|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Gillen
| E-24-001, E-24-002, E-24-003, E-24-004, E-24-005 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, find that trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motions to suppress and that the state introduced sufficient evidence to support appellants’ convictions. Judgment affirmed. | Zmuda | Erie |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1095 |
|
State v. Lebron-Novas
| E-23-025 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, find that trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Zmuda | Erie |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1101 |
|
Reynolds v. Kamm
| E-24-026 | Municipal court judge and clerk of courts are immune from civil liability for claims arising from the performance of their duties. Further, under R.C. 1901.20, a municipal court has subject matter and personal judication over the violation of any ordinance or misdemeanor occurring within the territorial limits. | Sulek | Erie |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1102 |
|
State v. Szafranski
| E-24-020 | Per Mayle, J., the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the victim had a subjective belief that appellant would cause him physical harm, so appellant’s menacing conviction under R.C. 2903.22(A)(1) is not supported by sufficient evidence. | Mayle | Erie |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1104 |
|
State v. Barnum
| F-24-003 | Per Mayle, J., trial court erred by denying appellant’s for-cause challenges of two jurors who were spouses because the couple had a relationship with victim’s grandfather that was sufficiently close and ongoing to call into question their claims that they could be impartial. This court will not adopt an old standard for reviewing circumstantial evidence that the Ohio Supreme Court overruled. The evidence showed that appellant acted recklessly, so his convictions are supported by sufficient evidence. | Mayle | Fulton |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1105 |
|
State v. Elam
| L-24-1213 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, reverses the judgment and remands for evidence or stipulation as to undisputed facts, as necessary for finding the defendant demonstrated application of the statute, limiting his Second Amendment rights, was unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case. | Zmuda | Lucas |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1092 |
|
State v. Garibaldo
| L-23-1284 | Per Mayle, J., Court is bound by stare decisis to apply legal standards enunciated by Ohio Supreme Court and will not adopt new standard. State asserted legitimate race-neutral reason for exercising peremptory challenge where juror said she would expect DNA evidence as part of proper protocol. State’s misconduct did not clearly and unquestionably demonstrate intent to invite mistrial, thus retrial not barred by double jeopardy. | Mayle | Lucas |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1093 |
|
State v. Gaston
| L-24-1171, L-24-1172 | Duhart. Trial court did not err, and sentence was not contrary to law, where trial court made required findings for consecutive sentences at a second, “reconvened,” sentencing hearing that was held prior to the issuance of a journalized judgment entry. | Duhart | Lucas |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1094 |
|
Liber v. Westmeyer
| L-24-1076 | Judge Duhart, legal malpractice, statute of limitations, purported partnership under R.C. 1776.38(A). | Duhart | Lucas |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1099 |
|
Short v. Wert
| L-24-1152 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 25, with the dismissal otherwise than on the merits and without determining the validity of any affirmative defense to the claims. | Zmuda | Lucas |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1103 |
|
State v. Jones
| OT-24-026 | Duhart. The trial court did not employ the wrong legal standards as related to “materially exculpatory” evidence and/or its destruction. Nor did it err in failing to consider bad faith argument. It was not reversible error to mention records retention policies in decision granting dismissal. Also, no reversible error in dismissing all of the counts on the basis of a due process violation. | Duhart | Ottawa |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1098 |
|
State v. Merillat
| WM-23-005, WM-24-008 | Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions to suppress and to sever, in imposing financial sanctions on appellant’s felony sentence, or in disposition of appellant’s minor misdemeanor traffic offense. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Williams |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1100 |
|
State v. Arce
| WD-24-008 | Osowik - Trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to suppress. Under the totality of the circumstances, appellee’s consent to search his motor vehicle was not knowingly given, due to appellee’s English language barrier. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Wood |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1091 |
|
State v. Greene
| WD-23-056 | Zmuda, writing for the majority, affirms the convictions arising from misuse of charity funds, finding no abuse of discretion in precluding testimony and declining to provide “claim of right defense” jury instruction, finding the convictions supported by sufficient and credible evidence, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel, and finding costs imposed did not include non-mandatory costs. | Zmuda | Wood |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1096 |
|
Hoytville v. Kaufman
| WD-24-003 | Duhart. Reversing trial court’s decision reversing denial of property owner’s request for variance and denying municipality’s request for injunction. | Duhart | Wood |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1097 |
|
State v. Smallwood
| WM-24-001, WM-24-002, WM-24-003, WM-24-004 | Osowik - Appellant’s attempted murder conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in not merging abduction and domestic violence offenses with attempted murder offense, as they were committed separately, with separate harm, and thus, were not allied offenses. Judgement affirmed. | Osowik | Williams |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1001 |
|
Brown v. State
| L-24-1104 | Judge Duhart. Wrongful imprisonment. Res judicata. | Duhart | Lucas |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-998 |
|
State v. Howard
| L-24-1105 | Osowik - Evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant violated R.C. 2903.22(A)(1) where victim testified that she believed that it was possible that appellant would touch her. The conviction was not against the manifest weigh of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Lucas |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-999 |
|
Barnhart v. Stanley
| E-24-031 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority affirms the stay for arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.02(B), as a trial court properly stays the entire action pending arbitration of the arbitrable issue before proceeding in the case. | Zmuda | Erie |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-997 |
|
Bd. of Trustees Wood Cty. Property Trust Agreement, UAD June 4, 2008 John F. Nixon, Chairman v. Melcher
| WD-24-006 | Sulek - Beneficiary’s decision to not exercise a joint option to purchase a property jointly that was granted in a trust agreement and subsequent “release” of that right is akin to declining the option, and is not a “disclaimer” of that right for purposes of R.C. 5815.36. | Sulek | Wood |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1000 |
|
Waldock v. Waldock Invest. Co.
| E-24-021 | In a “books and records action” under R.C. 1701.37, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the plaintiff, a 50% shareholder of a closely held corporation who was wrongfully denied records, where there was clear and convincing evidence that the corporation and its president/treasurer engaged in dilatory tactics and with an intent to mislead the shareholder. President/treasurer’s conduct also subjected him to a forfeiture award under R.C. 1701.94 and precluded indemnification under the company’s bylaws. | Osowik | Erie |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-872 |
|
State v. Mauss
| L-23-1302 | The State presented legally sufficient evidence to support defendant’s misdemeanor conviction for adulterating her coworker’s beverage with a harmful substance, where the defendant admitted to putting hand sanitizer into co-worker’s drink and the State presented evidence that coworker could have suffered physical harm as a result and was “seriously annoyed” by defendant’s act. | Mayle | Lucas |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-870 |
|
State v. Daniels
| WD-24-009 | Sulek - In a direct appeal, claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel must fail where it relies upon evidence from outside of the record. | Sulek | Wood |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-869 |
|
Luckey v. T&S Agriventures, L.L.C.
| WD-24-024 | Duhart. The trial court did not err in finding that the Village extended a good faith offer to appellants. In addition, the trial court did not err in finding that appellants failed to rebut the presumption of necessity that arose from the Village’s Resolution 376. | Duhart | Wood |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-871 |
|
State v. Hesser
| WD-24-027 | Where defendant entered a guilty plea and was represented by counsel, he waived his right to appeal any non-jurisdictional defect that occurred during earlier stage of proceeding, including any alleged error relating to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. | Mayle | Wood |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-775 |
|
S.P. v. B.M.
| WM-23-013 | Per Mayle, mother can challenge trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction years after case filed. Texas was child’s home state on filing date, so court lacks Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Agency ("UCCJEA") jurisdiction. Absence not temporary under duration test when child was away for six consecutive months ending within six months of filing. Nothing shows that mother stipulated to jurisdictional facts, she could not consent to nonexistent jurisdiction, and record evidence is sufficient to determine home state, so transcripts are unnecessary. | Mayle | Williams |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-778 |
|
Blue Water Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co.
| S-24-009, S-24-010 | Per Mayle, J., plaintiff failed to present Civ.R. 56 evidence showing it incurred consequential damages potentially covered by contractor’s Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policy. Faulty workmanship is not an “occurrence” under CGL policy. Property owner was “additional insured” under CGL policy only with respect to third-party claims for liability caused by contractor’s acts or omissions. Once it was determined that there was no coverage under CGL policy, insurer’s duty to defend ceased. | Mayle | Sandusky |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-772 |
|
State v. Armstrong
| L-24-1025, L-24-1026 | Per Mayle, J., appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The state proved that appellant had constructive possession of drugs found in car and actual possession of gun, and detective’s testimony did not contradict his report. | Mayle | Lucas |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-771 |
|
State v. Coleman
| L-24-1033 | Judge Duhart. Juvenile. Murder. Plea. Amenable. | Duhart | Lucas |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-773 |
|
State v. Henry
| L-23-1270 | Osowik - Trial court did not err in not merging felonious assault and discharge of a firearm as allied offenses of similar import. The record reflects separate victims and separate harm. Parties concur that trial court misstated case numbers in the sentencing entries. Judgement affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, for issuance of a nunc pro tunc. | Osowik | Lucas |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-774 |
|
In re. O.S.
| E-23-048, E-24-049, E-23-050 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to father. | Zmuda | Erie |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-776 |
|
Marchbanks v. Neema, L.L.C.
| E-24-010 | Sulek, J. In an appropriation action, the trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion in limine to prohibit property owner’s expert appraiser’s valuation testimony. | Sulek | Erie |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-777 |
|
Green v. Luxe Laser Ctr.
| L-24-1073 | Trial court judgment granting motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is affirmed. Osowik. | Osowik | Lucas |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-682 |
|
State v. Haas
| L-23-1297, L-23-1298, L-23-1299 | Per Mayle, J., trial court did not err in joining two cases for trial because evidence was simple and direct. Convictions were not against the manifest weight of evidence. Trial counsel was not ineffective because alleged errors did not effect outcome of trial. Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated by denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing maximum sentences because there is no evidence that trial court considered improper factors. | Mayle | Lucas |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-683 |
|
State v. Price
| L-24-1014 | No common pleas court juvenile division error transferring jurisdiction to general division, and no trial court error accepting conviction-by-plea and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Osowik | Osowik | Lucas |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-685 |
|
State v. Smith
| L-24-1063, L-24-1064, L-24-1065 | Appeal of misdemeanor traffic convictions by a “sovereign-citizen” claiming to not be subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the State of Ohio is baseless. | Sulek | Lucas |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-686 |
|
State v. Morris
| WD-24-038 & WD-24-039 | Per Mayle, J. trial court did not err in declining to impose jointly-recommended community-control sanctions. Defendant signed written plea agreement indicating his understanding that sentencing recommendation was not binding on court. At plea hearing, defendant confirmed his understanding after court informed him of possible penalties for offenses, made clear it was not bound by State’s sentencing recommendation, and explained that it was within its discretion to determine appropriate sanction. | Mayle | Wood |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-684 |
|
Veller v. K.B.
| WD-24-026 | Per Mayle, J., appellee sufficiently alleged that road was a “county road” per R.C. 5535.01, which showed that appellant had duty to maintain the road. Appellee was not required to plead around possible affirmative defenses, and facts in complaint sufficiently alleged that an immunity exception in R.C. 2744.02(B) could apply. Appellee failed to sufficiently plead remaining claims, including intentional torts, public nuisance, and injunction, so trial court should have dismissed them under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). | Mayle | Wood |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-687 |
|
State v. Willis
| WD-24-023 | Duhart. Affirming, because appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective and because appellant’s plea was made in compliance with Crim.R. 11. | Duhart | Wood |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-688 |
|
State v. Wells
| WD-23-047 | Osowik - Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in not merging aggravated burglary and felonious assault convictions for sentencing purposes, as they were not allied offenses of similar import. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Wood |
2/21/2025
|
2/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-578 |
|
Pickett v. Catholic Health Initiatives
| L-24-1078 | Osowik - Trial court’s decision to grant appellee’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment of grant of appellant’s Civ.R. 41(B)(1) motion for dismissal for failure to prosecute was arbitrary and, therefore, an abuse of discretion, as appellee did not adduce evidence of a failure of service, as argued in support of the Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Judgment reversed. | Osowik | Lucas |
2/21/2025
|
2/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-575 |
|
State v. Marshall
| L-24-1077 | On remand from resentencing to correct allied-offenses sentencing error, defendant’s challenge to sentences unaffected by the remand order is barred by res judicata. | Sulek | Lucas |
2/21/2025
|
2/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-576 |
|
State v. McClain
| L-24-1082 | Mayle - Jury’s rejection of defendant’s claim of self-defense was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state presented evidence that defendant was at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the altercation. | Mayle | Lucas |
2/21/2025
|
2/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-577 |
|
Pioneer v. Williams Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
| WM-24-007 | No common pleas court error upon R.C. 2506 appeal reversing administrative action by county board of commissioners. Judgment affirmed. Osowik | OSOWIK | Williams |
2/14/2025
|
2/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-497 |
|
State v. Latham
| L-24-1124 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms the judgment, finding the defendant demonstrated application of the statute, limiting his Second Amendment rights, was unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case, with the state failing to proffer historical analogue to support the specific application of the statutory limitation to the circumstances of the defendant’s case. | Zmuda | Lucas |
2/14/2025
|
2/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-495 |
|
State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone
| E-25-002 | Judge Duhart. Writ of mandamus. Res judicata. | Duhart | Erie |
2/14/2025
|
2/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-496 |
|
DiSalle v. Celusta
| L-24-1069 | Trial court did not err in finding that appellant wrongfully withheld appellee’s residential lease security deposit. Trial court properly excluded appellant’s photos, for which no foundation for admission was furnished. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Lucas |
2/7/2025
|
2/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-401 |
|
Huntington Natl. Bank v. Daly
| L-24-1011 | Osowik. Reversing trial court’s order on the grounds that Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal. Further, the trial court’s order was not void for lack of jurisdiction. | Osowik | Lucas |
2/7/2025
|
2/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-402 |
|
State v. Sampson
| L-24-1062 | Sulek, J. The defendant’s domestic violence and assault convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence | Sulek | Lucas |
2/7/2025
|
2/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-404 |
|
Swiech v. Sylvania City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.
| L-24-1090 | School district’s plan to bus nonpublic school students using hub and spoke system, while bussing public school students directly, does not violate equal protection where the plan is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests in efficiency and the conservation of resources. No prima facie case that free exercise protections were violated where the bussing plan does not interfere with appellant’s exercise of religion because it allows her children to attend religious school on time every day. | Zmuda | Lucas |
2/7/2025
|
2/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-405 |
|