|
|
Chaille v. Jones
| C-250668 | R.C. CH. 2744 — IMMUNITY — RECKLESSNESS: Defendants, who are former employees of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services, are not entitled to immunity under R.C. Ch. 2744 where plaintiffs alleged recklessness in their complaint and defendants could not overcome the claim by asserting immunity in a motion to dismiss the complaint. | Nestor | Hamilton |
7/1/2026
|
7/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2518 |
|
Wheeler v. Durrani
| C-250095, C-250206 | DIRECTED VERDICT — R.C. 2501.01(C) — CIV.R. 17 — REAL PARTY IN INTEREST — NUNC PRO TUNC — CIV.R. 42 — JOINDER — EVID.R. 702 — EXPERT TESTIMONY — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — CUMULATIVE ERROR: Where decedent’s estate was closed prior to trial, resulting in a discharge of the executors’ duties and rendering the executors no longer real parties in interest, the trial court did not err in denying defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the claims brought by the estate where plaintiffs obtained a nunc pro tunc order from the probate court in the county in which the estate had been closed that reopened the estate as of the date of its closure. The trial court abused its discretion in joining two medical-malpractice actions for trial where the actions did not share a common question of law or fact and lacked a substantial overlap in the issues, facts, and evidence. [See CONCURRENCE IN JUDGMENT ONLY: The trial court abused its discretion in joining two medical-malpractice actions for trial where the joint trial strayed from the appellate court’s precedent and did not serve any purpose of efficiency that outweighed the potential for prejudice and juror confusion.] The trial court erred in allowing one of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses to testify beyond his expertise as a radiologist. Where the 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. Where the witness had been identified as an expert on at least some of plaintiff’s claims several years before trial, where the parties had agreed not to depose the testifying experts, where no expert reports had been exchanged for any of the expert witnesses, and where defendants similarly disclosed an expert witness weeks before trial, the trial court did not err in allowing an expert for the plaintiff to testify over defendants’ objection that the witness had not been timely disclosed. The trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear testimony about a surgery performed on one of the plaintiffs that was not the subject of the claims at trial. The cumulative effect of the errors that occurred at trial was not harmless and required reversal. | Crouse | Hamilton |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2475 |
|
Woosley v. St. Joseph Cemetery Assn.
| C-250204 | PARTNERSHIP — PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — PREJUDICE — CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST — EQUITABLE INTEREST: In an action claiming equitable interests in certain real property based on a partnership agreement, plaintiffs failed to show prejudicial error in the trial court’s finding that no partnership existed where, even assuming that the trial court erred in making such a finding, the record fails to show that any equitable interest in the property was ever created in favor of the alleged partnership, and therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2476 |
|
Ragouzis v. Madison House Condominium Owners Assn., Inc.
| C-250333 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT — VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR: The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment deeming plaintiff a vexatious litigator where the record shows that plaintiff made approximately 49 court filings over approximately 13 months and sent approximately 25 threatening and harassing emails to opposing counsel and parties, which supports the trial court’s finding that the filings were made and emails were sent habitually and persistently without reasonable grounds and served only to harass defendants. | Moore | Hamilton |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2477 |
|
State v. Suttle
| C-250434 | MOTION TO SUPPRESS — PROBABLE CAUSE — MIRANDA WARNINGS — PUBLIC-SAFETY EXCEPTION — HARMLESS ERROR — EVIDENCE — CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION — HAVING WEAPONS WHILE UNDER A DISABILITY — CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT: The trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm found in the vehicle where the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle after observing marijuana in the vehicle. The trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress his admission of a firearm in the vehicle where defendant was questioned without Miranda warnings and the public-safety exception did not apply where the record did not support a finding that the question was asked for officer safety, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the remaining evidence establishing his guilt. Defendant’s convictions for having weapons while under a disability and carrying a concealed weapon were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the State proved defendant constructively possessed the gun where the evidence established defendant was driving the vehicle with a partially-concealed gun in the compartment located on the driver’s-side door and the gun was accessible to the driver, within inches of the driver’s seat, and the factfinder did not find the testimony of the defendant to be credible. The prosecutor did not commit misconduct by shifting the burden of proof during closing argument where the prosecutor commented on the credibility of the defendant based on his testimony. | Zayas | Hamilton |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2478 |
|