|
|
State v. Stevens
| 13-26-05 | Sufficiency of the Evidence; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Rape; R.C. 2907.02(A)(2); Compelling Prostitution; R.C. 2907.21(A)(2)(a). The defendant-appellant’s rape conviction under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and compelling prostitution conviction under R.C. 2907.21(A)(2)(a) are based on sufficient evidence. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
10/13/2026
|
10/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4011 |
|
State v. Williams
| 1-25-52; 1-25-53 | Waiver of Right to Counsel; Other-Acts Evidence; Evid.R. 404(B); Plain Error; Crim.R. 52(B); Repeat Violent Offender; R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)(ii); Serious Physical Harm; Robbery; R.C. 2911.02(A)(2). The trial court properly accepted the defendant-appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel following an extensive colloquy. The admission of unobjected-to other-acts evidence did not constitute plain error because the State presented overwhelming independent evidence of the defendant-appellant's guilt, precluding a finding of prejudice. However, the trial court erred by imposing a repeat violent offender enhancement on the defendant-appellant's second-degree robbery conviction. The sentence enhancement is contrary to law and must be vacated because the underlying offense requires only proof of physical harm, and the trier of fact never made the mandatory statutory finding that the offense involved or resulted in serious physical harm as required by R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)(ii). | Zimmerman | Allen |
10/13/2026
|
10/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4006 |
|
In re J.S.
| 13-26-03 | Legal Custody; Final Appealable Order; Lack of Jurisdiction. The juvenile court’s judgment entry approving and incorporating a magistrate’s decision is not a final, appealable order. The judgment entry does not conform with the court’s obligation to enter a separate, independent judgment setting forth the outcome of the dispute and the remedy provided. Specifically, the judgment entry does not set forth the parties’ rights and obligations that have been determined. Further, the judgment entry is not definite enough for enforcement, nor does it provide sufficient information for the parties to understand the outcome of the case. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
10/13/2026
|
10/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4010 |
|
Tomko v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
| 9-26-30 | Default Judgment; Civ.R. 55(A); Abuse of Discretion. When the plaintiff-appellant’s complaint alleges a claim to underinsured motorist coverage under an insurance policy issued by the defendant-appellee to plaintiff-appellant’s employer, and a copy of the policy is not attached to the complaint, the trial court does not abuse its discretion when it requires evidence to establish the truth of whether the policy affords coverage for plaintiff-appellant’s loss. | Zimmerman | Marion |
10/13/2026
|
10/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4008 |
|
Scott v. Moore
| 11-26-04 | Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss; civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"); insurance bad faith; summary judgment; contract interpretation; illusory coverage; Civ.R. 15 amended complaint; Civ.R. 23 class action; standing. The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's civil RICO and bad faith claims under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because the amended complaint failed to plead the claims with the requisite factual particularity. The trial court properly granted summary judgment as to the breach of contract claim because the unambiguous language of the insurance policy restricted underinsured motorist coverage for off-road vehicles to accidents occurring on public roads, and the provision was not illusory. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking the class action allegations or by denying leave to file a second amended complaint, as the pre-certification resolution of the plaintiff's individual claims on the merits extinguished her standing and rendered the remaining requests moot. | Zimmerman | Paulding |
10/13/2026
|
10/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4009 |
|