Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 130 rows. Rows per page: 
123
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Carter 29919The trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding self-defense and defense of another. The instructions accurately stated the law and were unlikely to have confused the jury. Appellant’s felonious-assault convictions were not against the weight of the evidence. Based on the evidence presented, the jury reasonably concluded that the State had disproven self-defense and defense of another beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1908
State v. Flint 2023-CA-16The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion or when it found him guilty of failure to provide notice of change of address. Appellant registered an invalid address twice, and when he became homeless, he failed to provide written notice that gave a detailed description of the place or places at which he intended to stay. Judgment affirmed.EpleyDarke 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1904
State v. Van Voorhis 29844Appellant’s conviction for murder was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence supported a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did not act in self defense when he shot and killed the victim. The trial court did not err in denying a mistrial based on the State’s introduction of suppressed evidence; the State properly used the evidence when cross-examining appellant to impeach his trial testimony. The trial court properly denied appellant’s request for a voluntary-manslaughter instruction where the evidence did not support a finding that his shooting of the victim was attributable to sudden passion or a fit of rage. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1898
State v. Conard 2024-CA-1Appellant did not validly waive his right to counsel before pleading guilty to one count of theft, a petty offense. The remedy for the invalid waiver is to vacate appellant’s term of incarceration. Judgment affirmed as modified.EpleyMiami 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1906
McCloskey v. McCloskey 29940The domestic relations court erred in failing to clarify an ambiguous term in the divorce decree. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to hold a third-party defendant (the administrator of the husband’s estate) in contempt of court. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.LewisMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1900
State v. Cobbins 29963Appellant’s convictions for assault and disorderly conduct were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Additionally, the trial court properly rejected appellant’s self-defense claim. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1907
State v. Guy 29920The trial court did not completely fail to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), and appellant has not established that he suffered prejudice from the trial court’s failure to fully cover nonconstitutional aspects of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) during the plea colloquy. Thus, appellant is not entitled to have his pleas vacated. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1902
Regeneration Schools of Ohio v. Mangen1, L.L.C. 29870The trial court erred in striking appellant’s amended third-party complaint as untimely when it was filed within 28 days of appellee’s motion to dismiss the original third-party complaint. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1899
In re Adoption of F.F.L. 2023-CA-61The probate court did not err in finding that petitioners-appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the putative father’s consent to an adoption was not required. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanGreene 5/16/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1901
Etter v. Etter 2024-CA-2The trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s decision finding that service of process was perfected when appellee received the service packet for appellant from a commercial carrier at the parties’ shared address and credibly testified that she provided the packet to appellant, who waited more than 20 months to seek relief from judgment for improper service. Additionally, the trial court did not err in giving deference to the magistrate’s credibility determinations while also independently considering the evidence before it. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMiami 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1805
State v. Lee 29796Appellant was retried within a reasonable time following our prior reversal of his convictions and remand for retrial; his constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. Appellant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s ruling that the State could present the video testimony of a deceased witness from the first trial in the second trial, because the State ultimately did not present that testimony at the second trial. Appellant was repeatedly advised of his constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of his trial, but he knowingly and voluntarily waived that right when he adamantly refused to leave his cell to attend the trial. The trial court erred by relying on appellant’s jury waiver executed prior to the first trial on having weapons under disability counts in deciding to try those counts to the court in the second trial. Judgment reversed and remanded with respect to the weapons under disability counts; judgment affirmed in all other respects.TuckerMontgomery 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1802
Herron v. Herron 2023-CA-38After a hearing, a magistrate granted a domestic violence civil protection order, and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(ii). Appellant appealed the order without first filing objections with the trial court as required by Civ.R. 65.1(G). Because the filing of objections was required prior to filing an appeal, appellant cannot challenge the protection order on appeal. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1803
Casey v. Casey 2023-CA-71Neither the parties’ separation agreement, which was incorporated into their divorce decree, nor a subsequent agreed order resolving a motion for contempt gave the trial court the authority to modify the parties’ agreed-upon property division, which contemplated that appellant would receive the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence. When appellant failed to refinance the marital residence within the five-year period specified in the decree or within the 60 days provided in the agreed order and also did not list the home for sale, the trial court acted reasonably in granting appellee possession of the home to effectuate its sale and make any repairs necessary for the sale, for which she would be reimbursed. However, the trial court’s order included language that seemed to give appellee the option to retain the home and required appellant to litigate his right to receive any of the sale proceeds by motion and proof of his entitlement to the proceeds; such language was an improper, unauthorized modification to the divorce decree and the agreed order. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerGreene 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1808
Clack v. Clack 2023-CA-27The trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to reduce or terminate a spousal support obligation without considering the factors in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1), where the undisputed evidence showed a substantial change in circumstances due to the fact the spousal support obligor was no longer able to be employed. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.LewisDarke 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1807
State v. Vargas 2023-CA-46The trial court did not err in revoking community control based on appellant’s positive drug test. The trial court did not err in imposing a 30-month prison sentence upon revoking community control because appellant’s violation, methamphetamine use, was not a “technical” one. Judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1797
McManus v. Clements 29999Appellant failed to challenge the validity of the trial court’s foreclosure order. Instead, appellant asked that she be permitted to redeem the foreclosed property. Because a foreclosure order is final and appealable and is separate from confirmation proceedings, there is no basis for reversing the trial court. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1800
State v. Mayes 2023-CA-18The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to merge appellant’s convictions for robbery and theft at sentencing because the record indicates that those offenses were committed separately and thus were not allied offenses. Appellant’s robbery and theft convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; there was an abundance of evidence establishing that appellant was the shoplifter in question, and the jury was free to believe witness testimony indicating that appellant threatened a store employee while fleeing the scene. Appellant waived his claim challenging the composition of the jury array given that appellant raises the claim for the first time on appeal. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumDarke 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1801
Estate of Rismiller 2023-CA-29The probate court did not err in overruling appellant’s exceptions and adopting the coexecutors’ final and distributive account. Judgment affirmed.EpleyDarke 5/3/2024 5/3/2024 2024-Ohio-1704
State v. Williams 2022-CA-29The trial court did not err when it imposed consecutive sentences on appellant. The trial court’s findings with respect to consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.EpleyChampaign 5/3/2024 5/3/2024 2024-Ohio-1707
State v. Snowden 29932The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s “motion to vacate illegal sentence.” Res judicata precluded appellant from obtaining postconviction relief based on allegedly defective jury verdict forms or based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise that issue. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 5/3/2024 5/3/2024 2024-Ohio-1706
Northwest Ctr. Holdings, L.L.C. v. Simon 29953Appellant vacated the commercial property following an eviction action, rendering its appeal on the forcible entry and detainer claim moot. Appeal dismissed.HuffmanMontgomery 5/3/2024 5/3/2024 2024-Ohio-1705
State v. Hurley 2023-CA-28The trial court did not err in its award of jail-time credit. Appellant was not entitled to jail-time credit for time he served in prison on an unrelated case. The trial court erred, however, in imposing a consecutive sentence upon revoking appellant’s community control. The trial court lacked authority to order consecutive service because it did not notify appellant of that possibility when placing him on community control. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for imposition of a concurrent sentence.TuckerGreene 4/26/2024 4/26/2024 2024-Ohio-1610
In re P.M.A. 30002The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Mother’s objection to the magistrate’s decision to grant permanent custody of her child to a children services agency. Mother’s objection was based solely on the magistrate’s denial of a continuance when Mother failed to appear at the permanent custody hearing unexpectedly and without communication with her counsel or the court. The court reasonably weighed the competing factors of the child’s best interest and the inconvenience to the parties and the court. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 4/26/2024 4/26/2024 2024-Ohio-1611
State v. Kelly 29774Appellant was convicted after a bench trial of gross sexual imposition and public indecency based on conduct that occurred in 2018 with a four-year-old child. He was separately convicted after a jury trial of three counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, and six counts of gross sexual imposition stemming from his conduct with two sisters between 1987 and 1993. At the bench trial, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29(A) motion regarding gross sexual imposition. The trial court did not err in declaring the then seven-year-old victim unavailable to testify at trial pursuant to Evid.R. 807. The trial court did not err in allowing two witnesses to review police reports, which they did not prepare, to refresh their recollections. Even if the trial court should have granted appellant’s motion in limine regarding prior bad acts, the trial court did not err in allowing the State to play a disputed portion of appellant’s police interview during the bench trial, because the court indicated that it would disregard the evidence if it determined, upon hearing all the evidence, that the evidence should have been excluded. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance when he withdrew a motion to suppress appellant’s statements to the police. With respect to the counts concerning the two sisters, the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss the charges concerning the younger sister. However, the rape charges concerning the older sister were brought outside of the statute of limitations. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion in limine seeking to use statements and information from the sisters’ medical records for cross-examination. Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part.LewisMontgomery 4/26/2024 4/26/2024 2024-Ohio-1612
RSS WFCM2019-C50 - OH WG2, L.L.C. v. Welcome Group 2, L.L.C. 29869Appellant-borrower was in default on a loan secured by several hotel properties it owned. The trial court granted appellee-lender’s request to appoint a receiver to manage the hotels. Considering R.C. 2735.01(A)(2)(b), appellee’s default, and appellee’s consent in the mortgage to appointment of a receiver, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a receiver. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 4/26/2024 4/26/2024 2024-Ohio-1613
State v. Fitzgerald 2023-CA-44The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled appellant’s presentence motion to vacate his guilty plea. The trial court did not err in imposing the maximum sentence on one count of felonious assault or in imposing consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 4/26/2024 4/26/2024 2024-Ohio-1608
State v. Fulcher 2023-CA-31The Adult Use Cannabis Control statute, codified in R.C. Chap. 3780 due to Ohio voters’ passage of an initiative petition, cannot be retroactively applied to conduct that occurred before its effective date. There is no language in the statute that expressly makes it retroactive. Appellant’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to argue that appellant’s statements should have been suppressed. The trial court also did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. Finally, the original trial judge did not err in ruling on appellant’s suppression motion and later recusing himself. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 4/26/2024 4/26/2024 2024-Ohio-1609
State v. Yount 2023-CA-5Appellant’s guilty plea waived any argument that his speedy trial rights had been violated. Appellant’s double jeopardy rights were not violated because he was not punished twice for the same conduct; although another charge appears to have been dismissed before he was indicted in this case, he was not convicted or sentenced on that offense. There is no evidence to support appellant’s claim that the State agreed to remain silent as to the sentence, and thus his assertion that the State reneged on such a promise is without merit. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMiami 4/19/2024 4/19/2024 2024-Ohio-1500
In re S.M.J. 2023-CA-54In light of appellant’s repeated failure to pay child support, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant failed to comply with purge conditions for a second contempt or in requiring him to serve the remainder of a previously imposed 60-day jail sentence. Concerning a third contempt finding for failure to pay child support, appellant did not object to a magistrate’s decision finding him in contempt, and there was no plain error; appellant admittedly failed to pay as ordered. The court also did not abuse its discretion when, during a later hearing, it suspended the 90-day sentence for the third contempt and imposed purge conditions. Given appellant’s conduct and failure to provide any documentation of his excuses for non-payment, the court’s decision was reasonable. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 4/19/2024 4/19/2024 2024-Ohio-1495
State v. Thomas 29884Appellant admitted to violating the terms and conditions of his community control sanctions, and he has not demonstrated plain error in the trial court’s acceptance of his admission and imposition of a prison sentence. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 4/19/2024 4/19/2024 2024-Ohio-1499
State v. Tackett 2023-CA-57The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony in a community control revocation proceeding. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 4/19/2024 4/19/2024 2024-Ohio-1498
State v. Elton 2023-CA-62The mandate in R.C. 4511.55(A) requiring bicyclists to ride their bicycles “as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable” is not unconstitutionally vague; it provides sufficient notice of its proscriptions and contains reasonably clear guidelines to prevent arbitrariness or discrimination in its enforcement. In addition, the trial court did not err as a matter of law or rule against the manifest weight of the evidence by failing to find that an exception in R.C. 4511.55(C) relieved appellant of the obligation to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 4/19/2024 4/19/2024 2024-Ohio-1494
Leithauser v. Leithauser 2023-CA-43The trial court erred in finding that a debt due to husband’s parents was not a marital debt, as wife failed to establish the debt was husband’s alone. The parol evidence rule did not apply because husband’s parents were not attempting to enforce the debt; rather, it was subject to equitable distribution in the court’s division of marital assets and liabilities. Judgment reversed with respect to the division of marital property and remanded for further proceedings related to that issue. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 4/19/2024 4/19/2024 2024-Ohio-1497
In re Estate of Taylor 29906Because appellant failed to object to a magistrate’s decision, alleged error is reviewed for plain error only. Although the trial court could have construed appellant’s pleading as an attempt to file a will contest, it did not err in failing to do so. Appellant never sought to amend the pleading to add parties that were necessary to a will contest under R.C. 2107.73, which was grounds for dismissing such an action. More importantly, appellant failed to comply with requirements for commencing such an action, like requesting service and filing an affidavit of indigency. There was no plain error. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 4/19/2024 4/19/2024 2024-Ohio-1496
State v. Newby 2023-CA-30Denial of the right to effective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in defense counsel’s joint representation of appellant and her co-defendant, where co-defendant was charged as the principal and appellant was charged by way of complicity in the same offenses. Appellant executed a waiver of conflict of interest prior to trial, the interests of appellant and her co-defendant were not incompatible and did not diverge, and the record does not demonstrate an actual conflict of interest. Ineffective assistance is not demonstrated in defense counsel’s asserting self-defense on behalf of co-defendant but not appellant, where appellant did not use any force. Defense counsel’s alleged egregious conduct in cross-examining the State’s witnesses was a matter of trial strategy, and prejudice is not demonstrated. Moreover, the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions to disregard “editorializing” by defense counsel and that closing arguments were not evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit irrelevant evidence of the victim’s prior speeding record. Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in not admitting the victim’s Facebook video discussing the shooting is without merit because defense counsel did not seek to admit the video. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on aggravated assault as an inferior offense of felonious assault; there was no evidence of serious provocation, and the inferior offense was inconsistent with the theory of self-defense. Appellant’s conviction for complicity to attempted murder was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 4/12/2024 4/12/2024 2024-Ohio-1391
State v. Boulware 2023-CA-32The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea; the argument raised in the motion was barred by res judicata and otherwise lacked merit. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 4/12/2024 4/12/2024 2024-Ohio-1388
State v. Wallace 2023-CA-53The trial court did not err by sentencing appellant to a lengthy prison term as the sentences were not contrary to law and the record did not demonstrate that the trial court failed to consider the requisite sentencing factors. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 4/12/2024 4/12/2024 2024-Ohio-1393
State v. Easter 2023-CA-42Appellant was convicted of two counts of cruelty against a companion animal. Because police officers had been told by appellant’s wife that appellant had shot and strangled the family dog and had heard a “wailing sound” which they believed was coming from the injured animal, the trial court reasonably concluded that exigent circumstances permitted the officers’ warrantless entry into the home and yard to search for and provide aid to the injured dog. Appellant moved for a mistrial, asserting a Brady violation, when the State produced a videotape of appellant’s wife’s statement to a police officer during trial; however, because neither the videotape nor any proffer regarding its content is part of the record, we cannot conclude that the late disclosure constituted a Brady violation or that it otherwise prejudiced appellant. Judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 4/12/2024 4/12/2024 2024-Ohio-1389
State v. Segovia 2023-CA-35The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a drug debt owed by the victim to appellant in appellant’s trial for felonious assault. The evidence was admitted for the legitimate purpose of establishing appellant’s identity and motive and not his propensity to commit crime, and the court gave a limiting instruction. Appellant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 4/12/2024 4/12/2024 2024-Ohio-1392
Estrada v. Inman 29977The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a civil protection order, and the civil protection order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Explicit threats of domestic violence are not required in order to support a civil protection order; statements, conduct and actions, taken with all surrounding facts and circumstances, can constitute a threat. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 4/12/2024 4/12/2024 2024-Ohio-1390
In re N.Q. 2023-CA-16Appellant’s appeal is moot as the sentence has been served and he has shown no collateral disability or loss of rights as a result of his conviction. Appeal dismissed.LewisClark 4/5/2024 4/5/2024 2024-Ohio-1296
State v. Lloyd 29918The trial court did not impermissibly consider factors outside of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 in sentencing appellant to 18 months in prison. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 4/5/2024 4/5/2024 2024-Ohio-1297
State v. Fitch 2023-CA-28The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. Police officers obtained the consent of the homeowner to enter a residence and go upstairs to speak with appellant. The officers did not request permission to search and were familiar with the homeowner, and the circumstances did not cause the officers to doubt the homeowner’s authority to authorize entry. The officers relied in good faith on the homeowner’s consent to enter. When appellant’s girlfriend closed a tarp on a doorway upstairs in a manner that caused officers to be concerned for their safety, a protective sweep was warranted, and drugs were found in plain view. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMiami 4/5/2024 4/5/2024 2024-Ohio-1295
C.D. v. P.O.C. 2023-CA-15The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing appellant to a jail term after he failed to comply with purge conditions related to non-payment of child support. Although appellant was incarcerated at the time of sentencing, appellant had failed to comply with the purge conditions before being incarcerated. Any issue as to the court’s failure to award jail-time credit is moot because appellant completed the sentence and no relief is possible. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 4/5/2024 4/5/2024 2024-Ohio-1294
State v. Stinson 29925The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s untimely and successive motion for new trial and petition for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The trial court also did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to engage in post-conviction discovery. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 4/5/2024 4/5/2024 2024-Ohio-1298
State v. Bailey 2023-CA-27Appellant appeals from the trial court’s judgments revoking his community control in two cases. In his 2021 case, the revocation judgment did not order him to pay restitution, although restitution was included in his original judgment of conviction. Appellant’s challenge to the validity of the original restitution order is not properly before us in this appeal. Appellant did not raise any assignments with respect to his 2019 case. Judgments affirmed.EpleyChampaign 4/5/2024 4/5/2024 2024-Ohio-1293
M.A.N.S.O. Holding, L.L.C. v. Marquette 2023-CA-58Appellants vacated the residence following an eviction action, rendering their appeal on the forcible entry and detainer claim moot. Appeal dismissed.HuffmanGreene 3/29/2024 3/29/2024 2024-Ohio-1188
State v. Lowe 29826Appellant failed to establish that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him to plead no contest to the indicted charges. Appellant also failed to establish that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to argue in his motion to suppress that an investigating officer used an unduly suggestive procedure to identify him. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/29/2024 3/29/2024 2024-Ohio-1189
State v. Bryant 2023-CA-17The juvenile court did not err when it transferred appellant’s felony case to adult court. The court found he was older than 14 at the time of his offense, there was probable cause to believe he committed the act charged, and he was not amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system. The juvenile court also did not err in transferring the misdemeanor assault count to adult court; both the plain language of the statute and Ohio case law point to transferring the entire “case.” Finally, the adult court did not err by sentencing appellant to prison. The record does not demonstrate that the court failed to consider factors contained in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b). Judgment affirmed.EpleyMiami 3/29/2024 3/29/2024 2024-Ohio-1192
State v. Tyree 2023-CA-20The trial court did not err in finding that police officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop appellant’s vehicle and that seized contraband was properly obtained pursuant to the Fourth Amendment’s inventory search exception. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 3/29/2024 3/29/2024 2024-Ohio-1186
123