|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Blank v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
| 23AP-183 | The trial court improperly accorded claim-preclusive effect to appellant’s R.C. 4112.02 retaliation claim based upon the District Court’s judgment of dismissal. The District Court’s decision dismissing appellant’s Title VII retaliation claim “with prejudice” for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, on the unique procedural facts of this case, did not serve to bar appellant from pursuing a R.C. 4112.02 retaliation claim in state court. The District Court’s judgment did not meet the first element of res judicata/claim preclusion as it was not a judgment on the merits. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the retaliation claim. However, the trial court properly accorded claim-preclusive effect to appellant’s R.C. 4112.02 race discrimination claim based upon the District Court’s judgment of dismissal. The judgment met all the elements of res judicata/claim preclusion. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the race discrimination claim. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in part. Judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part. Case is remanded to the trial court. | Dorrian, J. | Franklin |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2500 |
|
State ex rel. Diamond v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-360 | We adopt the magistrate's findings of fact and revise some conclusions of law. The evidence showed the amputation of relator's left middle finger severed some of his proximal phalanx, and R.C. 4123.57(B) thus required the commission to award relator the total loss of that finger. The commission's finding that relator lost no more than two-thirds of his left index finger, however, was supported by some evidence in the record. The requested writ of mandamus is granted in part and denied in part. | Leland, J. | Franklin |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2499 |
|
Badawi v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.
| 23AP-444 | The Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting rebuttal testimony from witness after rendering pretrial ruling allowing such testimony only under certain circumstances that did not occur at trial. The court did not improperly rely on a medical text to reach its judgment because the text is a learned treatise under Evid.R. 803(18) and was discussed by expert witnesses at trial. Nothing in the court’s final decision suggests the court reversed its earlier directed verdicts on informed consent and negligent training. The court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony of doctor who was member of the hospital’s peer review committee because the hospital repeatedly invoked the peer review committee privilege during the doctor’s deposition and the doctor was unable to separate out independent source knowledge from information he learned through work on the committee. Even if the trial court erred in finding one of three medical providers acted negligently, such error would be harmless because the hospital is already liable for the negligent acts of the other two providers whose negligence was not challenged on appeal. Finally, expert testimony was not necessary to establish permanency of parents’ mental injury because it is self-evident from the circumstances of the case. However, even if such expert testimony would have been necessary, parents’ treating psychologist provided sufficient testimony. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein, J. | Franklin |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2503 |
|
Irani v. AMF Bowling Co.
| 23AP-654 | The trial court did not err in ruling that plaintiff’s retained expert witness, who was not timely disclosed, could not testify in plaintiff’s case-in-chief or on rebuttal. However, the trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing plaintiff’s action under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) when plaintiff’s violations of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s orders did not warrant such a severe sanction. | Jamison, J. | Franklin |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2504 |
|
State v. Craine
| 23AP-359 | Following no contest plea, defendant’s challenge to warrants to search two locations overruled and judgment of conviction affirmed. Defendant did not make the preliminary showing required to demonstrate that he was entitled to a hearing challenging the truth of the statements in the search warrant affidavit pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, trial court did not err in refusing to order state to disclose identities of confidential informants prior to trial where the evidence provided by those informants was not directly related to the elements of the offenses with which defendant was charged and convicted, and trial court did not err by overruling defendant’s motions to suppress based on stale information. Even assuming warrants probable cause, officers who executed the warrants were entitled to rely in good faith on magistrate’s determination of probable cause in facially valid warrants. Assignments of error overruled and judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt, J. | Franklin |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2501 |
|
State ex rel. Urban v. Wano Expiditing Inc.
| 22AP-164 | WORKERS’ COMPENSATION — PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY — OAC 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i): SHO failed to fully comply with Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i)’s requirement that allowed psychological conditions to be considered in combination with the allowed physical conditions when assessing an injured worker’s application for PTD compensation. By omitting some of the psychological limitations contained in the report on which the SHO’s order relied (namely, injured worker’s need for ability to take break from tasks) and failing to reference Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i) or its operative language in its decision, record does not support finding that SHO fully analyzed whether the entirety of injured worker’s psychological restrictions in combination with the physical restrictions rendered injured worker eligible for PTD compensation, as required by Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i). Objection to magistrate’s decision sustained; writ of mandamus granted. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2461 |
|
State ex rel. Arline v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-420 | Because relator did not timely notify BWC or the commission of her change of address, the commission did not abuse its discretion in determining there was some evidence to support its conclusion that relator’s failure to receive notice of the commission’s order was not due to circumstances beyond her control and/or that relator’s failure to receive the order was due to her own fault or neglect, and, therefore she was not entitled to relief under R.C. 4123.522. Writ of mandamus denied. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2463 |
|
State v. Worrell
| 23AP-611 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to remove him from the sex offender registry. Judgment affirmed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2464 |
|
State v. Jordan
| 23AP-256 | The trial court’s explanation for denying appellant’s application under R.C. 2953.73(D) was reasonable and was not contrary to law. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s application as DNA testing was generally accepted, the results of DNA testing were generally admissible in evidence, and DNA testing was available at the time of trial. The trial court’s alternative determination that DNA testing on the requested items would not prove outcome determinative was also reasonable. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2462 |
|
State v. Cameron
| 23AP-635 | DEADLY FORCE - SELF DEFENSE - JURY INSTRUCTION - EXPERT REPORT DISCLOSURE - CRIM.R. 16(K) - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - MANIFEST WEIGHT: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying self-defense instruction in murder trial where, even when viewed in the light most favorable to appellant, evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to show appellant actually believed he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, much less support any finding that such belief would have been reasonable. Although the state violated Crim.R. 16(K) by untimely producing ballistics expert's report concerning bullets recovered from the victim's body to a firearm seized from the location where appellant was arrested, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the state to present evidence and testimony concerning that report where appellant admitted in his video-recorded police interview played in open court to brandishing a firearm and stealing a truck of another man after the shooting, appellant's aggravated robbery conviction following a bench trial was supported by suffcient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2427 |
|
Omni Energy Group, L.L.C. v. Vendel
| 23AP-361 | The trial court erred in applying the wrong standard of review because the proper standard of review in this case is the standard of review applicable to appeals brought pursuant to R.C. 119.12, not R.C. 1509.37. The trial court further erred and violated appellant’s due process rights by refusing to conduct a hearing and/or include evidence sufficient to determine the rights of the parties as permitted by (former) R.C. 119.12 (K) and as required by due process. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2439 |
|
Gardner v. Das
| 23AP-497 | The trial court properly found that an agreement to stipulate liability is not a stipulation unless approved by the court and that a stipulation of liability is not a partial settlement agreement. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2429 |
|
State v. Hough
| 23AP-478 | Trial court did not impose vindictive sentence following appellant’s successful appeal of his first conviction; trial court affirmatively stated its reasons for sentence imposed and stated reasons for increased sentence were not pretextual | Leland | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2430 |
|
State v. Cumberlander
| 23AP-90 | Jury did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice when it found that the state disproved beyond a reasonable doubt defendant’s claim that he acted in self-defense or defense of another when he committed felonious assault. | Dorrian | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2431 |
|
Moon v. Moon
| 23AP-553 | In this divorce case, we find the trial court erred in effectively requiring appellant to finance appellee’s retention of the marital residence. The trial court also erred, as part of its division and allocation of marital assets and liabilities, in not considering the interest on credit cards arising from his purchases on those cards after the de facto termination date of the marriage. The trial court did not err, however, in directing the parties to sell the timeshare purchased during the marriage. Judgment affirmed in part, and reversed in part; cause remanded. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2428 |
|
Wright-Patt Credit Union v. Nunley
| 23AP-509 | Summary judgment affirmed. Although the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment two days before the plaintiff's time to respond expired, the error was harmless because the result would have been the same, as the defendant established there were no genuine issues of material fact and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | Dorrian | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2340 |
|
State v. Johnston
| 22AP-09 | On appeal by State of Ohio, trial court judgment imposing definite sentence of four years incarceration for second-degree felony burglary reversed and cause remanded for a new sentencing hearing and sentence that complies with State v. Hacker, 2023-Ohio-2535, 173 Ohio St.3d 219. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2337 |
|
Calypso Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. 180 Indus., L.L.C.
| 22AP-718 | Sanctions, Frivolous conduct, Attorney fees | Baldwin | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2339 |
|
State ex rel. Liberty Steel Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-169 | In this original action in mandamus, in which relator seeks a writ ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its finding that relator committed a violation of a specific safety requirement that was the proximate cause of claimant's injury, the decision of the magistrate is adopted and part and rejected in part. The magistrate’s decision is adopted with respect to its recommendation to dismiss the claimant’s motion to dismiss as moot, as well as with respect to the issues raised in relator’s first and second objections, which are overruled. The magistrate’s decision is rejected insofar as it finds that the commission did not abuse its discretion by failing to address relator’s arguments under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-17(I)(1) and (J), and insofar as it recommends denying the writ. We grant a limited writ and remand this matter to the commission only for consideration of relator’s arguments concerning the application of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-17(I)(1) and (J). The commission’s motion to dismiss its Chairman Jim Hughes as a party is overruled as moot. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2338 |
|
State ex rel. Allen v. Miller
| 24AP-86 | Because respondent had issued a judgment on the matters listed in relator’s complaint, the procedendo action is moot. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2346 |
|
Nippon Sushi & Steak, L.L.C. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.
| 23AP-527 | Judgment affirmed. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction an administrative appeal filed by appellant, Nippon Sushi and Steak, L.L.C. (“Nippon”), from two orders by defendant-appellee, the Ohio Liquor Control Commission (the “commission”). The common pleas court correctly determined that Nippon did not file a timely response to the commission’s motion to dismiss, and its decision granting that motion did not deny Nippon the opportunity to respond. Neither Civ.R. 6(C)(1), which provides for an extended 28-day response period with respect to motions for summary judgment, nor Loc. R. 53.01 extended the 14-day response period for Nippon to respond to the commission’s motion to dismiss. Nippon did not perfect its appeal in accordance with R.C. 119.12(D) and 4301.28(C) because the commission did not receive Nippon’s notice of appeal within 21 days after the commission mailed its orders. Therefore, the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction over Nippon’s appeal. The common pleas court did not err by not considering Nippon’s motion for reconsideration and motion for relief from judgment, as neither type of motion is properly filed in an administrative appeal. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2341 |
|
Hayes v. Baldwin
| 23AP-722 | The magistrate did not err in concluding that petitioner’s noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A), (C), and 2725.04 warrants dismissal of this action. Objections overruled; case dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2343 |
|
Village at Galloway Run Condominium Assn. v. Taylor
| 23AP-732 | CIV.R. 60(B) – EXCUSABLE NEGLECT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – PRO SE LITIGANT: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying condominium owner’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment without a hearing where owner did not refute condominium association’s contention that he violated HOA rules and regulations in owner’s pro se answer and response in opposition to the association’s summary judgment motion. After trial court entered judgment against him, owner sought relief by claiming excusable neglect based on his lack of understanding of the applicable law and legal standards due to his pro se status. Because pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures, such unawareness did not constitute excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B)(1). Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2344 |
|
State ex rel. Robinson v. Chambers-Smith
| 24AP-99 | Because Relator failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 at the time of filing his complaint, the action must be dismissed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2347 |
|
State ex rel. Ellis v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 23AP-775 | Because relator does not demonstrate his underlying convictions and sentences were void, relator cannot establish OAPA patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over his parole proceedings, and, thus, cannot demonstrate entitlement to a writ of prohibition. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2345 |
|
Algoma Group, A Gen. Partnership v. Marchbanks
| 23AP-535 | In an action for declaratory judgment and injunction by landowners challenging the necessity of appropriations for public use and the type of appraisals to support a good faith offer prior to instituting appropriation proceedings under Revised Code Chapters 163 and 5501, summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Ohio Department of Transportation and Director Jack Marchbanks (collectively “ODOT”) was warranted where the properties are being acquired to improve State Route 315 and the appraisals were sufficient as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2342 |
|
State v. Scott
| 22AP-475 | MARSY'S LAW - RIGHT TO TIMELY RESTITUTION - SUSPENSION OF RESTITUTION DURING INCARCERATION: Sentencing court's preemptive suspension of defendant's obligation to pay ordered restitution while defendant is incarcerated due to his present and future inability to pay violated victim's Marsy's Law right to timely restitution under Article I, Section 10a(A)(7) of the Ohio Constitution. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2274 |
|
Villavicencio v. Columbus
| 23AP-765 | PROHIBITION – CIV.R. 12(B)(6): Environmental court had subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the orders challenged in relator’s complaint for a writ of prohibition and appellate district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a request for a prohibitory injunction. Magistrate's decision adopted; respondent's motion to dismiss granted; complaint for writ of prohibition dismissed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2276 |
|
State v. Chapple
| 23AP-404 | The trial court did not err in accepting Chapple's Alford plea as knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, and the trial court's imposition of the jointly recommended sentence was authorized by law and not subject to appellate review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2275 |
|
State v. Khalif
| 23AP-274 | The trial court did not err in denying Khalif’s motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy, did not plainly err in instructing the jury on the offense of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises, and did not provide an incorrect statement of the law in instructing the jury on self-defense. Additionally, Khalif’s conviction of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, Khalif did not demonstrate plain error from prosecutorial misconduct, and Khalif did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. However, because the verdict form did not contain the degree of the offense or any aggravating elements, the jury verdict form supports only a conviction of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises as a first-degree misdemeanor, and the three-year firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A) cannot be attached to a misdemeanor offense. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/11/2024
|
6/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2239 |
|
State ex rel. Saia v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-667 | Petition for a writ of mandamus is denied and objections to the magistrate’s decision are overruled. Industrial Commission of Ohio’s denial of Saia’s request to participate in vocational rehabilitation was not an abuse of discretion as some evidence in the record supported Saia was not feasible for vocational rehabilitation. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/11/2024
|
6/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2238 |
|
State v. Diaw
| 22AP-614 | The trial court erred by granting Mr. Diaw’s motion to suppress. The trial court first erred by finding that a violation of R.C. 2935.23 permitted the suppression of evidence obtained through third-party investigative subpoenas. While the trial court was correct in its determination that the investigative subpoena to Letgo was overly broad, suppression of the evidence was not appropriate as Mr. Diaw had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information voluntarily disclosed in the investigative subpoenas. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/11/2024
|
6/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2237 |
|
Mangan v. Morocho & Garcia Constr., L.L.C.
| 23AP-397 | Damages award pursuant to default judgment affirmed. Although the certified mail return receipt for service of the summons and complaint contained illegible markings in the recipient signature and address fields, a presumption of valid service arose from compliance with the civil rules and appellant failed to present any record evidence to rebut that presumption. The trial court magistrate did not abuse his discretion in determining the amount of damages to be awarded. Appellant did not object to the magistrate's decision, thereby waiving all but plain error on appeal and failed to argue or demonstrate plain error. | Dorrian | Franklin |
6/11/2024
|
6/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2241 |
|
Craver v. Haefner
| 23AP-448 | The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, did not err when it adopted a magistrate’s decision and modified appellant’s child-support obligation. Appellant’s appellate brief does not comply with App.R. 16(A), notably because it does not contain a statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected. Noncompliance with the appellate rules constitutes good cause for dismissal of an appeal. Appellant erroneously argued that his obligation to pay child support is a contractual obligation. Craver’s other arguments—based on federal statutes and vague allegations of a violation of due process—lack merit. Judgment affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
6/11/2024
|
6/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2242 |
|
Rhoads v. Olde Worthington Business Assn.
| 23AP-324 | Trial court did not err in granting defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, defamation, tortious interference with contract, and civil conspiracy. Trial court did not err in determining contracts were integrated. | Dorrian | Franklin |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2178 |
|
Columbus Mun. Corp. v. Wiltshire Capital Partners, LP
| 23AP-513 | The trial court's July 24, 2023 decision & entry was not a final appealable order, and we lack jurisdiction to review Wiltshire's assignments of error. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2180 |
|
State v. I.T.
| 23AP-694 | SENTENCING – MAXIMUM PENALTY – R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(a) – PRESENTECE INVESTIGATION REPORT – CONSIDERATION OF REDUCED OR DISMISSED CHARGES: Trial court did nor err in considering reduced and dismissed sex offenses before sentencing defendant to the maximum prison term of 60 months for a third-degree sexual battery offense where PSI report described defendant’s admissions to the other sex offenses reported by victim and R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(a) required the trial court to consider, among other things, any PSI report prepared pursuant to R.C. 2951.03(A). Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2182 |
|
Cline v. Wedgewood Hills HOA
| 23AP-470 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to intervene as the proposed motion failed to comply with Civ.R. 24(C) as it was not accompanied by a pleading as described in Civ.R. 7(A). Cline’s remaining assignments of error are dismissed due to lack of standing. Judgment affirmed; appeal dismissed in part. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2179 |
|
Darling v. Am. Fedn. of State, Cty., & Mun. Emp.
| 23AP-645 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss appellants’ claims. Because none of appellants’ claims are independent of the collective bargaining rights created by R.C. Chapter 4117, their complaint is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ohio State Employment Relations Board and the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2181 |
|
1116 Hudson, L.L.C. v. Dry Creek Mtge., Inc.
| 23AP-729 | The decision and order of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is not a final appealable order, and this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal and cross-appeal. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2183 |
|
Croce v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees
| 23AP-445 | In an appeal from the Court of Claims’ Civ.R. 12(C) dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint against The Ohio State University (“OSU”) Board of Trustees, the trial court did not err by determining the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims challenging how OSU conducted research misconduct proceedings, the length of time of the investigation and alleged conflicts of interest, are not barred by the R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(a) public duty immunity rule but are nevertheless preempted by 42 U.S.C. § 289b and 42 C.F.R. Part 93. However, the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s breach of contract claims, and consequently his related equitable claims, arising from appellee’s internal policies and procedures for research misconduct distinct from those mandated by the federal scheme. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/4/2024
|
6/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2138 |
|
In re Complaint of Doe
| 24AP-217 | Judgment reversed. Because appellant provided clear and convincing evidence that she was "sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide intelligently whether to have an abortion," the juvenile court abused its discretion when it refused to issue a judicial bypass order authorizing her to consent to an abortion as a minor. R.C. 2151.85(C)(1). | Per Curiam | Franklin |
6/4/2024
|
6/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2140 |
|
In re of A.G.
| 23AP-55 | Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded. The juvenile court was not required to make a reasonable efforts determination under R.C. 2151.419 at a permanent custody hearing under R.C. 2151.414, but it did not err by addressing the issue. However, the juvenile court erred by not conducting the inquiry required of 25 C.F.R. 23.107(a), under which a juvenile court "must ask each participant in an emergency or voluntary or involuntary child-custody proceeding whether the participant knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child." The inquiry is mandatory under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. Because remand is required so that the juvenile court may conduct the 25 C.F.R. 23.107(a) inquiry, and such an inquiry may result in the juvenile court losing jurisdiction over the case, the merits of the R.C. 2151.414 determination granting the motion for permanent custody are not reached at this time. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/4/2024
|
6/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2136 |
|
Grandview Hts. v. Savko
| 23AP-725 | Appellant’s conviction for violating City of Grandview Heights Ordinance 505.04(a) was supported by sufficient evidence. Appellant’s dog was on public property but was not “under control by leash, cord, chain, tether or other physical control device.” His use of an electronic dog collar, which he could activate using a hand-held remote transmitter, did not meet this requirement. Judgment affirmed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/4/2024
|
6/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2139 |
|
In re K.M.
| 23AP-168 & 23AP-169 | The trial court’s determination that an award of permanent custody to FCCS was in children’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and 2151.414(D)(2) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the mother-appellant’s partial completion of her case plan did not outweigh her lack of a bond with the children, lack of stable housing, and failure to demonstrate she could care for the children’s significant health and educational needs. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/4/2024
|
6/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2137 |
|
State v. S.B.
| 23AP-195 | The juvenile court committed plain error when it denied S.B.’s motion for a second evaluation at the state’s expense in violation of R.C. 2152.57(E). The remaining assignments of error are rendered moot. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/30/2024
|
5/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2080 |
|
I.S. v. I.S.S.
| 23AP-663 | The trial court complied with R.C. 3113.31(D) as the full hearing was initially scheduled within seven court days of the ex parte hearing. Appellant waived his right to contest the grounds for the various continuances of the full hearing as evidenced by his signature on the two continuance entries and failure to raise the issue prior to the full hearing. Alternatively, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion by continuing the full hearing as the cited justifications for the continuances fall under the statute’s available exceptions. The trial court did not deprive appellant of a “full hearing” under R.C. 3113.31. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/30/2024
|
5/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2083 |
|
In re K.C.
| 23AP-489 | In this appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting permanent custody of appellant’s daughter, K.C., to Franklin County Children Services (“FCCS”), appellant acknowledged, and undisputed evidence established, that her daughter had been in the temporary custody of FCCS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period prior to the permanent-custody hearing. Clear and convincing evidence also supported the trial court’s determination that an award of permanent custody to FCCS was in the child’s best interest. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment awarding permanent custody to FCCS pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Boggs | Franklin |
5/30/2024
|
5/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2081 |
|
LVNV Funding, L.L.C. v. Altahtamoni
| 23AP-633 | In an action seeking collection of a credit card debt, trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for appellee because appellee produce evidence to establish the existence of the credit card debt and valid assignment, and appellant failed to respond with evidentiary materials showing that genuine issues of fact existed for trial. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by reactivating the case because appellant declined to initiate arbitration after the trial court granted appellant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay further proceedings on the complaint. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/30/2024
|
5/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2082 |
|
State ex rel. Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-119 | The magistrate properly denied employer's request for a writ of mandamus. Some evidence supported Industrial Commission's decision that employee was unable to work as a direct result of an impairment arising from his workplace injury and not due to reasons unrelated to the injury. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/30/2024
|
5/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2079 |
|