. Defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-drugs convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by failing to merge defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-cocaine, trafficking-in-heroin, and trafficking-in-a-fentanyl-related-compound offenses for sentencing. | Miller | Marion |
3/24/2025
|
3/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1009 |
|
State v. Bigler
| 9-24-29 | Maximum Sentences, Consideration of Sentencing Factors. Trial court did not err in sentencing defendant to a maximum sentence. Defendant challenges the conclusions reached when the trial court considered the statutory sentencing factors. Such consideration is not subject to appellate review pursuant to State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729. | Willamowski | Marion |
3/17/2025
|
3/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-887 |
|
State v. Webb
| 8-24-30 | CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court made the appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings necessary to impose a consecutive sentence and the record supports the trial court’s findings. | Zimmerman | Logan |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-793 |
|
State v. Mohler
| 8-24-35 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant's prison sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Miller | Logan |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-792 |
|
Petersen v. Nonnenman
| 7-24-09 | Divorce; Division of marital assets and debt; Spousal support. The trial court did not err in the division of debts and assets ordered in the parties' divorce, nor did the trial court err in denying wife's request for spousal support. | Waldick | Henry |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-794 |
|
Norman v. Branco
| 13-24-24 | EXPIRED CIVIL STALKING PROTECTION ORDER; COLLATERAL-CONSEQUENCES EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE. Appeal dismissed as moot since the civil stalking protection order expired by its terms. The collateral-consequences exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply since the respondent-appellant failed to demonstrate that he has suffered any legal collateral consequences arising from the expired order. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-791 |
|
State v. Caudill
| 17-24-08 & 17-24-09 | Obstructing Justice; R.C. 2921.32(A)(1); Assault on a Police Officer; R.C. 2903.13(C)(5)(a); Resisting Arrest; R.C. 2921.33(A); Prosecutorial Misconduct. Defendant-appellant's convictions for obstructing justice, assault on a police officer, and resisting arrest were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Even assuming the prosecutor's comments during opening statements and closing arguments were inappropriate, the trial court did not commit plain error in allowing them. | Miller | Shelby |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-787 |
|
Bradshaw v. N. Union
| 14-24-37 | Summary Judgment; Open and Obvious; Attendant Circumstances. Trial court properly granted summary judgment where extended step was open and obvious. | Waldick | Union |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-788 |
|
State v. Loomis
| 14-24-33 | Consecutive Sentence; Required Findings. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences when it made the necessary findings which were supported by the record. | Willamowski | Union |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-789 |
|
State v. Waltz
| 14-24-32 | Sentencing; Guilty Plea; Admission of Guilt; Contrary to Law. A guilty plea constitutes a complete admission of guilt. In entering a guilty plea, the defendant waives the right to have the State produce evidence that proves the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the defendant may not generally raise sufficiency or manifest-weight challenges on appeal. The degree of the theft offense is determined by the value of the property stolen and not the amount of the economic loss sustained by the victim. | Willamowski | Union |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-790 |
|
Link v. Kelly
| 8-24-16 | Contracts; Specific performance; Settlement agreements; Authority of attorney to settle litigation; Summary judgment. The judgment of the trial court is reversed as the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff-appellant's motion for summary judgment. | Waldick | Logan |
3/3/2025
|
3/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-711 |
|
State v. Moore
| 9-23-83 | Rape; R.C. 2907.02(A)(2); Gross Sexual Imposition; R.C. 2907.05(A)(1); Force or Threat of Force; Hearsay; Evid.R. 803(8)(b); Evid.R. 805; Evid.R. 701; Evid.R. 404(B); Other Acts Evidence; Merger; Evid.R. 106; Rule of Completeness; Harmless Error. Defendant-appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not violate defendant-appellant's right to confrontation when it sustained objections during cross-examination. The trial court did not err in allowing purported undisclosed expert testimony because such testimony was not expert testimony. The trial court did not err in allowing purported other-acts evidence without the State providing notice pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B)(2). The trial court did not err in declining to merge the rape and gross sexual imposition offenses. The trial court did not err when the State showed the jury certain portions of defendant-appellant’s videotaped police interview and did not require the State to play the entire video. | Miller | Marion |
3/3/2025
|
3/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-712 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 9-24-04 | Possession of drugs; Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight; Venue; Knowledge; Constructive Possession; Prior Inconsistent Statement; Evid.R. 613. Defendant-appellant's possession-of-cocaine conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not commit reversible error by attempting to impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement. | Miller | Marion |
3/3/2025
|
3/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-713 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 9-23-65 | R.C. 2945.75; Verdict forms; Plain error. The verdict forms that did not comply with the requirements of R.C. 2945.75 did not amount to plain error in this case. | Waldick | Marion |
2/24/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-603 |
|
State v. Matthews
| 8-24-37 | Consecutive Sentences; Findings; R.C. 2929.14(C). Before imposing prison terms consecutively, a trial court must make several required findings that are stated in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). On review, the appellate court is to apply a deferential standard and may not merely substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. | Willamowski | Logan |
2/24/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-602 |
|
State v. Taylor
| 5-24-27; 5-24-28 | BENCH TRIAL; ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; AGGRAVATED POSSESSION OF DRUGS; FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting State’s Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 as evidence of his possession of contraband even though the exhibits also included items that were not subjected to testing for contraband. The defendant-appellant’s aggravated possession of drugs convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because his sentence is within the sentencing range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
2/24/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-600 |
|
In re M.P.
| 5-24-32, 5-24-33, 5-24-34 | Legal Custody; Reasonable Efforts. Trial court's determination awarding legal custody to relatives is supported by the evidence. | Waldick | Hancock |
2/24/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-601 |
|
In re B.R.
| 3-24-23; 3-24-24; 3-24-25 | PERMANENT CUSTODY; POST-TRIAL SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE; PLAIN ERROR. The trial court’s admission of a supplemental report by the agency constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion and constitutes plain error because it denied mother-appellant of a fair hearing and it erodes the public trust in the integrity of the judicial process. | Zimmerman | Crawford |
2/24/2025
|
2/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-599 |
|
State v. Carnes
| 3-24-06 | Evid.R. 404; Ineffective Assistance; Cumulative Error. Trial court did not err by admitting evidence; defendant did not establish any prejudicial error, let alone cumulative error. | Waldick | Crawford |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-427 |
|
In re J.L.
| 4-24-20 | Permanent Custody; Reasonable Efforts. Award of permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence. | Waldick | Defiance |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-426 |
|
Schmidt v. Patriot Concrete, L.L.C.
| 1-25-15 | MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; CIV.R. 60(B); ABUSE OF DISCRETION. The trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant-appellant’s motion to set aside default judgment without holding an evidentiary. Defendant-appellant’s motion and supporting affidavits contain allegations of operative facts that would warrant relief under CiV.R. 60(B) such that the trial court should have held a hearing to verify these facts before ruling on the motion. | Zimmerman | Allen |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-428 |
|
State v. Jefferson
| 1-23-69 | Self defense; Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest weight; Allied Offenses of Similar Import; Merger. Defendant-appellant’s felonious assault conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant’s kidnapping conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant’s felonious assault and kidnapping convictions are not allied offenses of similar import because they were committed with a separate animus. | Miller | Allen |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-429 |
|
State v. Harvey
| 1-23-37 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. The defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-heroin and engaging-in-a-pattern-of-corrupt-activity convictions are based on sufficient. | Zimmerman | Allen |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-430 |
|
State v. Cioffi
| 8-24-36 | Merger; R.C. 2941.25; Evidence of Other Crime, Wrong, or Act; Evid.R. 404. The trial court erred when it failed to merge certain domestic violence and felonious assault offenses as allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25. The trial court did not err in allowing the State to present evidence of certain prior conduct by defendant-appellant. | Miller | Logan |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-423 |
|
State v. Whitt
| 8-24-31 | Sufficient Evidence; Manifest Weight; Aggravated Possession of Drugs; Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a Police Officer; Tampering with Evidence. A sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge argues that the State did not carry its burden of production at trial. A manifest-weight challenge argues that the State did not carry its burden of persuasion at trial. A jury could find that the defendant knew that an official investigation was likely or about to be instituted where the defendant began making sudden movements as soon as a police officer activated his lights to effectuate a traffic stop before he (the defendant) sped away from the police cruiser. | Willamowski | Logan |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-424 |
|
Lyon Revocable Trust v. Berry
| 8-24-07 | CIV.R. 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS; ENFORCEABILITY OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; CONTRACT INTERPRETATION; DEFENSIVE CROSS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR; R.C. 2505.22. The trial court erred by considering additional evidence beyond the evidence contained in the amended complaint without converting the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and providing the nonmoving party a sufficient opportunity to respond. The trial court erred by dismissing the conversion claim because the magistrate’s order did not render the claim moot or otherwise resolve the claim. | Zimmerman | Logan |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-425 |
|
State v. Martin
| 9-24-23 | Crim.R. 33; Motion for a new trial; Juror misconduct. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant-appellant's motion for a new trial on the basis of alleged juror misconduct. | Waldick | Marion |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-420 |
|
State v. Davis
| 9-24-13 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G), there is no basis to vacate or modify defendant-appellant's sentence. An appellate court may not independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for the trial court’s judgment concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. | Miller | Marion |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-421 |
|
State v. Hood
| 9-24-08 | SUPPRESSION; TRAFFIC STOP; REASONABLE SUSPICION; PROBABLE CAUSE; WINDSHIELD DAMAGE; R.C. 4513.02; MOTION TO DISMISS; GRAND JURY; INDICTMENT; PLAIN ERROR; HEARSAY; R.C. 2925.51(A); CONFRONTATION CLAUSE; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. The trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant’s motion to suppress evidence because there was competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that the law enforcement officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant-appellant based on a violation of R.C. 4513.02. The defendant-appellant’s argument that the indictment was defective because there was insufficient evidence presented to the grand jury is not subject to judicial review since it does not present a fundamental error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a laboratory report because it was properly authenticated. | Zimmerman | Marion |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-422 |
|
State v. Scott
| 13-24-10 | Opinion Testimony; Prior Bad Acts; Abuse of Discretion. The decision to admit or exclude evidence is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. The Confrontation Clause is not implicated when the declarant of the challenged out-of-court statement testifies at trial and is cross-examined. A police officer does not improperly engage in witness vouching by noting that the statements of witnesses are consistent. Since an "act" is done or performed, a defendant's prior statements or comments will not generally constitute a prior bad act. A lay witness can testify as to the rate of speed that a vehicle was traveling based on his or her own personal observations. | Willamowski | Seneca |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-419 |
|
Hasbrook v. Hasbrook
| 15-24-08 | Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order, Bias of the Magistrate, Pro Se Representation, Weight of the Evidence. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for domestic violence CPO when the evidence failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that any domestic violence or threat of domestic violence had occurred. The record does not demonstrate a bias against petitioner. The trial court did not deny appellant his due process rights by not instructing the pro se petitioner how to proceed with his case. | Willamowski | Van Wert |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-418 |
|
Texas Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez
| 16-24-09 | Declaratory judgment; Summary judgment; Insurance coverage; Construction of insurance policy language; Principal and agent; Apparent authority; Attorneys' fees; Negligence of insurance agent; No genuine issue of material fact. The various aspects of the trial court's judgment are affirmed. | Waldick | Wyandot |
2/10/2025
|
2/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-417 |
|
Fox v. Fetro
| 13-24-16 | Civ.R. 54; Presumption of regularity. Judgment reversed due to concerns regarding the completeness and propriety of the judgment entry. | Miller | Seneca |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-331 |
|
In re E.K.
| 11-24-05 | Delinquency; Rape. Adjudication of delinquency for multiple counts of rape against multiple victims was supported by the evidence. | Waldick | Paulding |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-330 |
|
State v. Shockey
| 9-23-22 | Verdict Forms; Remand; R.C. 2945.75(A)(2). Applying the Supreme Court of Ohio's holding in State v. Mays, appellant was unable to demonstrate plain error here regarding verdict forms. | Waldick | Marion |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-328 |
|
State v. Bertuzzi
| 9-24-12 | Motion to Withdraw a Plea; Merger; Aggravated Robbery; Burglary; R.C. 2941.25; Allied Offenses. Appellate courts review a trial court's decision to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse of discretion standard. A mere change of heart does not provide a defendant with a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw his or her plea. A defendant can commit the offense of burglary by trespassing an occupied structure by force with an intent to commit a criminal offense. To perpetrate the offense of burglary, the defendant need not succeed at committing the intended offense after impermissibly trespassing into an occupied structure. Thus, an offense committed once inside the occupied structure is distinct from crime of burglary and is not subject to merger. | Willamowski | Marion |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-329 |
|
State v. Houtz
| 6-24-11 | Voluntary Plea, Criminal Rule 11, Right to Compel Witnesses. Trial court did not err by advising defendant "he could call [his] own witnesses and present [his] own evidence" as that is sufficient to notify a defendant he or she is waiving the right to compel witnesses to appear and testify. Mere fact that the defendant did not like his options did not make his decision to accept the plea agreement involuntary. | Willamowski | Hardin |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-325 |
|
Stedke v. Hume Contracting, L.L.C.
| 1-24-07 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; BREACH OF CONTRACT; EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION; JUST CAUSE. The trial court did not err by granting (partial) summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees as to the plaintiffs-appellant’s breach-of-contract claim because there is no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff-appellant’s employment was terminated for just cause. | Zimmerman | Allen |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-323 |
|
State v. Lester
| 3-24-15 | Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Motion for Acquittal; Crim.R. 29(A); Trespass in a Habitation; R.C. 2911.12(B); Force. Defendant-appellant did not show that a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal made at the close of the State's case would have had a reasonable probability of success and, accordingly, did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel due to his counsel's failure to make such a motion at that time. | Miller | Crawford |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-324 |
|
State v. Dixon
| 8-24-05 | Motion to Dismiss; Plea Agreement; Crim.R. 48(B); Mailbox Rule. Agreements between the State and a defendant to resolve a criminal proceeding are subject to the general standards of contract law. A defendant has a right to hold the State to the promises that it made to induce him or her into an agreement. On finding that a plea agreement has been breached, the trial court has the discretion to choose an appropriate remedy, including specific performance. | Willamowski | Logan |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-326 |
|
State v. Fischer
| 8-24-24, 8-24-25 | Consecutive Sentences; No Contest Plea; Sentencing Factors; Crim.R. 11. A no contest plea is not an admission of guilt but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment. If the language in the indictment contains sufficient allegations to state a felony offense, the trial court must find the defendant guilty if he or she enters a no contest plea. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to reverse or modify a sentence based on a determination that the record does not support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.12. To impose consecutive sentences, the trial court must make the findings required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at sentencing and incorporate these findings into its judgment entry of sentencing. | Willamowski | Logan |
2/3/2025
|
2/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-327 |
|
In re S.C.
| 4-24-15, 4-24-16 | Permanent Custody; Reasonable Efforts; Contempt. Trial court's permanent custody decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Agency engaged in reasonable efforts to support reunification. | Waldick | Defiance |
1/27/2025
|
1/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-226 |
|
State v. Slife
| 2-24-03 | Sentencing appeal; R.C. 2953.08; Standard of review in an appeal of sentence. The maximum sentence in this case is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Auglaize |
1/27/2025
|
1/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-225 |
|
State v. Navarro
| 13-23-29 | MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; ABUSE OF DISCRETION; SEPARATION OF WITNESSES; DENIAL OF MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; MERGER. The defendant-appellant’s rape convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant cannot prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because he is unable to show that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient or unreasonable under the circumstances. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State’s sole rebuttal witness to testify even though the rebuttal witness was present in the courtroom during portions of the State’s case in chief. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant-appellant’s motion for a new trial since he was neither prejudiced nor prevented from having a fair trial. The trial court did not err by failing to merge the defendant-appellant’s two rape convictions. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
1/27/2025
|
1/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-227 |
|
State v. Miller
| 14-24-22 | FOURTH AMENDMENT; MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE; RANDOM LICENSE PLATE CHECK; FICTITIOUS LICENSE PLATES (R.C. 4549.08); TRAFFIC STOP. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant’s motion to suppress evidence because, at the time of the traffic stop, the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity—fictitious license plates in violation of R.C. 4549.08. An officer does not need a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a license plate check. | Zimmerman | Union |
1/21/2025
|
1/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-141 |
|
State v. Medford
| 15-24-04 | SUPPRESSION; PENALTY ENHANCEMENT; R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d); CRIM.R. 32(C); WAIVER OF COUNSEL; PETTY OFFENSE; RES JUDICATA; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant’s motion to suppress his prior operating-a motor-vehicle-while-under-the-influence-of-alcohol-or-drugs-of-abuse (“OVI”) conviction from being used to enhance the degree of his OVI conviction in this case. Because the trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant’s motion to suppress his prior OVI conviction, the defendant-appellant’s OVI conviction is not based on insufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Zimmerman | Van Wert |
1/21/2025
|
1/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-140 |
|
Rodriguez v. Galion
| 3-24-19 | Administrative Appeal; Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Trial court did not err by dismissing administrative appeal where appeal was not perfected within 30 days of final order. | Waldick | Crawford |
1/21/2025
|
1/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-142 |
|
In re A.S.
| 1-24-08; 1-24-09; 1-24-10; 1-24-11 | Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Motion for Permanent Custody; Reasonable Case Planning. Decision to terminate parental rights was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the Agency showed that father's mental health issues were interfering with his ability to complete the case plan and would not likely change. Agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Agency presented evidence that it had offered services to help Father reunify with the children and despite its reasonable efforts, father did not utilize the services offered to make reunification possible. | Willamowski | Allen |
1/13/2025
|
1/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-70 |
|
State v. Shay
| 3-24-16 | Sufficient Evidence; Manifest Weight; Operating a Vehicle under the Influence of Alcohol; Motion to Suppress; Traffic Stop; Traffic Infraction; 4511.43(A). A police officer may initiate a traffic stop after observing a traffic violation. The failure to stop a vehicle before crossing the stop bar next to a stop sign is a traffic violation under R.C. 4511.43(A). In reviewing a decision on a motion to suppress, appellate courts defer to the factual findings of the trial court. | Willamowski | Crawford |
1/13/2025
|
1/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-71 |
|