|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Donegan-Lawson
| 23AP-735 | On appeal of trial court judgment convicting defendant of theft and Medicaid fraud, defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, but the trial court committed plain error by sentencing defendant for both theft and Medicaid fraud, which on these facts were allied offenses of similar import. Judgment reversed in part and remanded. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5494 |
|
State v. E.K.
| 24AP-183 | The trial court erred in granting the application for expungement pursuant to R.C. 2953.33 because the dismissed charge of domestic violence was statutorily ineligible for expungement and the dismissed assault charge was filed under the same case number as the dismissed domestic violence charge. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5496 |
|
MP Equip. Leasing, Inc. v. Pack
| 24AP-103 | Judgment reversed. Based on Kiser v. United Dairy Farmers, 10th Dist. No. 22AP-539, 2023-Ohio-2136, the trial court erred by refusing to consider appellant’s uncorroborated affidavit during the court’s summary judgment analysis. If true, the statements in appellant’s affidavit would establish appellees breached a provision in the parties’ purchase agreement. As such, the trial court erred by granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment. | Edelstein | Franklin |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5495 |
|
State v. Mapp
| 23AP-65 | On appeal of trial court judgment convicting defendant of aggravated murder with specifications, felonious assault with specifications, and having weapon under disability: 1) defendant did not demonstrate that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss based defendant’s right to speedy trial where he was brought to trail within the period allowed by statute; 2) testimony of jailhouse informant was not unfairly prejudicial nor was it inadmissible hearsay; 3) evidence of defendant’s culpability and identity was sufficient to support his convictions; 4) defendant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of evidence at trial; and 5) defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial due to cumulative evidentiary error. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5493 |
|
In re A.B.
| 23AP-608 | Trial court decision dismissing complaint affirmed on the authority of In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104, 2011-Ohio-2671, and In re D.S., 152 Ohio St.3d 109, 2017-Ohio-8289. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/19/2024
|
11/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5453 |
|
State ex rel. Kent Elastomer Prods., Inc. v. Logue
| 21AP-387 | Objections sustained in part and overruled in part and a limited writ of mandamus is granted. The fifth objection is sustained. The magistrate’s decision is adopted with the exception of its reference to the promulgation of Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-73 under R.C. 119.01 because the regulation was promulgated under R.C. 111.15. The remainder of the objections are overruled. The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation was required to calculate and issue premium refunds in accordance with Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-73(Q), notwithstanding its decision to issue a one-time dividend of excess surplus under R.C. 4123.321 and Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-10. | Mentel | Franklin |
11/19/2024
|
11/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5451 |
|
Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc.
| 23AP-189 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err by awarding appellee attorney fees and costs for defending a judgment confirming an arbitration award on appeal. Appellee’s motion under App.R. 26(A)(1)(a) to reconsider this court’s ruling granting appellant’s motion to supplement the record under App.R. 9(E) is granted. The motion was erroneously granted because appellant did not timely request a transcript of the hearing before the magistrate in the trial court, and it may not remedy that failure by attempting to supplement the record on appeal under App.R. 9(E). | Mentel | Franklin |
11/19/2024
|
11/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5452 |
|
State v. Greer
| 23AP-138 | Trial court erred by issuing conditional release order because it misconstrued or misunderstood the evidence before it regarding the recommendations of the psychologists that had examined the defendant. Judgment reversed and remanded for rehearing. | Dorrian | Franklin |
11/14/2024
|
11/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5396 |
|
State ex rel. Harless v. DMR Automotive Servs., Inc.
| 23AP-53 | In this original action in which relator has requested that this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Industrial Commission of Ohio, to vacate its order that found he had reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) and terminated his temporary total disability (“TTD”) compensation benefits, the magistrate properly found that in terminating TTD compensation as of the June 22, 2022 hearing, the district hearing officer (and subsequently, the commission) properly relied upon Dr. Ahmad’s May 4, 2022 independent medical examination (“IME”) opinion that found claimant had reached MMI as of the date of examination, which was also May 4, 2022. The magistrate erred, however, in finding that the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in the Dillon case applies retroactively to the facts of this case. Objection sustained; writ of mandamus denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/14/2024
|
11/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5395 |
|
In re G.M.
| 23AP-482 & 23AP-519 | The trial court did not err in granting permanent custody of a child to an agency when the parents were not able to safely care for the child. The second motion for permanent custody alleging new grounds was not a factor because the trial court found alternate grounds under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). A new statute that became effective after the permanent custody hearing began does not impose new duties. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
11/14/2024
|
11/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5398 |
|
State v. Penty
| 23AP-338 | RESTITUTION – R.C. 2929.28: The statute governing misdemeanor restitution, R.C. 2929.28, did not require the trial court to consider the defendant’s ability to pay the restitution amount imposed as part of his sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
11/14/2024
|
11/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5397 |
|
State v. Peoples
| 24AP-254 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial did not show through clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which he bases his ineffective assistance argument within the time frame for filing a timely motion for a new trial. | Boggs | Franklin |
11/12/2024
|
11/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5381 |
|
Barnes v. Ohio Secy. of State, Notary Comm.
| 23AP-571 | The trial court did not err in dismissing Barnes’ administrative appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the email from which Barnes attempted to appeal is not an order issued pursuant to an adjudication under R.C. 119.12. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5334 |
|
State v. Goodrich
| 24AP-110 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed as Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief was untimely and his claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. | Boggs | Franklin |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5336 |
|
State v. Marshall
| 23AP-610 | The trial court did not err in its imposition of consecutive prison sentences that resulted in a 30-year period of incarceration. We find that the sentence was not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct and to the danger he poses to the public. Judgment Affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5335 |
|
State ex rel. Holbrook v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-407 | The magistrate correctly found relator failed to file a cashier’s statement with all of the information required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). Accordingly, this court grants the motion to dismiss filed by respondents and dismisses relator’s action. Writ of mandamus denied; complaint dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/5/2024
|
11/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5283 |
|
George v. Miami Univ.
| 23AP-339 | The trial court erred as a matter of law by concluding that the open door was not an open and obvious hazard. However, the trial court did not err by finding that the Zamboni was not an open and obvious hazard and was the cause of Ms. George’s injuries. Because we find that the trial court erred as to one of the two identified causes of Ms. George’s injuries, it is unclear how our decision would impact the allocation of fault and Ms. George’s damages. Therefore, we remand this matter for further consideration to determine what, if any, impact our decision has on the comparative negligence calculation. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded with instructions. | Mentel, .J. | Franklin |
11/5/2024
|
11/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5281 |
|
Potts v. Veach
| 24AP-157 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee’s motion to disqualify appellant’s trial counsel based on Rule 3.7 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial court correctly found that counsel for appellant is likely to be a necessary witness and none of the exceptions set forth in Rule 3.7 applies. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/5/2024
|
11/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5282 |
|
State ex rel. Torrence v. Union Metal Industries
| 23AP-224 | The magistrate recommends this court deny claimant’s petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission to vacate its order denying his request for temporary total disability compensation. Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, we adopt the magistrate’s decision as our own and therefore deny claimant’s petition for a writ of mandamus. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5222 |
|
Ullmann v. Columbus
| 23AP-717 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court did not err as it was not required to make findings of undisputed facts when deciding issues of law. The trial court appropriately analyzed provisions of the city code as was requested by Appellant in her complaint and found that the language of the city code provisions are not overbroad or vague. The trial court also did not err in declining to dismiss the City’s environmental enforcement action as it was not at issue in this case and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to do so. The trial court appropriately interpreted R.C. 713.13 and R.C. 715.30. The trial court also properly found that under Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3 and R.C. Chapter 715 municipal corporate may regulate buildings and other structures for the general health, safety and welfare of the public and also contains due process safeguards by providing notice to property owners. The trial court also did not err in failing to determine the City is committing sanctionable conduct as Appellant’s complaint did not request such a determination. The trial court did not err in its reading of Columbus City Code ("C.C.C.") 4701.99 which allows for both criminal and civil enforcement of the Nuisance Abatement Code and the Ohio Revised Code. The trial court also did not err in failing to find the fines authorized by C.C.C. 4509.99 are excessive and therefore unconstitutional. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5223 |
|
State ex rel. Prime Roof Solutions, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-523 | Employer, Prime Roof was mandated to comply with the standard to provide safety equipment to prevent a fall. Prime Roof did not show that no other means of fall protection existed or was available nor that performance was impossible. Magistrate correctly determined that Prime Roof failed to provide the required safety equipment. Objections overruled; writ of mandamus denied. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5221 |
|
State v. Seymour
| 22AP-721 | The trial court erred as there was insufficient evidence of actual causation to support appellant’s convictions of involuntary manslaughter or corrupting another with drugs. Judgment reversed. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/29/2024
|
10/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5179 |
|
Pettitt v. Schaffner
| 23AP-661 | Judgment of the trial court is reversed. Spouse’s dower rights were not subordinated in accordance with R.C. 5302.22(D) as the transfer on death designation affidavit did not include a signature and statement from the property owner’s spouse. Spouse’s dower rights were also similarly not transferred or extinguished because the couple did not obtain a judgment of legal separation. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/29/2024
|
10/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5180 |
|
Howard v. Columbus
| 24AP-79 | The trial court erred when it denied the City’s claim for immunity from the appellees’ negligent training and supervision theory of premises liability. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/29/2024
|
10/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5181 |
|
State ex rel. Util. Supervisors Emps. Assn. v. Ohio State Emp. Relations Bd.
| 22AP-480 | In this original action in mandamus, the magistrate concludes that the State Employment Relations Board did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed relator’s allegation that that the City of Cleveland had refused to bargain collectively under R.C. 4117.11(A)(5). No party objected. Because there is no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, the decision is adopted and the request for a writ of mandamus is denied. Relator’s motion for leave to file a motion to amend the record is denied as moot. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/29/2024
|
10/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5178 |
|
In re Estate of Beatley v. Fisher
| 23AP-183 | In an action for concealment of assets pursuant to R.C. 2109.50, the probate court's use of summary judgment to resolve the action prior to conducting an examination of the defendant-appellee was both supported by law and justified by the plaintiff-appellant's acquiescence to the procedure. Summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee was warranted where the motion for summary judgment set forth Civ.R. 56 evidence showing the defendant-appellee owned the contested property, the statements in plaintiff's-appellant's verified complaint concerning ownership of the property were not based on personal knowledge, and plaintiff-appellant failed to otherwise respond by the unopposed deadline to identify specific facts showing a genuine issue exists for trial or file a Civ.R. 56(F) motion supported by affidavit to conduct additional discovery. Judgment affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5109 |
|
Price v. Evans Automotive Repair, Inc
| 23AP-401 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee/cross-appellant Evans Automotive Repair, Inc. on certain of the Prices’ claims brought pursuant to Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”) and certain sections of the Ohio Administrative Code pertaining to consumer transactions. There is no evidence in the record that appellee/cross-appellant knowingly committed the acts described in R.C. 1345.03. Nor have the appellants/cross-appellees identified any evidence in the record supporting their claims that appellee/cross-appellant violated R.C. 1345.02(B)(7), Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-13(C)(9), Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-13(C)(8), and/or Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-13(C)(5) and (6). Without any such evidence, summary judgment in favor of appellee/cross-appellant this claims was entirely proper. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5108 |
|
V.W. v. L.W.
| 24AP-309 | Because appellant did not make hearing transcript necessary for resolution of her assigned error part of the appellate record as required by App.R. 9, we must presume regularity of the proceedings below and validity of the trial court’s judgment without reaching the merits of appellant’s sole assignment of error. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5110 |
|
In re J.C.
| 23AP-83 | The trial court did not err by granting the motion of Franklin County Children Services for permanent custody and the decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Competent, credible evidence supported the trial court’s finding that granting the motion was in the children’s best interests. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5107 |
|
Biskind v. Harris
| 23AP-563 & 23AP-564 | The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA")’s decisions finding that Biskind is a responsible party of Biskind Contract Cleaning, L.L.C. ("BCC") for unpaid sales tax and unpaid withholding tax is reasonable and lawful because those decisions are fully supported by the facts and evidence presented at the hearing. A responsible party may not simply delegate away his or her responsibilities in order to escape liability, and the evidence adduced at the BTA hearing readily shows that pursuant to R.C. 5739.33, as amplified by Ohio Adm. Code 5703-9-49(A) and (C), Biskind is a responsible party for purposes of unpaid sales tax. Likewise, the evidence shows that Biskind had control and/or supervision over BCC’s withholding tax filings and payments because he had direct or indirect authority over the persons charged with doing the actual filing of the returns. The decisions and orders of the BTA are affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
10/22/2024
|
10/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5067 |
|
State v. Wright
| 24AP-444 & 24AP-445 | SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION - FINES - INABILITY TO PAY - POST-CONVICTION MOTION: Trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to substantively reconsider and modify its own valid final judgments imposing fines as part of appellant’s criminal sentence. Thus, trial court did not err in denying appellant’s post-conviction motions requesting waiver of imposed fines due to his inability to pay them. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
10/22/2024
|
10/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5068 |
|
JG Ohio, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce
| 23AP-435 | Common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supported a hearing officer's decision that an applicant for a medical marijuana processor provisional license was not entitled to a change to the score received for its license application. Members of the scoring teams testified at the administrative hearing, explaining the scoring process and the scores given to the applicant. Decision denying appeal of agency order denying license affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/22/2024
|
10/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5066 |
|
State v. Thompson
| 23AP-680 | The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a nunc pro tunc entry because defendant sought a substantive legal change to the underlying decision, and a court may only issue a nunc pro tunc decision to correct a clerical mistake. Additionally, res judicata barred appellate review of the substantive legal change defendant sought as defendant could have raised the issue on direct appeal. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/17/2024
|
10/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5011 |
|
State ex rel. Cincinnati v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-332 | The commission correctly applied R.C. 4123.57 in determining claimant is entitled to permanent partial disability ("PPD") compensation. Employer’s petition for a writ of mandamus denied. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
10/17/2024
|
10/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5010 |
|
State ex rel. Jones v. Tyack
| 24AP-172 | The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas did not err when it dismissed a petition for declaratory judgment directed at the former trial judge and prosecutor. A declaratory judgment action cannot be used to collaterally attack a prior criminal conviction. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/15/2024
|
10/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4978 |
|
State v. Robinson
| 23AP-407 | Appellant’s assignments of error one and three are premised in the alleged failure of the trial court to orally notify him of the mandatory nature of the post-release control sanction and his opposition to the mandatory language imposing post-release control in the judgment entry filed on June 7, 2013. A court of record speaks only through its journal entry and not by oral pronouncement or mere written minute or memorandum. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when finding that the sentence was not voidable. In appellant’s second assignment of error. Under that doctrine of res judicata a defendant cannot raise an issue in a postconviction petition if he or she raised or could have raised the issue at the trial that resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment. Appellant failed to raise the void sentence on direct appeal and is barred from raising void sentence by res judicata and the Supreme Court’s decision in Harper clarifies this. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/15/2024
|
10/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4977 |
|
State ex rel. Cincinnati v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-431 | Because we agree with the commission that the Staff Hearing Officer ("SHO") committed a clear mistake of law in its application of R.C. 4123.68(X), the commission did not abuse its discretion in exercising its continuing jurisdiction on that basis. Writ of mandamus denied. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/10/2024
|
10/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4915 |
|
State v. Hall
| 20AP-434 & 20AP-435 | Appellant’s right to speedy trial not violated, nor did defense counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel; trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea | Leland | Franklin |
10/10/2024
|
10/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4914 |
|
In re J.P.
| 24AP-71 | The juvenile court did not err in denying counsel's request for a continuance to secure mother's attendance at the permanent custody hearing. The juvenile court's conclusion that terminating mother's parental rights and granting permanent custody to the public children services agency was in the child's best interest was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/10/2024
|
10/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4916 |
|
Franklin Univ. v. Sharpe
| 24AP-68 | The trial court erred in failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of Civ.R. 52 to provide written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court additionally erred in stating it was entering judgment pursuant to a motion for summary judgment rather than judgment following a bench trial. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
10/8/2024
|
10/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4881 |
|
Lane v. U.S. Bank N.A.
| 24AP-112 | The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for relief from judgment, although the judgment is affirmed on different grounds. While the trial court did not lack jurisdiction to decide the motion for relief from judgment, it lacked authority to do so based on the law-of-the-case doctrine, because this court had already finally determined on direct appeal that plaintiff-appellant’s claims were barred by absolute privilege. Judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/8/2024
|
10/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4884 |
|
Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-277 | CIVIL ACTION AGAINST STATE - CIV.R. 12(B) DISMISSAL - SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION - R.C. 2743.02; Trial court did not err in dismissing inmate's civil action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction because inmate's complaint failed to properly allege a claim for negligence. To the extent inmate's civil action was based on an alleged violation of his constitutional rights, R.C. 2743.02 limits a plaintiff in the Court of Claims to causes of action against the state that could be brought against a private party. Because a claim for violating an inmate's due process rights could not be brought against a private party, the trial court was correct to dismiss the due process claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Civ.R. 12(B)(1). Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
10/8/2024
|
10/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4885 |
|
Anderson v. WBNS-TV, Inc.
| 23AP-647 | The trial court erred by dismissing plaintiffs’ defamation claims against the defendant television station following a jury trial, based on the trial court’s erroneous determination that the defendant’s statements, which falsely accused the plaintiffs of committing an armed robbery of a child, were protected by qualified privilege. The jury unanimously found that defendant issued a false publication or publications about each of the plaintiffs and that defendant acted with negligence in doing so, but it also found that defendant did not act with actual malice. Because the jury had been instructed, based on the trial court’s erroneous determination that defendant was entitled to a qualified privilege, that it could consider the question of damages only if it concluded that defendant acted with actual malice, the jury returned verdicts for defendant. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, defendant did not waive the defense of qualified privilege, which it raised in its answer to plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendant was not entitled to a qualified privilege, however, because it did not fairly and accurately report the information it received from the Columbus Division of Police, but instead embellished and materially deviated from the information and, of its own accord, falsely accused plaintiffs of committing a violent crime against a child. Plaintiffs’ third assignment of error, challenging the trial court’s jury instructions regarding actual malice, is moot, as is defendants’ cross-appeal regarding the court’s order that the parties share responsibility for unpaid court costs. Judgement reversed. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/8/2024
|
10/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4880 |
|
Leeseberg & Valentine, L.P.A. v. Willman
| 23AP-181 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when it denied appellants’ motion to dismiss appellee’s quantum meruit claim seeking remuneration for legal representation provided to appellants before appellee withdrew as counsel in prior litigation. Because the purported second dismissal was not by a party, but by the trial court, the double-dismissal rule under Civ.R. 41(A)(1) did not prevent appellee from refiling the claim. The trial court did not err when it dismissed appellants’ motion for summary judgment because appellee was not precluded from seeking a claim in quantum meruit simply because it withdrew from representation. Thus, appellants failed to demonstrate that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the claim. The trial court did not erroneously admit hearsay evidence at trial concerning the amount of a mediator’s proposal. The statement was not an oral assertion offered for the truth but was more akin to a verbal act, and appellants’ attorney elicited the same information during direct examination. The manifest weight of the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that appellants constructively terminated the attorney-client relationship and that withdrawal was justified under Rule 1.16 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial court’s fee award was not an abuse of discretion. The amount was not arbitrary because it was based on the settlement amount that was identical to the offer appellee had procured for appellants before the representation ended. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/8/2024
|
10/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4879 |
|
State v. Enyart
| 23AP-642 | Appellant’s Motions to Withdraw No Contest Plea have been previously ruled upon by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Appellant’s assignments of error fail as the issue is res judicata. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/3/2024
|
10/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4802 |
|
State v. Fischer
| 22AP-101 | Judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court is affirmed. Defendant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was based on sufficient evidence. Trial court did not err in admitting an out-of-court statement in testimony to identify the defendant under Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(c). Trial court did not err or violate defendant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination in admitting testimony that the defendant refused to provide his phone passcode to police when defense counsel opened the door to the subject. State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct and defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/3/2024
|
10/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4801 |
|
Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc. v. Rivas
| 24AP-133 | The trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without first affording defendant the time required under Civ.R. 6 to respond to that motion. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/1/2024
|
10/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4772 |
|
In re D.G
| 24AP-29 | Competent, credible evidence supports the probate court’s determination under a clear and convincing evidence standard that appellant is a mentally ill person subject to court order and, thus, subject to involuntary commitment to a mental hospital. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
9/30/2024
|
9/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4759 |
|
Lee v. Capalungan
| 23AP-724 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding parenting time in Australia to mother. However, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering father to be responsible for any of the cost of transportation of the child and the accompanying chaperone to and from the United States and Australia. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
9/30/2024
|
9/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4758 |
|
State v. Childs
| 23AP-485 & 23AP-486 | Appellant's statutory speedy trial rights were not violated where the state complied with the R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) timeframe through tolling events pursuant to R.C. 2945.72. The state met its burden to produce sufficient evidence on each element of R.C. 2921.36(A)(2) to support appellant's illegal conveyance conviction and was not required to produce evidence to disprove the exception in R.C. 2921.36(B). The state also produced sufficient evidence to support appellant's tampering with evidence conviction under R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) where testimony showed appellant took actions to conceal a bag later found to be narcotics in her body and hide the recovered bag from officers. The trial court did not err in declining to merge the offense of possession of cocaine with the already merged offenses of aggravated trafficking of drugs and aggravated possession of drugs since the later offenses related to the fentanyl packaged for sale. Judgment affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
9/26/2024
|
9/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4699 |
|