|
|
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 |
|
Zurieck v. Durrani
| C-250170, C-250173 | CIV.R. 12(C) — MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS — R.C. 2305.113(C) — STATUTE OF REPOSE — R.C. 2305.15 — TOLLING STATUTE — 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 —EVID.R. 702 — HARMLESS ERROR — ABSENT-DEFENDANT INSTRUCTION — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — SETOFF — PREJUDGMENT INTEREST: Although the trial court improperly joined plaintiffs’ claims for trial under Civ.R. 42, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that defendants were prejudiced and therefore that error was harmless. There was no plain error where the trial court permitted plaintiffs’ expert to testify outside his area of expertise where there is nothing in the record to show that defendants were prejudiced by this testimony. The court correctly instructed the jury and did not abuse its discretion when it did not issue defendants’ proposed jury instructions concerning defendant doctor’s absence from trial. 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 when it determined that defendants had failed to make a good-faith effort to settle the cases or that plaintiffs made a good-faith effort to settle. | Moore | Hamilton |
8/28/2026
|
8/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3369 |
|
In re J.R.
| C-250486 | JUVENILE — CUSTODY — R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) — BEST INTEREST —MANIFEST WEIGHT — CONTEMPT — ATTORNEY FEES: The juvenile court did not err when applying and weighing the best-interest factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) where the juvenile court expressly set out the required factors under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), applied those factors in accordance with the record, and found that it was in the child’s best interest to maintain custody with mother. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by failing to find mother in contempt of its April 10, 2023 parenting-time order, where the record supports the juvenile court’s finding of “extensive ambiguity” in a competing protection order issued by the municipal court on May 5, 2023, that caused confusion among the parties as to whether a third party was required to exchange the child at the police station and where the trial court is empowered to determine the kind and character of conduct that constitutes contempt. The juvenile court erred by failing to conduct a hearing on attorney fees where an award of reasonable attorney fees is mandatory under R.C. 3109.051(K), where the juvenile court found mother in contempt for failing to comply with its parenting-time orders and where the record reveals that father was not expected to produce evidence of his reasonable attorney fees at the hearing before the magistrate. | Zayas | Hamilton |
8/28/2026
|
8/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3370 |
|
State v. Booker
| C-250699 | FOURTH AMENDMENT — WARANTLESS SEARCH — AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION — PLAIN-VIEW EXCEPTION — SINGLE-USE-CONTAINER EXCEPTION — DOG SNIFF — CRIM.R. 11: The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered during a warrantless search of a bookbag in a parked SUV because the automobile exception justified the warrantless search where surveillance footage suggested that the bookbag was discarded by a gunman fleeing the scene of a shooting. | Bock | Hamilton |
8/28/2026
|
8/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3371 |
|
Meadows v. Durrani
| C-250109, C-250115 | CIV.R. 42 – CIV.R. 50(B) – CIV.R. 59(A) – COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT – CONSOLIDATED TRIALS – EVID.R. 403 – EVID.R. 702 – EXPERT TESTIMONY – FUTURE MEDICAL DAMAGES – JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT – MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL – PREJUDGMENT INTEREST – SETOFF: The trial court abused its discretion by joining plaintiffs’ claims for trial under Civ.R. 42 where plaintiffs did not share common questions of law and fact, and it erred in part by allowing plaintiffs’ medical expert to testify beyond his area of expertise but these errors were harmless where the jury would have reached the same verdict even without these errors. [See CONCURRENCE: “Commonality” under Civ.R. 42(A) and Civ.R. 23 does not have the same meaning because the rules serve different purposes; any error in the consolidation of plaintiffs’ trials was harmless.] The trial court did not err in admitting testimonial evidence concerning a plaintiff’s abnormal bone that was potentially cancerous where the defendant-doctor’s failure to follow up on the abnormality was relevant to proving the plaintiff’s negligence claim and the testimony’s probative value was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The trial court did not err in allowing cumulative expert testimony as to the standard of care where the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential harm. The trial court erred in denying defendants’ request for a setoff because intentional tortfeasors are entitled to a setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A). The trial court erred by awarding future medical expenses where there was no expert testimony establishing the anticipated course of future treatment, the likelihood that treatment would be required, and the projected costs associated with that treatment sufficient to sustain the award. The trial court did not err in awarding plaintiffs’ prejudgment interest, where the court properly determined that plaintiffs made good-faith efforts to settle and defendants failed to make good-faith efforts to settle. | Nestor | Hamilton |
8/26/2026
|
8/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3324 |
|