|
|
State v. Crawford
| C-250408 | FIRST AMENDMENT — FREEDOM OF SPEECH — MOTION TO DISMISS — SOLICITING EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS, OR CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OCCUPANT OF VEHICLE — R.C. 4511.51(B)(1): The trial court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge because R.C. 4511.51(B)(1), prohibiting standing on a highway for purpose of soliciting contributions from a vehicle occupant, violates the First Amendment as a content-based restriction on protected speech in a public forum | Zayas | Hamilton |
7/31/2026
|
7/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2957 |
|
Chhun v. Bethesda Butler Hosp.
| C-250450 | INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL — R.C. 2505.02(B)(8) — 2019 AM.SUB.H.B. 606 — COVID — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — IMMUNITY — EFFECTIVE DATE — EMERGENCY LAW — RETROACTIVE LAW — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL — UNCONSTITUTIONAL: The appellate court has jurisdiction under R.C. 2505.02(B)(8) to hear this interlocutory appeal because in finding 2019 Am.Sub.H.B. 606 unconstitutional when retroactively applied, the trial court restricted the law’s enforcement. The trial court did not err in determining 2019 Am.Sub.H.B. 606 was effective on December 16, 2020, where that day is 90 days after the governor signed the bill and the bill was filed with the secretary of state, and the law was not effective immediately because it is not an emergency law. The trial court did not err in determining that 2019 Am.Sub.H.B. 606 was an unconstitutional retroactive law when applied to plaintiff’s claims where the law affected the substantive rights of the plaintiff and would have extinguished her medical negligence claim. | Nestor | Hamilton |
7/31/2026
|
7/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2958 |
|
State v. Martin
| C-250685 | CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS — MOTION TO SUPPRESS — FOURTH AMENDMENT — CRIM.R. 12(F) — AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION: While the trial court omitted to render findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying defendant’s motion to suppress despite the parties’ requests, the court of appeals could still review the record to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s judgment because the disputes pertained more to the arresting officer’s credibility than to the facts of the case. The search of defendant’s vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement for the suspected offense of operating a vehicle while under the influence where defendant admitted to smoking marijuana about one hour prior to driving, a bag of marijuana was discovered on his person, and defendant was speeding, and where the arresting officer testified that defendant had bloodshot eyes and slowed speech. | Moore | Hamilton |
7/31/2026
|
7/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2959 |
|
Trudge, L.L.C. v. Norwood Bd. of Zoning Appeals
| C-260006 | ZONING ORDINANCES — SHORT-TERM RENTALS — PERMITTED USE — RESIDENTIAL ZONE: The trial court erred in finding that plaintiffs’ use of their properties as short-term rentals violates the zoning ordinances where the use as short-term rentals falls within a permitted use for the zoning district. | Nestor | Hamilton |
7/31/2026
|
7/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2960 |
|
State v. Allison
| C-250425 | JURY WAIVER — CRIM.R. 23 — R.C. 2945.05 — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — ARTICLE I, SECTION 5 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION — SIXTH AMENDMENT — MENS REA — RECKLESSNESS — MANIFEST WEIGHT — VEHICULAR HOMICIDE — VEHICULAR ASSAULT — AUTOMOBILE/CRIMINAL: Where defendant signed a written waiver of his right to a jury trial, and where he acknowledged that waiver in open court, and where the record included evidence suggesting defense counsel was present for that acknowledgment, the resulting waiver complied with R.C. 2945.05 and was presumptively valid. Where the record included no evidence to rebut the presumptive validity of defendant’s jury waiver, the appellate court had no reason to doubt that defendant’s waiver was sufficiently knowing, intelligent, and voluntary to waive his rights under Article I, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant’s convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular assault were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where testimony, photographs, and video showed that defendant had acted recklessly by speeding up to pass other drivers while attempting to merge into a single lane of southbound traffic, driving off the side of the road, and then attempting to force his vehicle back into traffic, thus causing another car to veer into oncoming traffic and leading to the death of its driver and serious injury of its passenger. | Crouse | Hamilton |
7/29/2026
|
7/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2912 |
|