|
|
Toledo v. SL Hauling & Renovation, L.L.C.
| L-25-00226 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, finds that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over appellees’ request for permanent injunction. Appellants waived their constitutional claims and lack of service defense. Trial Court did not err in consolidating the preliminary and permanent injunction proceedings. The City was not obligated to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to seeking an injunction. The trial court erred when it extended the closure of appellants’ premises for a period exceeding one year in violation of the Toledo Municipal Code. | Zmuda | Lucas |
7/14/2026
|
7/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2700 |
|
In re A.B.
| L-26-00019 | Per Mayle, J., appellant does not challenge the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), (E)(2), or (E)(4), which are sufficient to support the court’s award of permanent custody to the children services agency. | Mayle | Lucas |
7/14/2026
|
7/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2691 |
|
State v. Quinn
| L-25-00280 | Per Mayle, J., trial court did not abuse discretion when it denied appellant’s motion for funds for DNA expert and new trial. Appellant was granted funds before his 2005 trial and was on notice then that not all samples were tested. Appellant was permitted to conduct independent DNA testing “solely” at his expense and should have understood that he was responsible for costs associated with interpreting results. Appellant failed to seek leave to file motion for new trial as required under Crim.R. 33(B). | Mayle | Lucas |
7/7/2026
|
7/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2578 |
|
State v. Lowry
| L-25-00041 | Judge Duhart. Appellant’s convictions for menacing and telecommunications harassment were not based on insufficient evidence nor were they against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Duhart | Lucas |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2509 |
|
Estate of Mikulski v. Toledo Edison Co.
| L-25-00183 | Shareholder’s mere receipt of tax forms in 1985 and 1986 that allegedly mischaracterized distributions as dividends instead of return of capital, without a corresponding allegation of financial harm or loss, is not a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing. | Sulek | Lucas |
6/30/2026
|
6/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2508 |
|