|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Teeters
| CA2024-12-145 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4311 |
|
State v. Wilburn
| CA2025-01-009 | Defendant's conviction for failure to comply with a police officer's orders under R.C. 2921.331(A) was supported by sufficient evidence. | M. Powell | Butler |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4312 |
|
D00TZ 606, L.L.C. v. Dennis
| CA2025-04-035 | There was a presumption of proper service of the complaint by ordinary mail pursuant to Civ.R. 4.6(D) where the complaint was not returned and where service occurred at the same address appellant personally listed as his address in subsequent filings. Appellant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing in the action without raising the defense in either his answer or in a motion filed prior to the filing of his answer. Appellate court was without jurisdiction to consider arguments relating to an order that appellant failed to timely appeal. | Hendrickson | Butler |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4313 |
|
State v. Edmonson
| CA2025-01-006; CA2025-01-007 | Trial court committed clerical error requiring nunc pro tunc correction where judgment entry incompletely described plea agreement terms by omitting reference to dismissed sexual motivation specification that eliminated defendant's life sentence exposure. Defendant's constitutional challenge to validity of guilty plea was moot where court determined that sexual motivation specification was eliminated from kidnapping charge, removing the factual basis for the due process claim. Trial court's imperfect plea colloquy did not invalidate defendant's guilty plea where defendant received adequate information about the charge through multiple sources and failed to demonstrate prejudice under Crim.R. 11(C). Trial court committed clerical error by mischaracterizing defendant's felonious-assault conviction as first-degree felony when statute classifies offense as second-degree felony, warranting correction through nunc pro tunc entry. | M. Powell | Clermont |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4314 |
|
In re Z.P.
| CA2025-04-027 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Clermont |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4315 |
|
In re A.Y.
| CA2025-04-028 | The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to the Department of Job and Family Services where (1) Father willingly appeared before the trial court and did not contest the court's personal jurisdiction; (2) the juvenile court's order, when read in its entirety, adequately described the reasonable efforts taken to prevent the removal of the child; (3) trial counsel's stipulation to prior evidence and testimony was part of trial strategy and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the case worker and GAL's testimony were not hearsay simply because they were not asked to substantiate their findings. | Siebert | Clermont |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4316 |
|
State v. Cornett
| CA2024-12-135; CA2024-12-136; CA2024-12-137 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
9/8/2025
|
9/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3183 |
|
State v. Wright
| CA2025-03-032 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
9/8/2025
|
9/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3184 |
|
Snider Crossing L.L.C. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Rev.
| CA2025-01-005 | School district not required to prove jurisdictional prerequisites for property tax complaint at initial filing. Jurisdiction properly established where statutory requirements existed at filing and were confirmed through administrative proceedings. Board of Tax Appeals did not err in refusing to dismiss school district's property tax complaint where district presented appraiser testimony and documentation sufficient to support statutory jurisdictional allegations at board of revision level. Board of Tax Appeals did not err in finding school district met jurisdictional requirements where sale price exceeded statutory thresholds. Board of Tax Appeals did not err in finding entity transfer constituted qualifying "sale" under property tax statute where LLC ownership transfer accomplished economic equivalent of real estate conveyance. Board of Tax Appeals did not err in allowing discovery to proceed during jurisdictional challenge where taxpayer failed to seek protective orders and school district had independently obtained transaction information through public sources. | M. Powell | Warren |
9/8/2025
|
9/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3189 |
|
In re J.K.
| CA2025-04-028 | The juvenile court's decision granting permanent custody of two of appellant's children to a children services agency was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence given the juvenile court's finding the evidence presented at trial clearly and convincingly showed that the problems that led to the children's removal from appellant's care had not been substantially remedied by appellant. This included, most notably, appellant's alleged continued and ongoing physical abuse of the children at issue. | Piper | Warren |
9/8/2025
|
9/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3190 |
|
State v. Venters
| CA2024-10-064 | Appellant's conviction for gross sexual imposition was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's actions in moving and restraining the victim's legs with his arm so that he could reach under her clothing to touch her pubic area was sufficient "force" for the offense of gross sexual imposition. Appellant's 18-month prison term was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Hendrickson | Warren |
9/2/2025
|
9/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3111 |
|
Bell v. Cedar Fair, LP
| CA2024-11-080 | The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the amusement park on the basis that the patrons failed to establish that the cell phone came from a rider on the roller coaster. There was a reasonable inference to support the patrons' claims and credibility issues are reserved for the role of the factfinder, not the court on summary judgment. However, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the amusement park for a different reason. In this case, the patrons failed to present expert testimony to establish the relevant standard of care. This was necessary because duty of care concerns the adequacy and placement of protective netting, a matter requiring specialized knowledge beyond the understanding of an ordinary juror. | Byrne | Warren |
9/2/2025
|
9/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3112 |
|
State v. Smith
| CA2025-01-008 | The appellate court did not have authority to review appellant’s jointly recommended and agreed upon sentence of five to seven-and-one-half years in prison following his guilty plea to five counts of second-degree felony trafficking in drugs and two counts of third-degree felony trafficking in drugs, nor did appellant receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to negotiate a lesser sentence for appellant when considering appellant’s trial counsel successfully negotiated a plea offer that significantly limited appellant’s exposure had he decided to take the matter to trial. | Piper | Warren |
9/2/2025
|
9/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3113 |
|
State v. Hagens
| CA2025-04-029 | The trial court did not err by dismissing appellant's petition for postconviction relief where the petition was untimely filed by one day and where appellant could not demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that but for a constitutional error at trial no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty given that appellant had foregone taking the matter to trial and instead plead guilty to recording himself sexually abusing the seven-year-old child victim. | Piper | Warren |
9/2/2025
|
9/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3114 |
|
State v. Gillis
| CA2025-01-006 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Clinton |
9/2/2025
|
9/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3109 |
|
MCM Mgt. Corp. v. L&T Equip. Parts, L.L.C.
| CA2024-12-089 | Equipment broker breached contract by failing to deliver specific track frames depicted in photographs that induced buyer's agreement to purchase. Jury verdict finding no breach was against manifest weight of evidence where broker admitted delivered goods differed from those shown in inducing photographs. Photographic representations used to induce contract formation establish what parties bargained for and do not violate parol evidence rule. Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding CFO's lay opinion testimony regarding reasonableness of equipment repair costs and percentage impact on project costs where testimony required specialized analytical conclusions beyond witness's personal knowledge under Evid.R. 701. | Hendrickson | Clermont |
9/2/2025
|
9/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3108 |
|
State v. Buck
| CA2024-12-028 | Res judicata barred consideration of a bail bond company's argument that it should not have to satisfy the $10,000 forfeiture order as the criminal defendant had been apprehended, returned to the jurisdiction or the court, and sentenced. The bail bond company had been capable of raising this issue in its prior appeal challenging the forfeiture order. | Hendrickson | Fayette |
9/2/2025
|
9/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3110 |
|
State v. Mahmoud
| CA2023-12-019 | In a reopened appeal, appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel resulting from his appellate counsel's failure to challenge his conviction to third-degree felony failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer where appellant, who failed to object to the verdict form used by the jury at the trial court level, did not establish plain error given the evidence presented at trial clearly established the additional enhancing elements necessary to raise the offense from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree. | Piper | Fayette |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3020 |
|
State v. Hixon
| CA2025-03-002 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea to 40 counts of fourth-degree felony pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor upon remand where the trial court considered all necessary factors and determined that appellant’s motion represented nothing more than appellant’s change of heart regarding the State’s plea offer that included a recommended eight-year prison sentence. | Piper | Fayette |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3021 |
|
Batsche v. Batsche
| CA2024-12-097 | The trial court did not err in granting $150,000 in liquidated damages to plaintiff for civil theft by defendant. R.C. 2307.61 provides for liquidated damages "irrespective of whether the property is recovered." R.C. 2307.61 only requires a finding of civil theft to be entitled to liquidated damages set by the statute (if properly elected). WITH DISSENTING OPINION. | Siebert | Clermont |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3017 |
|
State v. Morgan
| CA2025-02-009 | The municipal abused its discretion by (1) imposing a recurring probation fee because the court itself (as opposed to its probation department) was supervising the probation, and (2) ordering the defendant to abstain from alcohol, drugs, and marijuana because nothing in the record indicated these substances played a role in the defendant's commission of theft. | Siebert | Clermont |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3018 |
|
In re B.T.
| CA2025-03-024 & CA2025-03-025 | Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to grant permanent custody of a child beyond the child's 18th birthday. Juvenile court erred in in finding that terminating mother's and father's parental rights and granting permanent custody of their daughter to a public children services agency was in the child's best interest. | M. Powell | Clinton |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3019 |
|
Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Republican Cent. Commt.
| CA2025-01-005 | The law-of-the-case doctrine barred appellant's arguments challenging the court of appeals' 2024 opinion. Trial court did not err in granting a political party's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the complaint of an elected committeeperson of the political party. WITH CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION. | M. Powell | Clermont |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2913 |
|
State v. Smith
| CA2025-02-012 | The trial court did not err by denying appellant's untimely petition for postconviction relief where he pled guilty to the offenses. As a result, he cannot satisfy the requirement under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b) that he demonstrate, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty. | Siebert | Warren |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2914 |
|
In re L.D.
| CA2025-03-009, CA2025-03-010, CA2025-03-011, CA2025-03-012, CA2025-03-013, CA2025-03-014, CA2025-03-015, CA2025-03-016, CA2025-03-017, CA2025-03-018, CA2025-03-019, CA2025-03-020, CA2025-03-021, CA2025-03-022, CA2025-03-023 | An incarcerated parent's due process rights are adequately protected, even if he does not attend a permanent custody hearing pertaining to his children, where he was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, his counsel adequately conveyed the parent's interest in reunifying with his children in the future and proffered the parent's expected testimony on the record. Counsel is not ineffective where there is no evidence to demonstrate that counsel's performance created an unjust result or that the proceeding would have been different. A children's services agency engages in reasonable case planning where it creates a case plan that, if completed along with the necessary behavioral changes, could reunify the family. The juvenile court's decision awarding permanent custody of Mother's children to a children's services agency is supported by sufficient evidence and the greater weight of the evidence where the agency established that Mother had not remedied the concerns that led to the children's removal and that the children could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time period. The juvenile court did not err in failing to sua sponte order a six-month extension of temporary custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(D) where there is no evidence to support that the children could be reunified with Mother within a reasonable time. WITH DISSENT IN PART AND CONCURRENCE IN PART. | Hendrickson | Clinton |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2892 |
|
State v. Eberle
| CA2025-01-001 | Appellant cannot meet the statutory requirements for filing an untimely petition for postconviction relief as he pled guilty to the offense. R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b). By pleading guilty, appellant admitted guilt to the substantive crime. As such, he has no basis to claim that a reasonable factfinder would not have found him guilty but for constitutional error at trial. | Hendrickson | Clermont |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2813 |
|
In re C.L.
| CA2025-04-029; CA2025-04-030; CA2025-04-031; CA2025-04-032 | The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to the Department of Job and Family Services. The decision was in the children's best interest because mother continued to expose her children to mental trauma and the risk of physical violence by being unwilling to meaningfully alter her relationship with father or sever her relationship with him. The Agency made reasonable efforts to help mother pursue this goal, including referrals to domestic violence support programs. | Siebert | Clermont |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2814 |
|
Potter v. South
| CA2024-02-030 | Appellants appeal grant of summary judgment in favor of medical providers in medical malpractice case. Under Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(a), appellants timely disclosed identity of expert witness through responses to written interrogatories. Appellants failed, under Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(b), to provide medical providers with appellants' expert's report and court properly granted summary judgment in favor of medical providers. | Byrne | Butler |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2812 |
|
State v. Eads
| CA2024-11-074 | Appellant's conviction for one count of third-degree felony gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury believed the testimony of the victim describing appellant having used both his hands and his penis to touch her thighs at a time when she was less than 13 years of age. | Piper | Warren |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2815 |
|
State v. Colquitt
| CA2024-12-090 & CA2024-12-094 | Appellant's constitutional right to a speedy trial following reversal and remand from his first appeal was not violated. Appellant was responsible for much of the delay, failing to appear at hearings and filing numerous motions and notices of appeal. Trial court did not err by not merging appellant's two failure to comply offenses and obstructing official business offense where each involved separate victims and separate identifiable harms. | Piper | Warren |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2727 |
|
State v. Hollon
| CA2024-10-075 | Defendant, convicted of rape of a minor under 10 years of age. Sufficient evidence of anal penetration to support conviction. Victim testified that defendant "poked" her "butthole" causing pain. Reasonable jurors could conclude that forceful poking was sufficient to demonstrate penetration of the anus. Conviction was supported by weight of the evidence. | Byrne | Clermont |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2725 |
|
Donahue-Jones v. Roberts
| CA2025-03-010 | The trial court did not err by granting appellees' motion to dismiss appellant's complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) where appellant's allegations that appellees had acted recklessly by entrusting appellant's 16-year-old daughter to operate the appellees' all-terrain vehicle were nothing more than bare legal conclusions that were not supported by any operative facts so as to overcome the appellees' motion to dismiss given the clear application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine to the case at bar. | Piper | Madison |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2726 |
|
State v. Moore
| CA2024-10-123 | Appellant's conviction for criminal trespass was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the property owner testified she saw appellant only two inches from her dining room window, despite appellant knowing that he did not have permission to be on her property. Where the sentencing entry mistakenly listed the manner of conviction as a guilty plea when appellant was convicted following a bench trial, the case was remanded for the limited purpose of having the trial court issue a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry to correct the manner of conviction. | Hendrickson | Butler |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2623 |
|
FirstKey Homes v. Howard-McClain
| CA2025-03-022 | The trial court did not err by granting appellee's complaint for forcible entry and detainer against appellants where the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the case and where, even though the trial court may have failed to swear in an appellant before he testified, appellants waived that error by failing to object to the trial court's omission. | Piper | Butler |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2624 |
|
In re N.L.
| CA2025-03-023 | Mother appeals a grant of permanent custody of children to children's services agency. Grant of permanent custody supported by clear and convincing evidence. Children removed due to allegations Mother and boyfriend using methamphetamine and planning on selling the children to human traffickers. | Byrne | Butler |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2625 |
|
State v. Sperry
| CA2024-12-087 | Motorist's convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated vehicular assault were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court properly questioned the State's accident reconstruction expert after cross-examination. | M. Powell | Warren |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2626 |
|
State v. Todd
| CA2024-07-046 | Defendant's convictions for misdemeanor menacing by stalking supported by sufficient evidence and the weight of the evidence, which demonstrated that the defendant knowingly caused the victim to believe she would cause him physical harm. Trial court did not commit prejudicial error where it referred to the felony sentencing guidelines in the sentencing entry. Trial court inadvertently checked box on sentencing form imposing community control. Court of appeals remanded for the issuance of a nunc pro tunc entry correcting clerical error. | Byrne | Warren |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2559 |
|
State v. Basye
| CA2024-12-085 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Warren |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2560 |
|
Marinakis v. Marinakis
| CA2024-03-046 | A probate court does not abuse its discretion solely by ordering payment of guardian ad litem fees without first satisfying the procedural requirements of a local rule related to fee payment where enforcement of the local rule is discretionary and there is no resulting prejudice. In ordering payment of guardian ad litem fees, a probate court need not always distinguish between traditional guardian ad litem services and legal services rendered by an attorney-guardian ad litem even in the absence of an express dual appointment as these roles may necessarily overlap. A probate court's decision to authorize contemporary payment of guardian ad litem fees falls well within its broad discretion to manage estate administration. | Hendrickson | Butler |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2554 |
|
Marinakis v. Marinakis
| CA2024-05-070 | The pretermitted-heir statute, R.C. 2107.34, requires courts to determine whether a decedent intended non-probate transfers of assets to a child to constitute provision by settlement. (CONCURRING OPINION) | Byrne | Butler |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2555 |
|
Jones v. W. Chester Hosp., L.L.C.
| CA2025-02-015 | Trial court did not err by denying appellants' motion to modify arbitration award and/or motion to vacate arbitration award where appellants failed to demonstrate that the arbitrators' decision should be modified pursuant to R.C. 2711.11(C) and/or vacated under R.C. 2711.10(D). | Piper | Butler |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2556 |
|
State v. Frost
| CA2025-03-029 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2557 |
|
State v. Cansler
| CA2024-10-077 | Defendant's conviction for murder was not against the manifest weight of the evidence despite being proven by mostly circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance when trial counsel allowed for a possible murder weapon with indirect ties to the defendant to be admitted into evidence because doing so was part of a defense strategy/argument that the State was "reaching" to meet its burden of proof. | Siebert | Clermont |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2558 |
|
State v. Brown
| CA2024-10-016; CA2024-10-017 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Preble |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2481 |
|
Price v. Price
| CA2024-11-127 | In a divorce proceeding, the manifest weight of the evidence supported the trial court's determination that proceeds from the sale of a North Carolina home that was inherited by Wife constituted Wife's separate property. Husband's dower interest and the inadvertent inclusion of his name on the proceeds check did not convert the funds into marital property. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning the spousal support order where the court considered all the relevant factors in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1), including the age of the parties and their physical conditions, their respective educations, the length of their marriage, their standard of living, their respective income and earning abilities, their retirement benefits, and their division of property. | Hendrickson | Butler |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2479 |
|
State v. Schumacher
| CA2024-05-005 | The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to notify appellant of the exact number of days appellant was entitled to receive at his sentencing hearing as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) where appellant could not establish any resulting prejudice given the trial court's inclusion of the specific number of days of jail-time credit appellant was to receive as part of its sentencing entry. Additionally, the trial court did not completely fail to comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) when it misinformed appellant as to the full extent of his postrelease control obligations upon appellant's release from prison, thereby requiring appellant to demonstrate prejudice, something that appellant did not do as part of his appellate brief. | Piper | Brown |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2478 |
|
State v. Acy
| CA2024-11-078; CA2024-11-079 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for separate trials where the evidence concerning each of the six offenses was simple and direct, thereby satisfying the joinder test. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences where the court made the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the findings were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. | Hendrickson | Warren |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2482 |
|
State v. Schoby
| CA2024-12-091 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Warren |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2383 |
|
Crown Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. McCabe
| CA2025-01-003 | The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to appellee upon finding appellant owed appellee nearly $17,000 plus interest where appellant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service to support her claim that she had not received appellee's motion for summary judgment. | Piper | Warren |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2384 |
|
State v. Davis
| CA2024-03-004; CA2024-07-016 | Defendant's convictions for trafficking in drugs (with a major drug offender specification) and for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where recordings of the defendant's phone calls demonstrated he was complicit and advised his fiancé about the quantity and price of methamphetamine sold to a confidential informant. It could be inferred from recorded phone conversations that this was an ongoing enterprise. Although the trial court improperly admitted a lab report into evidence that was not timely provided to Defendant, the Defendant identified no prejudicial errors made at trial. | Siebert | Fayette |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2382 |
|