|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Phillips
| 23AP-147 | The trial court erred by accepting appellant’s guilty plea without strictly complying with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). The trial court did not inform appellant that, by pleading guilty, he was giving up the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses to testify on his behalf. The trial court’s question whether appellant understood he was waiving his right to present any defenses did not reasonably inform appellant that he had the right to utilize the court’s subpoena power to compel witnesses to appear and testify on his behalf. Judgment reversed. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/8/2025
|
4/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1235 |
|
Colt's Neck Homeowners Assn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
| 24AP-273 | The trial court erred by dismissing this administrative appeal concerning a joint county improvement petition without first convening a panel of judges consisting of one judge of the court of common pleas from each of the affected counties, as required by R.C. 6133.10(A). The inclusion of a demand for damages in the notice of appeal did not transform the appeal of an order to proceed with a petition following a first hearing into “an appeal on compensation or damages” for purposes of R.C. 6133.10(A). R.C. 6131.25 provides the right to appeal an order to proceed made at the conclusion of a first hearing on a joint county improvement petition, and appellant is an “affected owner” under R.C. 6131.25(A) who may maintain such an appeal. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/8/2025
|
4/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1236 |
|
State v. Gordon
| 24AP-552 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed appellant’s eighth postconviction petition without a hearing. The petition was filed over twenty years after judgment. Therefore, it is untimely and no exceptions applied. In addition, res judicata bars the issues raised in the petition. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/8/2025
|
4/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1237 |
|
Eric Petroleum Corp. v. Vendel
| 24AP-272 & 24AP-275 | To have standing to appeal a Chief’s Order pursuant to R.C. 1509.36, a person must demonstrate he or she was “adversely affected” by showing the Order produced an effect that is harmful to his or her interest, i.e., an actual injury or a realistic danger of injury arising from the challenged action that is not so remote as to be merely speculative. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment holding otherwise was reversed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/8/2025
|
4/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1238 |
|
State v. Cox
| 24AP-305 | Judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court is affirmed, appellant has not shown that her counsel’s actions denied her effective assistance of counsel. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/8/2025
|
4/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1239 |
|
State v. Tarver
| 23AP-640 | Appellant’s rape convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the victim’s testimony established all necessary elements of the rape charges, and the jury did not lose its way in resolving conflicts in the evidence and believing the victim’s account. The trial court did not plainly err by failing to sua sponte merge two rape offenses after defense counsel conceded that the offenses should not merge. The jury’s not-guilty verdict for gross sexual imposition was not impermissibly inconsistent with its guilty verdicts for rape. Appellant did not establish plain error in the admission of the victim’s narrative statement to a sexual assault nurse examiner where the statement was merely cumulative to the victim’s testimony. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/3/2025
|
4/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1190 |
|
Ohio Veterans & Fraternal Charitable Coalition, Inc. v. Charitable Mgt. & Capital Group, L.L.C.
| 24AP-353 | Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part. The parties’ contract required appellee to pay appellant two percent of the income derived from electronic raffle machines operating “Raffle 3.0 or other legal upgraded charitable electronic games.” The trial court did not err by finding the plain and unambiguous meaning of the term “legal” in the contract meant conformance with statutory laws. Because the electronic raffle machines operating the Raffle 2.0 software did not comply with the charitable gaming laws in R.C. Ch. 2915, the Raffle 2.0 machines were not “legal” charitable electronic games. Therefore, the two percent fee described in the contract did not apply to the machines operating Raffle 2.0. Appellee admitted it breached the parties’ contract by failing to pay appellant two percent of its gross revenue from the machines operating the Raffle 3.0 software and claimed the damages resulting from the breach totaled $581.17. However, the evidence appellee presented demonstrated the damages resulting from the Raffle 3.0 machines totaled $2,375.89. As such, we found genuine issues of material fact regarding the damages resulting from appellee’s admitted breach of contract and reversed, in part, the trial court’s decision granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Because the trial court did not address the parties’ arguments regarding the meaning of a term in the contract, this court would not address the arguments in the first instance on appeal. The trial court did not err by granting appellee summary judgment on appellant’s claim for an accounting. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/3/2025
|
4/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1191 |
|
State v. Figueroa-Benitez
| 23AP-749 | Trial court erred by imposing sentence that was contrary to law because it was outside the mandatory range provided by statute. Judgment reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment entry and plea agreement. | Dorrian, J. | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1146 |
|
Marshall v. Franklin Cty. Treasurer
| 24AP-91 | Judgment affirmed. Because the Franklin County Treasurer and the Franklin County Auditor are political subdivisions engaged in governmental functions and therefore “not liable in damages in a civil action” under the immunity granted by R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), the trial court did not err when sustaining their motion for judgment on the pleadings in a civil suit filed by a taxpayer seeking damages from them for allegedly misidentifying her as a property owner and sending her a bill for unpaid taxes. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1147 |
|
In re B.W.
| 24AP-182 | Appellant’s adjudication for rape was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in permitting testimony of nurse that a normal exam is consistent with sexual abuse. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by not reopening the evidence to allow testimony of juvenile who opted not to testify during the adjudicatory hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1148 |
|
Tanner v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-241 | The Court of Claims did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the employer in a racial discrimination action. Plaintiff was not able to establish that the comparable individual was similarly situated, and thus failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1149 |
|
Crosscut Capital, L.L.C. v. DeWitt
| 24AP-278 | Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements in App.R. 16. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1150 |
|
State v. Williams
| 24AP-292 | EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - MANIFEST WEIGHT - COMPLICITY - INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Convictions for offenses involving a shooting death and felonious assault of another were supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant’s identity as a principal offender or an aider and abettor in the offenses was established by video evidence and witness testimony. Because the state satisfied its burden in disproving, beyond a reasonable doubt, any claim of self-defense in this case, defendant cannot establish the prejudice required to support his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1151 |
|
State v. Cherry
| 24AP-351 & 24AP-352 | The trial court erred in failing to allocate any jail-time credit to case No. 23CR-3214 as some portion of appellant’s pre-sentence confinement was attributable only to that case. Any error in allocating jail-time credit to case No. 24CR-440 cannot be corrected as appellant has completed his imposed sentence of time served in that case. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for trial court to allocate appropriate number of jail-time credit days to case No. 23CR-3214. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1152 |
|
Columbus v. DeWitt
| 24AP-12 | On appeal of dismissal of operating a vehicle impaired ("OVI"), operating without license, driving with suspended license, failure to control, and refusing a chemical alcohol test while having a prior OVI conviction within the preceding 20 years, the City of Columbus asserts that the trial court committed plain error by dismissing the charges based on a violation of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Review of the record demonstrates that dismissal pursuant to R.C. 2941.401 is improper because that statute’s 180-day clock had not expired on the date of the dismissal, and dismissal based on R.C. 2945.71 is improper because the speedy trial clock was tolled between June 13, 2023 and September 19, 2023, and between October 19, 2023 and November 6, 2023 pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(H). The City of Columbus’ sole assignment of error is sustained, and the judgment dismissing the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1067 |
|
State v. Cunningham
| 24AP-260 | Order dismissing charge based on finding of incompetence to stand trial affirmed. Appellant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel in seeking second competency evaluation because she does not contest the psychologist’s observations or conclusions and did not establish a reasonable probability of a different outcome if her counsel acted differently. Trial court did not err by finding appellant incompetent to stand trial because the second evaluation report was reliable and credible evidence supporting the trial court’s decision. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1068 |
|
State v. Ndiaye
| 24AP-306 | Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress; judgment of conviction affirmed | Leland | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1069 |
|
State v. Walker
| 24AP-329 | Defendant's convictions for Rape, Kidnapping, Attempted Rape, and Felonious Assault were supported by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, Defendant failed to show on appeal that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1070 |
|
Konkel v. Ohio Parole Bd.
| 24AP-464 | Because appellant failed to raise a cognizable claim that the Ohio Parole Board denied him meaningful consideration for parole, the trial court did not err in granting the board’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1071 |
|
Hopkins v. Certificate of Qualification for Emp.
| 24AP-502 | The trial court abused its discretion in denying petition for certificate of qualification for employment under R.C. 2953.25(C)(3) without first considering the rebuttable presumption in favor of granting the petition contained in R.C. 2953.25(C)(5). Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further consideration in accordance with the statutory framework set forth in R.C. 2953.25. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1072 |
|
In re Estate of Carter
| 24AP-518 | The probate court did not err in interpreting the language in the decedent’s will that bequeathed to his daughter a motor vehicle of her choice other than “the one used by my wife.” Additionally, the probate court did not err in determining from the evidence that the motor vehicle the daughter chose did not qualify as the motor vehicle the decedent’s wife used at the time of the decedent’s death. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1073 |
|
State v. Elkhabiry
| 22AP-445 | Appellant’s convictions for aggravated murder and having a weapon while under disability, both with accompanying firearm specifications, were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, nor were they based on legally insufficient evidence, where appellant was found hiding in the trunk of his girlfriend’s car with the murder weapon minutes after a shooting. Appellant’s right to confront witnesses under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution was not violated by the state’s failure to produce the witnesses heard on the video recordings of law enforcement officers’ body-worn cameras because their statements, made minutes after the shooting, had the primary purpose of assisting the officers during an ongoing emergency and were therefore nontestimonial in nature. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1028 |
|
State ex rel. Huber v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-164 | The magistrate correctly found there was some evidence in the record supporting the commission’s order denying temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation for the period of September 7, 2022 through November 7, 2022. The magistrate further correctly found the commission’s determination denying relator’s second request for TTD compensation for an identical time period was entirely proper based upon principles of res judicata. Writ of mandamus denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1029 |
|
Wilkes v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
| 24AP-106 | Because a reasonably prudent person would foresee that vandals would use the removal of the protective fencing on the north side of an overpass to throw or drop objects onto the highway below, the Ohio Department of Transportation owed a special duty to the motorists on the highway to take adequate measures to prevent vandalism. The Ohio Department of Transportation breached its duty to a passenger in a vehicle traveling on the highway below the overpass because it took no measures to prevent future vandalism after removing the protective fencing from the overpass. A reasonably prudent person would anticipate that taking no measures to prevent vandalism would result in damage to persons and property from the projectiles launched from the overpass. Thus, the passenger’s death was a natural and probable consequence of the Ohio Department of Transportation’s negligence. Finally, the Ohio Department of Transportation was not entitled to discretionary immunity where it did not make a discretionary policy decision to take no action but, instead, took no action because it did not perceive a problem. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1030 |
|
Wilkes v. Wilkes
| 24AP-210 | Judgment reversed. Although appellant did not answer the complaint for divorce, appellant’s appearance at the final hearing and statement informing the trial court she “needed more time” to answer the complaint should have alerted the court to the fact she intended to contest some issue in the divorce. Because the trial court did not offer appellant an opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine the witnesses, or present an argument at the final hearing, the court erred by denying her a meaningful opportunity to participate in the final hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to continue the final hearing. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1031 |
|
Fong v. Faires
| 24AP-467 | The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees because it incorrectly applied the requirements of the saving statute, R.C. 2903.19. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1032 |
|
State ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-553 | On review of magistrate’s decision in this public records case, recommending dismissal of petition for writ of mandamus for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25. As relator failed to file objections, and as we have found no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, we adopt it as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law as they are set forth in the decision. Respondent Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. ("ODRC")’s motion to dismiss is granted, relator’s complaint is dismissed, and relator’s motion for default judgment is dismissed as moot. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1033 |
|
Keil v. Ohio Atty. Gen.
| 24AP-654 | The magistrate properly applied the relevant law to the facts of the case concluding that the respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted as the relators can prove no set of facts entitling them to the relief they seek in mandamus. Moreover, while the respondent did not technically comply with Loc.R. 2(E), the error is harmless and cannot provide a basis for reversal as there was no delay or prejudice from the respondent serving the relators by email. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate’s decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. The relators’ objections are overruled, and we dismiss the relators’ complaint for a writ of mandamus. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1034 |
|
C.T.F. v. A.B.M.
| 24AP-440 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in issuing its decision and judgment entry adopting the December 15, 2023 magistrate’s decision in which the magistrate granted sole custody of the parties’ minor child to Father, with parenting time for Mother to be determined, and overruling Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1036 |
|
State ex rel. Castellon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 23AP-565 | Relator filed no objection to the magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss the mandamus complaint because its accompanying affidavit failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25. Finding no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, it is adopted in full and the relator’s complaint is dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/20/2025
|
3/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-972 |
|
Robol v. Columbus
| 24AP-348 | The trial court did not err in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment on appellant’s claims related to appellees’ implementation and enforcement of COVID-19 policies and protocols. The statute of limitations bars appellant’s claims related to certain Columbus City Council meetings in 2020, and both the City of Columbus and individual employees of the city are entitled to immunity on appellant’s intentional tort claims brought under state law. Appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on his claims of infringement of his right to religious expression, deprivation of civil rights, infringement of his freedom of speech and of the press, violations of the Takings Clause, and conspiracy. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in impliedly denying the motion to compel discovery by ruling on the motion for summary judgment, and we deny appellant’s motion to take judicial notice. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/20/2025
|
3/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-973 |
|
Lutsko v. Ohio Health Corp.
| 24AP-399 | Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant’s claim alleging a violation of the right to privacy. | Leland | Franklin |
3/20/2025
|
3/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-974 |
|
State v. Arroyo-Garcia
| 24AP-535 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiff did not properly serve the defendant pursuant to Civ.R. 4.4(A)(1). The trial court, therefore, did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment based on the trial court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-913 |
|
Moe v. Yost
| 24AP-483 | R.C. 3129.02(A)(2) — GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE — MEDICAL CARE OF CHILDREN — PARENTS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS — DUE COURSE OF LAW — HEALTH CARE FREEDOM AMENDMENT: The trial court erred in applying rational basis review to parents' claim that R.C. 3129.02(A)(2)'s categorical ban on gender-affirming pharmaceutical medical care for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria violates parents’ fundamental right under the Ohio Constitution to direct and obtain medical treatment for their children that has been recommended by qualified medical professionals and is consistent with the prevailing standards of care. Such a sweeping and inflexible ban on parents’ ability to access medical care for their children is not narrowly tailored to advance the state’s articulated interest: the protection of children. Applying strict scrutiny, R.C. 3129.02(A)(2) facially violates Ohio parents’ right to substantive due process under the Due Course of Law Clause of the Ohio Constitution. Moreover, R.C. 3129.02(A)(2) facially violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment to the Ohio Constitution, as adopted by voters, because it impermissibly prohibits parents, acting on behalf of their minor children, from accessing treatment protocols in accordance with the standards of care and guidelines widely accepted in the professional medical community to treat gender dysphoria in minors by subjecting medical care providers who follow accepted medical practices to professional discipline. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for imposition of a permanent injunction as to enforcement of R.C. 3129.02(A)(2)’s categorical ban on transgender minors’ access to gender-affirming pharmaceutical medical care. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-914 |
|
Pannell v. McCall
| 24AP-473 | ADMINISTRATIVE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER – OHIO ADM.CODE 5101:12-45-05.3(D) – CONTEMPT – R.C. 2705.02: Because father did not timely object to the administrative child support order in the manner provided by Ohio Adm.Code 5101:12-45-05.3(D) and uncontroverted evidence established he had actual notice of the hearing and a full and fair opportunity to appear and defend against issuance of that order, the trial court did not err in adopting, over father’s objections, the magistrate’s decision enforcing the administrative child support order as an order of the court and finding Mr. McCall in contempt for nonpayment of child support. Judgment affirmed | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-915 |
|
State v. White
| 24AP-430 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for sentencing on an alleged “hanging charge” for an offense of felonious assault underlying appellant’s felony murder conviction because the argument was barred by res judicata and based on an erroneous understanding of the felony murder conviction. | Dorrian, J. | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-916 |
|
In re Guardianship of A.K.
| 24AP-297 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s objections to a magistrate’s decision and approving and adopting the magistrate’s decision regarding the guardianship of appellant’s daughter. | Dorrian, J. | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-917 |
|
State v. King
| 23AP-727 | Appellant's convictions for purposeful and felony murder with firearm specifications were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court erred in permitting introduction of a business card representing appellant’s involvement in a rap music production business, but error did not affect substantial rights and, therefore, was harmless. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-918 |
|
Cruz v. Cruz
| 23AP-534 | Judgment affirmed. In this appeal challenging the amount ordered child support, appellant failed to rebut the presumption under R.C. 3119.03 that the trial court ordered “the correct amount of child support due,” or that the trial court abused its discretion when applying the provisions of R.C. 3119.231 that govern a downward deviation in child support based on extended parenting time with the obligor. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-919 |
|
State v. Diallo
| 23AP-496 | Appellant’s convictions affirmed because they were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Based on the record contained on direct appeal, appellant cannot establish that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call witnesses or failing to advise appellant to testify at trial. The trial court did not err by referring to a determination of appellant’s ‘guilt or innocence,’ because no reasonable juror would believe the incidental reference to innocence shifted the state’s burden of proof. The trial court committed a clerical error by including consecutive-sentence findings in the sentencing entry that were not made at the sentencing hearing, in addition to consecutive-sentence findings that were made at the sentencing hearing, but that error can be corrected through a nunc pro tunc entry. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/18/2025
|
3/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-920 |
|
State v. Lucas
| 23AP-400 | Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. As the state concedes, the trial court erred by failing to strictly comply with the jury waiver requirements of R.C. 2945.05 before conducting the bench trial that resulted in appellant’s convictions for felonious assault and having a weapon while under disability. Appellant’s assignments of error challenging the trial court’s evidentiary rulings are moot, but remand does not moot his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Based on the testimony of the victim, which was corroborated by an audio recording of the incident, as well as the certified copies of appellant’s previous convictions, the state’s evidence was legally sufficient to convict appellant on both counts. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/13/2025
|
3/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-845 |
|
State ex rel. Papageorgiou v. Avalotis Corp.
| 23AP-689 | Some evidence in the record supported the commission’s denial of relator’s request for temporary total disability compensation. Because the commission did not abuse its discretion, the first joint objection is sustained; the second joint objection is overruled as moot; and the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. Action dismissed. | Leland | Franklin |
3/13/2025
|
3/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-846 |
|
Save Ohio Parks v. Oil & Gas Land Mgt. Comm.
| 24AP-206 | The trial court did not err in granting the motion of appellee Oil and Gas Land Management Commission’s to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1). The Commission’s approval of the seven nominations at issue in this matter was not subject to appeal under R.C. 119.12 because the approvals were not adjudicatory orders of a state agency performing a licensing function. Nor did the trial court err in finding that even if there were a right to appeal the nomination approvals under R.C. 119.12, appellants in this case lacked standing to do so. Finally, the trial court did not err in addressing the issue of standing after it had already found the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/13/2025
|
3/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-847 |
|
In re Adoption of J.H.J.
| 24AP-397 | The trial court did not err in determining birth father’s consent to the adoption was not required pursuant to R.C. 3107.07(A) where birth father failed to have more than de minimis contact with the child in the year preceding the filing of the adoption petition. Birth father did not file timely objections to the magistrate’s decision, and birth father did not demonstrate plain error from the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision that his consent to the adoption was not required. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/13/2025
|
3/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-848 |
|
State ex rel. McCartney v. Simco Mgt., Inc.
| 24AP-13 | In determining whether new and changed circumstances existed under R.C. 4123.58(G), the commission staff hearing officer committed legal error in ignoring the amendment of R.C. 4123.58(D)(3) and the report of the independent specialist that the relator is unable to work due to an allowed condition. Because the independent specialist’s report is relevant to why the relator is not working, it constitutes new and changed circumstances that affects the prior denial of permanent total disability compensation. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/6/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-753 |
|
La Riccia v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.
| 24AP-501 | The Court of Claims did not err in granting the commission’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6). Despite appellants’ framing of their claims as gross negligence, fraud, and civil conspiracy, it is clear from the face of the complaint they are seeking review and reversal of the administrative decision denying the discrimination claim, and the Court of Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review the commission’s administrative determination. Additionally, because appellants did not allege an underlying primary tort from which the loss of consortium claim could derive, appellants failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for their loss of consortium claim. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/6/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-754 |
|
State v. Nix
| 24AP-557 | POSTCONVICTION PETITION — R.C. 2953.23: The trial court did not err in dismissing defendant’s untimely petition for postconviction relief where defendant failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2953.23. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/6/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-756 |
|
State v. Berry
| 23AP-149 | JUVENILE COURT – MANDATORY BINDOVER – JURISDICTION – R.C. 2151.23(H) – POSTCONVICTION PETITION: The trial court did not err in finding it had jurisdiction to convict defendant of murder and attempted murder as an adult because the juvenile court found probable cause to believe he committed these two offenses following bindover proceedings. Moreover, because defendant’s postconviction petition was untimely and he did not argue either of the exceptions in R.C. 2953.23(A) permitting untimely postconviction petitions applied, the trial court correctly determined it lacked authority to consider the untimely postconviction petition. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/4/2025
|
3/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-716 |
|
State v. McKinney
| 24AP-409 | On defendant’s appeal of trial court ruling denying motion for de novo resentencing. Following Harper, Hudson, and Bates, trial court correctly held that defendant’s motion was barred by res judicata, as the motion did not address the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction or whether the case was properly before the trial court when decided. Assignment of error overruled and judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-680 |
|
State ex rel. Henry v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-506 | The commission abused its discretion in denying the application for temporary total disability compensation where the commission did not rely on some evidence to support the denial of compensation for the entirety of the requested period. The commission additionally abused its discretion in denying the application for compensation under R.C. 4123.56(F) without first considering the additional restrictions on the claimant’s ability to return to work stemming from the newly allowed condition. Respondents’ objections overruled; limited writ of mandamus granted; and matter remanded for reconsideration of the application for temporary total disability compensation. | Edelstein | Franklin |
2/27/2025
|
2/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-658 |
|