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 70 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Deese 23AP-418Period of pre-trial house arrest did not qualify as confinement for purposes of determining jail-time credit; therefore, trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for jail-time credit.DorrianFranklin 3/14/2024 3/14/2024 2024-Ohio-936
Khasawneh v. Aldamen 23AP-276Because appellant did not make hearing transcript necessary for resolution of his assigned error part of the appellate record as required by App.R. 9, did not file objections to the magistrate's factual findings or legal conclusions as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b), and did not argue on appeal that the domestic relations court committed plain error when it granted wife's motion for contempt for failure to pay child support, we must presume regularity of the proceedings below and validity of the trial court's judgment without reaching the merits of appellant's sole assignment of error. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 3/14/2024 3/14/2024 2024-Ohio-937
Zinsmeister v. Gillen-Zinsmeister 22AP-714The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the pre-decree sale of the marital residence and was a final appealable order. The trial court also did not violate Appellant’s due process rights in scheduling briefing deadlines informally. Appellant’s third assignment of error stems from an interlocutory order over which this court lacks jurisdiction and is dismissed. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.BoggsFranklin 3/14/2024 3/14/2024 2024-Ohio-938
State v. Newell 21AP-648Appellant entered his guilty plea voluntarily because the trial court warned appellant that it could impose a sentence greater than the jointly recommended sentence, and it did not promise any particular sentence to appellant. An appellate court may not reivew a felony sentence for an abuse of discretion. The Reagan Tokes Law is not facially unconstitutional.LelandFranklin 3/14/2024 3/14/2024 2024-Ohio-939
State ex rel. Duncan v. Chambers-Smith 23AP-66Because relator failed to file a postsentence motion in the trial court pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii) regarding alleged errors pertaining to jail-time credit, the availability of a plain and adequate remedy at law precludes the issuance of a writ of mandamus on such grounds.DorrianFranklin 3/12/2024 3/13/2024 2024-Ohio-926
State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 23AP-604In accordance with magistrate's recommendation, action dismissed.LelandFranklin 3/12/2024 3/13/2024 2024-Ohio-927
Hayes v. Baldwin 23AP-685Magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted and the petitioner’s complaint for a writ of habeas corpus is sua sponte dismissed.EdelsteinFranklin 3/12/2024 3/13/2024 2024-Ohio-928
Cotten v. Handwerk 23AP-656Inmate-petitioner’s affidavit of prior civil actions supporting his petition for writ of prohibition failed to satisfy R.C. 2969.25(A), as it failed to include several civil actions petitioner had previously filed, and petitioner did not file objections to magistrate’s decision recommending dismissal of petition for failure to comply with statute. Magistrate’s decision adopted and petition dismissed.Beatty BluntFranklin 3/7/2024 3/7/2024 2024-Ohio-814
State v. Britford 23AP-363Defendant’s assignment of error challenging the trial court’s calculation of jail-time credit was rendered moot when defendant was released from incarceration; therefore, appeals must be dismissed.DorrianFranklin 3/7/2024 3/7/2024 2024-Ohio-820
Miller v. Miller 23AP-319Judgment reversed. The trial court erred by sustaining an objection which was never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence. Because appellant’s income decreased significantly in the year prior to trial, the court erred by failing to explain why it refused to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal support award.LelandFranklin 3/7/2024 3/7/2024 2024-Ohio-821
HDDA, L.L.C. v. Vansani 23AP-221 and 23AP-222On personal guarantors’ appeal of trial court’s denial of motion to quash filing and execution of foreign state judgment. Under Georgia law, guarantors failed to assert alleged defense of personal jurisdiction, guarantors’ consent to jurisdiction and express waiver of objections to jurisdiction in guarantee agreement were valid and enforceable, and guarantors have failed to present any basis upon which an Ohio court could hold that Georgia judgments were void or any reason that trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to quash. Assignment of error overruled and judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 3/7/2024 3/7/2024 2024-Ohio-822
Innovative Architectural Planners, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs. 23AP-116The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims for tortious interference with contract and business relations. An essential element of a tortious interference claim is interference by an outside party to the contract or business relationship, but plaintiff does not name any party that interfered with its contracts and business relationships other than defendants. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for civil conspiracy. Because employees of the state of Ohio are all employed by the same legal entity, they cannot conspire with each other under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for quantum meruit because the evidence shows that plaintiff did not confer a benefit on defendant. The trial erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract. Questions of fact remain regarding whether defendant breached the contract and the amount of damages plaintiff sustained. Moreover, under the continuing breach theory of accrual, plaintiff potentially has timely claims for breach of contract to pursue.DorrianFranklin 3/7/2024 3/7/2024 2024-Ohio-824
State ex rel. Brown v. Indus. Comm. 21AP-650Objections overruled and magistrate's decision recommending denial of writ of mandamus adopted. Industrial Commission did not err by applying R.C. 4123.56(F) to claim for temporary total disability compensation because that claim remained pending as of the effective date of the statute. Magistrate did not err by finding there was some evidence to support Commission's decision that relator was capable of performing job duties with accommodations.DorrianFranklin 3/5/2024 3/5/2024 2024-Ohio-797
Person v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 22AP-525Judgment affirmed dismissing complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Appellant failed to raise the issue of equitable tolling before the Court of Claims and therefore waived it for purposes of appeal. To the extent appellant sought to appeal issues relating to an alternative ground for dismissal or for rejecting his motion for summary judgment, such appeal was moot because the Court of Claims did not reply on the alternative ground and did not rule on the motion for summary judgment.DorrianFranklin 3/5/2024 3/5/2024 2024-Ohio-798
State ex rel. Ruffin v. Indus. Comm. 22AP-716The magistrate’s decision is adopted after having found no error in the magistrate’s findings of fact or conclusions or law. Relator has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the commission is under a clear legal duty to provide such relief.BoggsFranklin 3/5/2024 3/5/2024 2024-Ohio-799
Pond v. E & E Towing & Recovery, L.L.C. 23AP-84The trial court erred when dismissing appellants’ claims for conversion and replevin under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The trial court relied on matters outside the pleadings without converting the motion into one for summary judgment and providing the notice required by Civ.R. 12(B). In addition, the trial court improperly weighed the evidence by citing to inconsistencies in the record and concluding that appellants could not prove their claims, which appellants are not required to do at the pleading stage under the notice pleading standard of Civ.R. 8(A). Appellee’s motion to strike appellants’ reply brief is overruled because the appellants did not raise new assignments of error of the brief.MentelFranklin 3/5/2024 3/5/2024 2024-Ohio-800
In re A.P. 23AP-253Juvenile court did not err when it granted PCC of appellant’s child to the agency because clear and convincing evidence in the record established, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414.(B)(1)(a), the child could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant, and appellant did not challenge the juvenile court’s conclusion that PCC was in the best interest of the child. Judgment affirmed.JamisonFranklin 2/29/2024 2/29/2024 2024-Ohio-741
Vandalia-Butler City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Ohio Dept. of Edn. 23AP-474The trial court did not err as a matter of law in finding that there is evidence of an educational impact supporting this transfer. The hearing officer’s and the State Board’s consideration of the location of the Property was entirely appropriate as part of the balancing of factors required when considering a transfer of school districts. Neither did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding that the Board’s decision was supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The evidence showing the intent of the Petitioners to reside on the Property with their children and the location of the Property in relation to the Deer Cliff Run subdivision is reliable, probative and substantial evidence fully supporting the hearing officer’s conclusion that the Property should be in the same school district as that of the Deer Cliff Run subdivision. This court may not reweigh the evidence, rebalance the factors, and substitute its judgment for that of the State Board where there is reliable, probative and substantial evidence supporting the decision of the hearing officer and ultimately the State Board. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/29/2024 2/29/2024 2024-Ohio-742
State ex rel. Eichenberger v. Serrott 23AP-355The magistrate's decision contained no error of law or other defect on its face. Therefore, we adopt as our own the magistrate's decision finding that that the actions sought in relator’s complaint have already performed, and therefore he cannot show he is entitled to either an extraordinary writ of mandamus or procedendo. Accordingly, relator's request for a writ of procedendo and/or a writ of mandamus is denied. Complaint dismissed.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/27/2024 2/27/2024 2024-Ohio-718
State v. Rutan 23AP-309On trial court decision overruling petitioner’s motion for leave to file motion for new trial and untimely petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner failed to identify any single piece of evidence or facts that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering, and therefore failed to show how such evidence was either potentially exculpatory as required for new trial or provided a necessary basis for postconviction relief. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/15/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-593
State v. Osborn 22AP-695Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress statements in a custodial interrogation because the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a gunshot residue test as the results involved the collection of highly evanescent evidence, taken with minimal intrusion on the defendant, and was supported by probable cause. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of text messages between the defendant and the victim under Evid.R. 404(B) to show intent, motive and state of mind of the defendant. Defendant’s counsel’s performance also fell within the wide range of reasonable professional behavior expected of attorneys and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.BoggsFranklin 2/13/2024 2/13/2024 2024-Ohio-528
Medlock v. Brooks 22AP-726The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the final orders of the Division of Unclaimed Funds of the Ohio Department of Commerce requiring appellants to report and remit their respective unclaimed funds liabilities under R.C. 169.03. Appellants do not identify any evidentiary deficiency to counter the trial court’s conclusion that reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supported the final orders. Judgments affirmed.MentelFranklin 2/13/2024 2/13/2024 2024-Ohio-529
State v. Gordon 23AP-437Trial court did not err in denying appellant's untimely, successive petition for post-conviction relief.LelandFranklin 2/13/2024 2/13/2024 2024-Ohio-530
State v. Worrell 23AP-244SIERAH’S LAW — R.C. 2903.41 — VIOLENT OFFENDER DATABASE — RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION — EQUAL PROTECTION: Application of Sierah’s Law to violent offenders who committed a qualifying offense prior to the law’s effective date, were sentenced before the law took effect, and were serving a term of confinement for that offense on the law’s effective date does not violate the Retroactivity Clause of Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, trial court did not err in denying defendant’s post-conviction motion for exclusion from the violent offender database registry requirements imposed upon him by Sierah’s Law. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 2/8/2024 2/8/2024 2024-Ohio-442
Sheets v. Sheets 23AP-226 & 23AP-259These are two appeals from post-divorce decree custody-related orders. One appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is an appeal from the denial of a request for emergency temporary custody, which is not a final, appealable order. The other appeal is from the trial court’s disposition of appellant’s challenge to the magistrate’s resolution of requests for the reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities. Appellant fails to demonstrate any error in the second appeal. Appeal dismissed in case No. 23AP-226, and judgment affirmed in case No. 23AP-259.Per CuriamFranklin 2/8/2024 2/8/2024 2024-Ohio-443
State v. Carter 22AP-136The trial court did not err in declining to give a jury instruction on adverse possession as that concept is neither a defense to the crime charged nor does it apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Neither did the trial court plainly err in refusing to give an instruction on abandonment. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of criminal trespassing and that conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgement affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/8/2024 2/8/2024 2024-Ohio-444
Access Urgent Med. Care of Upper Arlington v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce 22AP-668 & 22AP-669The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the final orders of the Division of Unclaimed Funds of the Ohio Department of Commerce requiring appellants to report and remit their respective unclaimed funds liabilities under R.C. 169.03. Appellants do not identify any evidentiary deficiency to counter the trial court’s conclusion that reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supported the final orders. Judgments affirmed.MentelFranklin 2/8/2024 2/8/2024 2024-Ohio-445
In re C.D. 22AP-649, 22AP-650, 22AP-674 & 22AP-675Trial court decision granting children services agency’s motion to terminate mother’s parental rights and denying maternal grandfather’s motion for custody affirmed. Trial court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence, agency complied with requirements of Ohio kinship caregiver law, and trial court was not required to appoint separate counsel for one of the children and mother lacked standing to challenge the decision as the child had never expressed a wish to be placed with the mother.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/8/2024 2/8/2024 2024-Ohio-446
Marchbanks v. Ice House Ventures, L.L.C. 21AP-24The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to award contract damages against Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for its breach of the parties’ settlement agreement entered into to resolve an appropriation matter instead of going to trial. Furthermore, the parties’ agreement is clear that the issue of damages was left to the trial court should the issue arise. Therefore, the trial court did not err in awarding expectation damages to appellee. Nor did the trial court err in finding that ODOT breached the parties’ agreement as the record clearly shows ODOT was unable to convey the Parking Mitigation Property as promised in the agreement and in fact stipulated to same. Finally, the trial court did not err in in finding ODOT liable for IHV’s attorney fees. Ohio law is clear that where a party breaches a settlement agreement entered into to resolve litigation and the breach causes the other party to incur attorney fees in continuing the litigation, such fees are properly awarded by a court as compensatory damages. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/6/2024 2/6/2024 2024-Ohio-417
State v. Abdullahi 21AP-350The trial court did not err in denying Abdullahi’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, Abdullahi did not demonstrate the requisite prejudice from his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, Abdullahi did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court did not err in imposing an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law.Luper SchusterFranklin 2/6/2024 2/6/2024 2024-Ohio-418
Hettinger v. McDonald 24AP-37Judgment entry granting a plaintiff’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion, thereby vacating a prior entry dismissing the divorce due to the parties failing to provide trial notebooks and reinstating the divorce, is not final and appealable under the relevant provisions of R.C. 2505.02(B). Motion to dismiss granted; appeal dismissed.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/2/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-368
Abu-Arish v. Badawi 23AP-312Without a transcript of the bench trial proceedings to assess Nationwide ATM's assignments of error, we conclude the trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate's decision finding in favor of appellee. Judgment affirmed.LelandFranklin 2/1/2024 2/1/2024 2024-Ohio-350
Hogan v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority 23AP-471Because the trial court, in granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to dismiss, failed to enter judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims and did not certify that there was no just reason for delay, the judgment entry appealed from is not a final appealable order and this court is without jurisdiction to review it. Appeal Dismissed.JamisonFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-307
Campbell v. 1 Spring, L.L.C. 23AP-375Trial court did not abuse its discretion by entering charging order against membership interest of judgment debtors in limited liability company with payment of unpaid balance of previously issued judgment. Entry of a new advertising sign lease did not extinguish judgment debtors' obligation to compensate judgment creditor under previously issued judgment.DorrianFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-308
Sauter v. Integrity Cycles, L.L.C. 23AP-313The trial court erred as the refiled complaint was timely filed under Ohio’s savings statute, R.C. 2305.19(A). The one-year period prescribed in R.C. 2305.19 concludes after counting the number of months, 12, from the commencing date, January 6, 2022, and ends on the same numerical day in the concluding month, i.e., January 6, 2023. Judgment reversed; cause remanded.MentelFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-309
HSBC Bank USA N.A. v. Rao 23AP-293Trial court did not err by denying homeowner’s motion to enforce settlement agreement. Evidence indicated the parties had not reached an agreement on essential terms, a necessary party was not included in negotiations, and terms in the motion differed from the terms of the purported agreement. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-310
State v. Williams 23AP-144OVI – R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant’s admission to consuming alcohol prior to driving and poor performance on standardized field sobriety tests—in conjunction with breathalyzer test registering a breath alcohol concentration level of 0.125 and trooper’s testimony describing defendant’s marked lanes violation, bloodshot and glassy eyes, and odor of alcohol—proved that defendant operated his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in admitting the breathalyzer test evidence is without merit because defendant failed to object to the admission of such evidence in the trial court and did not argue plain error on appeal. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-311
Reading Hills, L.L.C. v. Bryant 23AP-107Because defendant vacated the leased premises, the appeal of the judgment granting plaintiff restitution of the leased premises is moot.LelandFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-312
A.A. v. Ohio Univ. 23AP-73Trial court abused its discretion when it quashed a subpoena issued to a child protective services agency seeking records pertaining to an incident of sexual abuse by a police officer employed by appellee/University. Appellant, who was later sexually abused as a minor by the same officer, established good cause to obtain the records in that the records likely contain facts relevant to her claim against the University for negligent retention and supervision. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct an in camera review of the records to determine if they are discoverable. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.JamisonFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-313
State ex rel. Wyse v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. 22AP-25Relator filed no objections to the magistrate’s decision concluding that some evidence in the record supported the decision of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System to terminate relator’s disability benefits. Because there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, it is adopted and the request for a writ of mandamus is denied.MentelFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-314
State ex rel. Ware v. Bratton 20AP-347Magistrate's decision recommending denial of request for writ of mandamus, statutory damages, and court costs adopted. The magistrate did not err by determining that relator failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the purported records request was directed to the public office or person responsible for the records sought. Relator was not entitled to statutory damages or court costs because the purported records request was not directed to the public office or person responsible for the records sought.DorrianFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-260
Hunter v. Rhino Shield 22AP-507The trial court did not err when awarding sanctions in favor of appellees under R.C. 2323.51. It was frivolous conduct to sue entities that had no connection to the plaintiffs and were not parties to the original agreement they entered into, to sue an entity that did not exist at the time of contracting, and to refuse to dismiss those entities as defendants. Nor did the trial court err when overruling appellant's motion for sanctions based on alleged frivolous conduct because the subjects of the motion were non-parties who did not engage in a conspiracy to avoid service, but actually provided appellant with an address for proper service. Because there were no reasonable grounds for the appeal, appellees’ motion for sanctions under App.R. 23 is granted.MentelFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-261
State v. Morris 23AP-186Appellant’s motion seeking a final appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C) was incorrectly construed as an untimely motion for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 but was properly denied. After severance of the counts in the criminal indictment and their resolution in two separate judgments, appellant failed to appeal from the second judgment to raise the argument that all counts had to be resolved in a single final appealable order. The argument that he was entitled to a separate case number for the second set of counts does not demonstrate prejudice, and the trial court referenced all counts in both judgment entries. Judgment affirmedMentelFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-262
State ex rel. Stone v. Norman 23AP-376The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas erred in granting summary judgment in favor of respondent-appellee, the Registrar of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, in realtor-appellant’s action for a writ of mandamus ordering respondent-appellee to vacate his driver’s license suspension pursuant to R.C. 4509.40, or alternatively for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court erroneously concluded that a judgment that has gone dormant and cannot be revived is not “stayed” or “satisfied” for purposes of R.C. 4509.40. Based on its erroneous legal conclusion, the trial court concluded that relator-appellant did not have a clear legal right to relief in mandamus and was not entitled to declaratory relief. The trial court also erred by holding that relator-appellant had an adequate remedy at law. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.BoggsFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-263
State v. Rohrig 23AP-403Because appellant failed to support his arguments alleging errors occurring at his community control revocation proceedings with a transcript or alternative record under App.R. 9, this court must presume the validity of those proceedings and affirm.DorrianFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-264
Fluellen v. Miller 23AP-472LANDLORD-TENANT — RETALIATION CLAIM — R.C. 5321.02 — CIV.R. 12(B)(6): Because trial court did not fully consider the sufficiency of tenant’s retaliation claim against landlord under R.C. 5321.02(A), the trial court erred in finding tenant failed to state a claim under which relief could be granted and dismissing the retaliation claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Trial court did not err, however, in dismissing tenant's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims against landlord. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.EdelsteinFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-265
State ex rel. Rodgers v. Indus. Comm. 22AP-759The magistrate's decision contained no error of law or other defect on its face. Therefore, we adopt as our own the magistrate's decision finding that the commission did not abuse its discretion when it found that relator was not entitled to TTD compensation. Accordingly, relator's request for a writ of mandamus is denied.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/23/2024 1/23/2024 2024-Ohio-223
In re A.A. 23AP-152Juvenile court did not plainly err in admitting into evidence the guardian ad litem’s report and relying on that report in determining that granting permanent custody of minor child to public children services agency was in the minor child’s best interestDorrianFranklin 1/23/2024 1/23/2024 2024-Ohio-224
Tchankpa v. Gauer 23AP-275The trial court did not err in its determination that appellant’s other claims were subsumed within the legal malpractice cause of action as they arose from appellee’s legal representation in the course of the attorney-client relationship. The trial court did not err by dismissing appellant’s legal malpractice claim as both the date of termination and the cognizable event occurred more than one year from the date the complaint was filed. Judgment affirmed.MentelFranklin 1/23/2024 1/23/2024 2024-Ohio-225
Gipson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 23AP-291The trial court did not err in granting the motion of ODRC to dismiss after finding that it lacked subject jurisdiction over appellants’ claim for tampering with evidence, and further finding appellants’ claim regarding ODRC’s failure to investigate was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2743.16(A). Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/23/2024 1/23/2024 2024-Ohio-226
12