Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 51 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Stroud C-230453 & C-230454SENTENCING – R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) – COMMUNITY-CONTROL VIOLATION – R.C. 2929.15 – POSTRELEASE CONTROL – CRIM.R. 43: Where the community-control violations committed by defendant were both technical and nontechnical, the trial court was not limited to imposing the 90-day limit for technical violations for a fifth-degree felony offense set forth in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i). The trial court erred by failing to provide the required postrelease-control notifications at the sentencing hearing. The trial court violated defendant’s Crim.R. 43(A) right to be present during sentencing when it failed to impose a sentence for the offense of aggravated possession of drugs in open court at the sentencing hearing.CrouseHamilton 3/15/2024 3/15/2024 2024-Ohio-933
State v. Hughes C-230239WEAPONS – HAVING A WEAPON WHILE INTOXICATED – PLAIN ERROR – INTOXICATION – FIREARM – OPERABILITY: The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting the writing on an evidence envelope together with its contents as one exhibit because the writing was not probative of any element of the offense and thus defendant could not have been prejudiced by its admission. Defendant’s conviction for having a weapon while under the influence was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where two witnesses opined that defendant was under the influence of alcohol and observed multiple physical indica of intoxication and where the firearm was loaded when it was seized from defendant, a trained police officer opined the firearm was operable at the time of seizure, the firearm was test-fired, and defendant made statements indicating the firearm was operable.WinklerHamilton 3/15/2024 3/15/2024 2024-Ohio-934
State v. Frazier C-230177JURY WAIVER – R.C. 2945.05: The trial court violated defendant’s right to a jury trial when the trial court proceeded to a bench trial without first addressing defendant in open court and confirming that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, as required by R.C. 2945.05.ZayasHamilton 3/15/2024 3/15/2024 2024-Ohio-935
State v. Chasteen C-230174SEXUAL IMPOSITION – SEXUAL CONTACT – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – PURPOSELY – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE – JOINDER: The trial court did not commit plain error when it did not instruct the jury on the meaning of “purposely” in the context of the definition of “sexual contact” where the court instructed the jury to rely on its individual and collective knowledge and understanding of the meaning of any undefined terms. Trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to request an instruction on the definition of “purposely” where it was not plain error for the court to fail to give such an instruction and counsel presented an argument based on the required element of purpose. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining defendant’s two counts of sexual imposition against separate victims in a single trial where the evidence of each count was simple and distinct.CrouseHamilton 3/13/2024 3/13/2024 2024-Ohio-909
State v. Harris C-230284PLEAS — CRIM.R. 11 Where the trial court was not bound by the recommended sentence in the plea agreement and explained to defendant the difference in the potential sentence as opposed to what was stated on the plea form, the trial court did not err to defendant’s prejudice in deviating from the recommended sentence in the plea agreement, especially where defendant ultimately was sentenced to the four years she had bargained for. Where the trial court explained the clerical error in the written plea form and confirmed defendant’s understanding of the correct potential sentence, defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered the guilty plea.KinsleyHamilton 3/13/2024 3/13/2024 2024-Ohio-910
Carter v. Takoda Trails C-230329ARBITRATION — CONTRACTS — MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION: The trial court did not err in denying defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration where the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract stated that it applied to any claims “arising out of” a separate contract and defendants failed to submit an authenticated copy of the separate contract into the record.BockHamilton 3/13/2024 3/13/2024 2024-Ohio-911
Hill-Lewis v. Clifton Healthcare Ctr. C-230419PROCEDURE/RULES – COMPLAINT: The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint where plaintiffs failed to name the defendants in the body of the complaint and failed to assert any claims against them. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ alternative motion for leave to amend the complaint where plaintiffs failed to tender a proposed amended complaint or to explain how they would resolve the complaint’s deficiencies. See Olthaus v. Niesen, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-230142, 2023-Ohio-4710, ¶ 27.BergeronHamilton 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-846
State v. Robinson C-2303964, C-230395SENTENCING: Defendant’s convictions for driving left of center, failing to stop after an accident, and failing to comply with the signal of a police officer were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where two officers observed and pursued defendant fleeing the scene of a collision. Defendant’s sentences for failure to stop and failure to comply were contrary to law because the financial sanctions he received differed from what was announced at the sentencing hearing.BergeronHamilton 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-847
Gipson v. Hamilton Cty. Clerk of Courts C-230364CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — NOTICE — EXCEPTION: Any potential error arising from the failure of plaintiffs to receive notice of the trial court’s entry granting the defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim was harmless where the trial court would have been permitted to sua sponte dismiss the complaint without notice as it is obvious that the plaintiffs cannot prevail on the facts alleged in their complaint.ZayasHamilton 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-848
State v. Henry C-230287EVIDENCE — TAMPERING — MOTION TO SUPPRESS — MIRANDA: The trial court correctly found that defendant’s pre-Miranda statements were made during a noncustodial interview and it did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress where defendant voluntarily offered incriminating statements after detectives provided Miranda warnings. There was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s tampering-with-evidence conviction where defendant, knowing that police would investigate the shooting that occurred inside of her home, admitted to finding the deceased’s phone after the shooting and placing it inside of her purse.BockHamilton 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-849
In re J.L. C-230140CHILDREN – PERMANENT CUSTODY – STANDARD OF REVIEW – JUV.R. 40(D) – R.C. 2151.414 – BEST INTEREST: The juvenile court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when it granted permanent custody to the children services agency where appellant mother had not demonstrated long-term stability and sobriety, as required by her case plan, and the court properly considered all of the best-interest factors under R.C. 2151.414(D). An appellate court does not review a juvenile court’s permanent-custody decision for an abuse of discretion; rather, the court reviews the decision under a sufficiency-of-the-evidence or manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, based upon the parties’ arguments.CrouseHamilton 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-850
State v. Wright C-220578RAPE – ATTEMPT – MANIFEST WEIGHT – EXPERT TESTIMONY – HEARSAY: The child-victim’s testimony that defendant performed oral sex on the victim and placed his penis on the outside of her “butt” constituted sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions for rape and attempted rape. The trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial was not an abuse of discretion where the trial court reasonably concluded that a sexually-transmitted-infection diagnosis did not constitute newly discovered evidence because defendant experienced symptoms of the infection before trial. It was harmless error for the trial court to admit evidence containing a physician’s conclusion that there is a high likelihood that sexual abuse had occurred based on nothing more than the victim’s statements because the state did not mention the expert’s testimony during closing argument and the trial court did not rely on that statement to reach its judgment. The trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony on delayed disclosure from a social worker with specialized information and extensive experience conducting forensic interviews who demonstrated her knowledge of the subject at trial. The trial court did not err when it allowed an expert witness to testify that the child-victim’s behavior during the forensic interview was consistent with children who have experienced sexual abuse, because that testimony assisted the trier of fact’s understanding of the nature of the child’s behavior while disclosing abuse and the expert declined to testify about whether the abuse had occurred. The trial court did not err in admitting a recording of the child-victim’s statements during a forensic interview, where the interviewer testified that the purpose of the interview was to determine if a physical examination or mental-health treatment was necessary, the child understood the need to be truthful, and the questions in the interview were not leading.BockHamilton 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-851
State v. Brown C-230308ASSAULT – EVIDENCE – WEIGHT - SUFFICIENCY: Defendant’s conviction for assault was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim, even though she did not know defendant’s name, identified defendant from a photo lineup and in court as the person on her left side who struck her several times with a closed fist consistent with a lump on the left side of the victim’s face.WinklerHamilton 2/28/2024 2/28/2024 2024-Ohio-715
State v. Crutchfield C-230386 & C-230387ASSAULT – R.C. 2903.13 – KNOWINGLY – PHYSICAL HARM – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY: Defendant’s conviction for the assault of a police officer was supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence established that defendant, after refusing to comply with a request that he submit to handcuffs, tussled with the officer and held her in a bear hug, causing the officer to experience bruising and soreness to her arm.CrouseHamilton 2/28/2024 2/28/2024 2024-Ohio-716
In re Sanders C-230428R.C. 2953.25 – CERTIFICATE FOR QUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT – ABUSE OF DISCRETION: The trial court abused its discretion by denying the applicant’s petition for a certificate for qualification for employment where the R.C. 2953.25(C)(6) presumption for eligibility applied and there was no evidence supporting a finding that the applicant was not rehabilitated, and therefore, the cause must be remanded with instructions to the trial court to grant the petition. [See SEPARATE CONCURRENCE: The cause should be remanded with instructions to the trial court to correctly apply the rebuttable presumption contained in R.C. 2953.25(C)(6).]BergeronHamilton 2/28/2024 2/28/2024 2024-Ohio-717
State v. Watts C-230299MOTION TO SUPPRESS – OVI SUSPENSION: In a prosecution for driving under an OVI suspension, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that defendant failed to satisfy the initial burden to demonstrate that the state conducted a warrantless seizure: defendant’s motion to suppress argued that defendant had been driving a vehicle registered to defendant’s daughter, the officer did not cite defendant with any other violations, and the officer testified at the motion-to-suppress hearing, but could not recall the reason for initiating the traffic stop.WinklerHamilton 2/21/2024 2/21/2024 2024-Ohio-635
N. Side Bank & Trust Co. v. Trinity Aviation, L.L.C. C-220555CONTRACTS – DAMAGES – JURISDICTION/VENUE: In a breach of contract case, the trial court did not err in failing to award damages for labor costs that were alleged to have been incurred for moving parts in reliance on the contract where there was competent, credible evidence supporting its decision. The trial court erred in granting judgment for breach of contract in favor of nonparties and parties who did not assert a breach of contract claim. The trial court did not err in finding a breach of contract where competent, credible evidence supported finding that the breaching party was the proximate cause of the damages, the damages were foreseeable, and the further performance of the nonbreaching party was excused. The trial court did not err in determining that the nonbreaching party properly mitigated its damages where further mitigating measures would have been extraordinary.BergeronHamilton 2/16/2024 2/16/2024 2024-Ohio-590
Carlson v. Cincinnati C-230115PROCEDURE/RULES – CIV.R. 60(B) – RIPENESS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – REAL PROPERTY – MUNICIPAL –RECONSIDERATION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion and reinstating the 2019 judgment against plaintiff without an express finding of excusable neglect because a trial court is not required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion where a party does not request them under Civ.R. 52. The parties agree that the reinstated judgment should be corrected to credit a voluntary payment by plaintiff and remove nuisance-abatement costs barred by the applicable statute of limitations: These issues with the reinstated judgment are ripe for appellate review because there is a live judgment against plaintiff secured by liens against plaintiff’s real property. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant on its counterclaim for unpaid Vacated Building Maintenance License (“VBML”) fees for one of plaintiff’s seven properties: Once defendant established that plaintiff owned the properties subject to the VBML program, the dates the properties were acquired, and that plaintiff had failed to apply for the VBMLs, the trial court was capable of determining the fees owed by applying the VBML fee-structure contained in the municipal code; however, defendant did not establish the date that plaintiff failed to apply for the VBML for one of his properties and thus the trial court could not calculate the fees owed on that property. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration when it considered the arguments of the parties and concluded that two of plaintiff’s properties constituted separate buildings subject to separate VBMLs.WinklerHamilton 2/16/2024 2/16/2024 2024-Ohio-591
Kross Acquisition Co., L.L.C. v. Groundworks Ohio, L.L.C. C-230272SUMMARY JUDGMENT – NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT – TRADE SECRETS – R.C. 1333.61: The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of defendant employee where the noncompete agreement was unenforceable because it was overly broad in geographic and temporal scope, and the trial court did not err when it declined to modify the noncompetition agreement because reforming the agreement to comply with the rule of reasonableness would require completely rewriting the agreement. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s trade-secrets claim where there were no genuine issues of material facts that the allegedly confidential information did not qualify as trade secrets under the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act because the plaintiff employer did not take sufficient measures to maintain confidentiality of the information. The trial court did not err in declining to enforce the liquidated-damages provision of the noncompetition agreement because the agreement was unenforceable.CrouseHamilton 2/16/2024 2/16/2024 2024-Ohio-592
Fiedeldey v. Finneytown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. C-230010RES JUDICATA – BACK PAY – REINSTATEMENT – CONTEMPT OF COURT: Defendant school board was precluded on res judicata grounds from arguing that it could not pay back pay to plaintiff teacher or reinstate her to her position as a kindergarten teacher because those matters could have been, but were not, raised in the first appeal in this cause. The trial court provided an opportunity for defendant to purge itself of contempt when the court did not impose sanctions for more than two months after it entered its contempt order, which contained the conditions necessary for defendant to purge itself of contempt.CrouseHamilton 2/14/2024 2/14/2024 2024-Ohio-536
Platinum Real Estate Holdings, Inc. v. Slabakis C-230237CIV.R. 60(B) – SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT: The trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to vacate an entry of satisfaction of judgment in a cognovit action under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) where plaintiff argued that defendant had repudiated a mutual release by filing an action in New York state court: plaintiff failed to show that the continued enforcement of the satisfaction of judgment would be inequitable, because the New York court had yet to determine whether the mutual release applied to the New York litigation, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it acted reasonably in waiting nearly four years after defendant filed the New York case to file its motion to vacate.WinklerHamilton 2/14/2024 2/14/2024 2024-Ohio-537
In re S. Children C-230579 & C-230580JUVENILE – SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION – UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT – ABUSE – EXPERT TESTIMONY – NEGLECT – DEPENDENCY – CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE – PERMANENT CUSTODY – R.C. 2151.413 – REASONABLE EFFORTS – BEST INTEREST: The juvenile court has jurisdiction over the children where the children have no home state under Ohio’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because the orders placing them with out-of-state relatives were dissolved and thus the relatives do not qualify as persons acting as parents under the Act, and where the children and parents have a significant connection to Ohio and substantial evidence is available in Ohio concerning the children’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships. The juvenile court properly adjudicated a child as abused where there was conflicting expert testimony as to whether the child died by homicide or natural causes, the juvenile court credited the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services’ experts over the parents’ experts, and competent, credible evidence supported the juvenile court’s credibility determination. The juvenile court properly adjudicated the children as neglected and dependent where the parents did not adequately care for the children, the children were on restrictive diets and gained healthy weight after leaving the parents care, and one child died by homicide in the home by a parent. R.C. 2151.413 does not require the juvenile court to make a finding that there were reasonable efforts to reunify the family where the agency seeks permanent custody by complaint instead of by motion. The juvenile court properly granted permanent custody to the agency where it made the required reasonable-efforts findings and clear and convincing evidence supported its findings that the children cannot or should not be placed with a parent and that a grant of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was in the best interest of the children.WinklerHamilton 2/14/2024 2/14/2024 2024-Ohio-538
State v. Brown C-230034WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY – R.C. 2923.13 – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Where defendant’s social security card and paperwork in his name were found in the apartment where weapons were recovered, a photograph on defendant’s social media depicted him holding three weapons on the balcony of that apartment, one of the weapons in the photograph appeared to be the same weapon found in the room containing defendant’s personal documents, and where defendant, in recorded jail calls, discussed the location of one of the recovered weapons and expressed awareness that a copy of the search warrant had been left behind in the apartment, defendant’s conviction for having weapons while under disability was supported by the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.CrouseHamilton 2/9/2024 2/9/2024 2024-Ohio-440
State v. Mullins C-230320APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – SENTENCING – R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – DUE PROCESS: Because defendant failed to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court did not consider the purposes of felony sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors, this court presumes the trial court considered them. The trial court did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to due process because it did not consider the testimony regarding uncharged instances of abuse in determining its sentence.BergeronHamilton 2/7/2024 2/7/2024 2024-Ohio-421
State v. Zachary C-230435CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – PLEAS – ABUSE OF DISCRETION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where defendant was provided proper procedural protections, and the law and facts giving rise to defendant’s alleged defense existed at the time he pleaded guilty.BergeronHamilton 2/7/2024 2/7/2024 2024-Ohio-422
In re B.H. C-230530 & C-230532CHILDREN — PARENTAL TERMINATION — EVIDENCE: The juvenile court’s judgment granting permanent custody of the children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“JFS”) was supported by ample competent and credible evidence where the record shows that, while mother began to comply with services before the trial on JFS’s motion, she had not remedied the issues that had caused the removal of the children from her home.BockHamilton 2/7/2024 2/7/2024 2024-Ohio-423
State v. Farmer C-230372SEX OFFENSES – SENTENCING – TIER CLASSIFICATION – NUNC PRO TUNC: Where, at defendant’s first sentencing hearing, before entering his pleas, the trial court informed defendant that he would be classified as a Tier III sex offender and notified him of his registrations duties, defendant indicated that he understood those duties, and defendant signed the notification-of-duties-to-register form; and at a second sentencing hearing, the trial court declared that defendant was a Tier III offender after ensuring that defendant understood that he was still classified as a Tier III offender and there were no objections to this procedure; and the tier classification was inadvertently omitted from the second sentencing entry, the cause must be remanded for the trial court to correct the sentencing entry by a nunc pro tunc order to include the Tier III classification.BockHamilton 2/2/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-351
State v. Walker C-230339EVIDENCE — SEARCH AND SEIZURE: The trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of a firearm obtained via a Terry pat-down search did not constitute plain error where the defendant was suspected of drug activity, made movements and glances toward his vehicle, and was observed with a heavy bulge in his pocket. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).BergeronHamilton 1/31/2024 1/31/2024 2024-Ohio-303
Fiani v. Worldpay, L.L.C. C-230175CIV.R. 15 – MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT – ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE – WAIVER: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint where the amendment was not timely and would have been futile. Where defendants informed plaintiff that they intended to waive the attorney-client privilege, despite asserting it in discovery, three months before the trial was scheduled and six months before the trial actually took place, defendants offered to reopen depositions at their expense, and plaintiff did not file a motion in limine regarding the waiver and admission of related evidence at trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling plaintiff’s objection to defendants’ waiver of the attorney-client privilege.CrouseHamilton 1/31/2024 1/31/2024 2024-Ohio-304
Snyder v. Capizzi C-230161PROHIBITION — JUVENILE – SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION – R.C. 3127.15 — UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT: Mother’s petition for a writ of prohibition is denied because the juvenile court has jurisdiction over the children: the children have no home state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because the orders placing them with out-of-state relatives were dissolved and thus the relatives do not qualify as persons acting as parents under the Act, and the children and parents have a significant connection to Ohio.CrouseHamilton 1/31/2024 1/31/2024 2024-Ohio-305
Couzens v. Union Bank & Trust Co. C-230130TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS – CIVIL CONSPIRACY – JUSTIFICATION: The trial court did not err when it granted defendant bank’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s tortious-interference claims because there was no genuine issue of material fact pertaining to the bank’s claim of justification as a defense to those claims. The trial court did not err when it granted defendant bank’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s civil-conspiracy claim because there were no other torts upon which to base a claim of civil conspiracy.CrouseHamilton 1/31/2024 1/31/2024 2024-Ohio-306
Gauthier v. Gauthier C-220521ATTORNEY FEES – PROF.COND.R. 1.5 – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – DUE PROCESS – CONTINUANCE – CROSS-EXAMINATION – JURISDICTION – AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION – APP.R. 4(B)(2): Where a reviewing court is able to discern how the trial court arrived at an award of attorney fees and costs and to conduct a meaningful review of that award, the trial court does not err in failing to provide an explanation for the award. The trial court did not err in failing to separately discuss the factors in Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 where the record failed to establish that the factors were not included in the lodestar calculation. When awarding attorney fees, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying an increased hourly rate to historical work that was performed when a lower hourly rate was in effect where the motion for fees and costs had been pending for approximately nine years, an expert opined on the reasonableness of the increased rate, and no competing expert testimony was introduced. Where plaintiff failed in the obligation to parse defendant’s billing records and identify instances of improper billing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the total amount of fees and costs requested. The trial court did not arbitrarily exclude plaintiff from a remand hearing on the amount of attorney fees to be awarded where plaintiff had previously been granted two continuances over defendant’s objection, the trial court offered to allow plaintiff to participate by Zoom and to consult with his counsel during the hearing, the fee motion had been pending for nine years, and plaintiff failed to establish how his representation was impeded by his nonappearance. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for a continuance that was sought because plaintiff suffered from COVID where plaintiff had already obtained two continuances over defendant’s objection, the motion that was the subject of the hearing for which a continuance was sought had been pending for nine years, and the trial court offered to allow plaintiff to participate by Zoom. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate the plaintiff’s due-process rights by limiting the cross-examination of defendant’s counsel to one hour. Where the trial court issued an award of attorney fees and costs on the same date that the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted an affidavit of disqualification filed by plaintiff, and where the record does not establish whether the award was issued before the affidavit was accepted, the trial court did not issue the award of fees absent jurisdiction. Where appellant failed to file a suggestion in the court of appeals that it remand the matter to the trial court to resolve postjudgment motions that were filed after the notice of appeal was filed, as is required by App.R. 4(B)(2), the appellate court was not required to remand the matter and stay the appeal.CrouseHamilton 1/26/2024 1/26/2024 2024-Ohio-266
Andwan v. Eichert C-220542Civ.R. 60(B) — MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT — ABUSE OF DISCRETION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment where the plaintiff failed to present any argument as to why she was entitled to relief under any specific provision of Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5) and failed to assert any rationale for her delay in filing the motion until well over a year after final judgment.ZayasHamilton 1/26/2024 1/26/2024 2024-Ohio-267
State v. Cross C-230179APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL — PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY: Where defendant’s counsel failed to submit trial transcripts despite being ordered to show cause why transcripts were not ordered at the state’s expense, the appellate court must presume the regularity of the trial proceedings and affirm the trial court’s judgment.KinsleyHamilton 1/26/2024 1/26/2024 2024-Ohio-268
State v. Brady C-230251 & C-230252VENUE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – RECKLESS – PROTECTION ORDER – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – KNOWINGLY: Defendant’s conviction for violating a protection order must be reversed where the state failed to present evidence establishing venue beyond a reasonable doubt and that defendant acted recklessly. The sufficiency and weight of the evidence established that defendant knowingly caused physical harm to the victim of the domestic-violence offense.CrouseHamilton 1/26/2024 1/26/2024 2024-Ohio-269
Robertson v. Meyers C-230257CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — CIV.R. 34(D) — DISCOVERY : The trial court erred in granting respondent’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss petitioner’s petition for discovery where the allegations in the petition—when taken as true—were sufficient to meet the requirements for Civ.R. 34(D).ZayasHamilton 1/26/2024 1/26/2024 2024-Ohio-270
Brown v. WLWT-TV 5 News C-230283STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — R.C. 2305.11(A) — DEFAMATION — FALSE LIGHT — INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: Where plaintiff’s claims of defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arose from the same allegedly tortious conduct that had occurred beyond the one-year limitations period in R.C. 2305.11(A), plaintiff’s claims were time-barred, and the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.KinsleyHamilton 1/26/2024 1/26/2024 2024-Ohio-271
State v. Lavender C-230042POSTCONVICTION — COUNSEL — JUVENILE OFFENDER — SENTENCING: The common pleas court abused its discretion by dismissing six timely-filed postconviction claims without first holding an evidentiary hearing: petitioner demonstrated substantive grounds for relief entitling him to a hearing where petitioner presented evidence outside the record raising an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in challenging the eyewitness and informant testimony at trial and in investigating and presenting mitigation evidence at sentencing.WinklerHamilton 1/24/2024 1/24/2024 2024-Ohio-229
State v. Hendrix C-230310SENTENCING – NUNC PRO TUNC: Sentences that were not reversed in defendant’s previous appeal were not subject to review by the trial court on remand. The cause must be remanded for the trial court to correct defendant’s sentence with a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect the sentence actually announced by the court.CrouseHamilton 1/24/2024 1/24/2024 2024-Ohio-230
In re AR.L. C-230578 & C-230592CHILDREN – PERMANENT CUSTODY – NOTICE – WAIVER – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – R.C. 2151.414 – BEST INTEREST: Where father had constructive notice of the magistrate’s decision, failed to file objections, and waived any issue regarding notice, a remand was not warranted. Where the magistrate only considered facts in evidence in reaching her permanent custody decision, there was no procedural error. Where the juvenile court properly balanced the best-interest factors, the juvenile court’s permanent custody decision was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.KinsleyHamilton 1/24/2024 1/24/2024 2024-Ohio-231
In re L.E.S. C-220430 & C-220436PARENTAGE — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL — DUE PROCESS — EQUAL PROTECTION — R.C. 3111.95(A) — MARRIAGE: The trial court erred in failing to consider whether the parties would have been married at the time of the child(ren)’s conception—absent Ohio’s unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriage— before finding that the same-sex consenting partner of a woman subject to nonspousal artificial insemination could not be recognized as a legal parent of the child(ren) under Ohio law.ZayasHamilton 1/19/2024 1/19/2024 2024-Ohio-165
Feagan v. Bethesda N. Hosp. C-230135, C-230136, C-230137SANCTIONS — FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT — R.C. 2323.51 — CIV.R. 11 — CIV.R. 10(D)(2) — AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT: Where appellant attorney filed several medical-malpractice complaints without the affidavits of merit or motions to extend required by Civ.R. 10(D)(2) and then voluntarily dismissed the actions under Civ.R. 41, the trial court erred in awarding sanctions against appellant attorney when there was no evidence that the underlying claims lacked merit and it cannot be said that no reasonable attorney would engage in the strategy employed by counsel based on existing law. [But see DISSENT: The trial court did not err in awarding sanctions where the attorney willfully violated the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.]ZayasHamilton 1/19/2024 1/19/2024 2024-Ohio-166
Reynolds v. Hamilton Cty. Dev. Disabilities Servs. C-230046POLITICAL SUBDIVSION IMMUMITY - APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - DEFAMATION – POLITCAL SUBDIVISION EMPLOYEE IMMUNITY: The trial court erred by denying defendant political subdivision’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that it was immune from liability where there remained no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff was not an employee of defendant but an independent contractor: the plaintiff worked for a separate agency, received his paychecks from that agency, received no payments from defendant, was not required to sign off on defendant’s policies but had to follow his agency’s policies, and defendant did not have authority over the agency’s employees. Where the trial court denies a motion in which a political subdivision or its employee seeks immunity, that order denies the benefit of an alleged immunity and is a final order under R.C. 2744.02(C) and, because a determination of immunity can be made prior to investing time, effort, and expense of courts, attorneys, parties, and witnesses, where only issues of law exist as to the issue of immunity, an appellate court may decide the appeal based on those issues of law. Defendant, a political subdivision that provided services to developmentally-disabled individuals, was engaging in a governmental function and was entitled to the general grant of immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A) and because plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing that one of the exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.02(B) applied, defendant is immune from liability. While the tort of defamation may be either negligent or intentional, plaintiff alleged only intentional conduct, and political subdivisions are immune from intentional torts. The trial court erred in failing to find that the employees of the political subdivision were immune from liability where plaintiff failed to show that the employees’ actions or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of their employment or that their acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.WinklerHamilton 1/12/2024 1/12/2024 2024-Ohio-83
Camp v. Gerwin C-230066, C-230082CONTRACTS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – FRAUD – BREACH – EVIDENCE: The trial court did not err in failing to convert defendants’ fraud counterclaim into an affirmative defense where there is no evidence indicating that defendants mistakenly designated fraud as a counterclaim. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment where defendants did not clearly explain the nature of the breach that they allege excuses their performance. The trial court did not err by excluding evidence where there is no indication in the record that the trial court did not consider all evidence summited on summary judgment. The trial court did not err in failing to award damages for credit card debt where the amount owed was omitted from the summary judgment motion and was not included in overall computation of damages requested. [But see DISSENT: The trial court’s order granting summary judgment was not a final, appealable order where an inextricably, intertwined issue remains outstanding and the interest of sound judicial administration is not served by permitting a piecemeal appeal.]BergeronHamilton 1/12/2024 1/12/2024 2024-Ohio-84
State v. Martin C-230236MOTION TO SUPPRESS — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW —FOURTH AMENDMENT — SEARCH AND SEIZURE — PROBABLE CAUSE — AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION — ALLIED OFFENSES: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence found in his car where investigators intercepted a jail call instructing defendant to go to a specific location to retrieve contraband and police witnessed defendant at that location on the same day and leaving with a bookbag. Officers had probable cause to stop defendant and perform a warrantless search of his vehicle under the automobile exception where officers had reasonable grounds to believe there was contraband in the vehicle. The trial court committed plain error in failing to merge defendant’s convictions for possessing marijuana and trafficking in marijuana.BockHamilton 1/5/2024 1/5/2024 2024-Ohio-10
UH OH Ohio, L.L.C. v. Buchanan C-230118VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR – R.C. 2323.52: The trial court did not err in finding defendant to be a vexatious litigator where defendant has habitually and persistently engaged in vexatious conduct by repeatedly filing unnecessary and supernumerary pleadings and motions which serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another party; are not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; or are imposed solely for delay.CrouseHamilton 1/5/2024 1/5/2024 2024-Ohio-11
Voss v. Quicken Loans, L.L.C. C-230065CLASS ACTION – CIV.R. 23 – MORTGAGE SATISFACTION RECORDING – R.C. 5301.36: The trial court did not err when it relied on the version of R.C. 5301.36 that was in effect at the time of its decision to certify a class seeking damages for violations of the statute. The trial court did not err when it determined that plaintiff and the rest of a class of mortgagors and property holders seeking damages for violations of R.C. 5301.36 had standing where the statute creates a cause of action for mortgagors and property holders seeking damages for the failure to record the satisfaction of a mortgage in violation of R.C. 5301.36. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it certified a state-wide class of mortgagors and property owners for violations of R.C. 5301.36 that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic where the trial court reasonably concluded that defendant’s pandemic-based defenses are determinable on a classwide basis and the trial court is in the best position to assess the feasibility of gathering and analyzing classwide evidence.BockHamilton 1/5/2024 1/5/2024 2024-Ohio-12
Densler v. Durrani C-230016STANDING — CIV.R. 17 — REAL PARTY IN INTEREST — CIV.R. 59 — NEW TRIAL — IMPROPER HABIT EVIDENCE — REVERSIBLE ERROR: The trial court did not err in allowing plaintiff to purse a claim for past medical expenses at trial where the record does not establish that the insurer was the sole real party in interest under Civ.R. 17 as to the claim for past medical expenses and no argument was presented that the trial court erred in its joinder determination regarding the insurer under Civ.R. 19. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant defendants’ motion for a new trial where the record established that the jury relied upon improperly admitted habit evidence when reaching its conclusion. [See Concurrence: The trial court abused its discretion by denying defense counsel an opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff about a prior inconsistent statement.]ZayasHamilton 1/5/2024 1/5/2024 2024-Ohio-14
Cook v. Lockland C-230281ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW — NONCONFORMING USE — ABANDONMENT — BURDEN OF PROOF: The trial court abused its discretion in affirming the Board of Zoning Appeal’s (“the BZA”) decision where it was undisputed that a legal, nonconforming use had existed, plaintiff provided evidence to show continuance of the nonconforming use before his purchase of the property, and the BZA improperly placed the burden to disprove voluntary abandonment of the nonconforming use on plaintiff.BockHamilton 1/5/2024 1/5/2024 2024-Ohio-9
Simpson v. Simpson C-230079DIVORCE – CIVIL CONTEMPT – SERVICE OF PROCESS – CIV.R. 75(J): The trial court lacked continuing jurisdiction under Civ.R. 75(J) to hold ex-husband in contempt for nonpayment of spousal support where ex-husband presented uncontroverted evidence that rebutted the presumption of effective service of ex-wife’s motion for contempt. [But see DISSENT: The order appealed from is not a final, appealable order where the order is an interlocutory order on the issue of compliance with the purge condition which contemplates further action from the trial court, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.]KinsleyHamilton 1/3/2024 1/3/2024 2024-Ohio-4
12