|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Grossman v. Morrison
| 24AP-154 | GUARDIAN AD LITEM – FEES – CONTEMPT – CUSTODY: Although the juvenile court had the authority to levy guardian ad litem fees as court costs against a party in a private custody dispute, the trial court erred in holding mother in contempt of court for her failure to pay the fees and sentencing her to a suspended three-day jail sentence. Court costs constitute a civil obligation for which a party may not be incarcerated under Article 1, Section 15 of the Ohio Constitution. Further, the guardian ad litem did not submit all billing statements to the trial court for approval and trial court failed to review the propriety of block-billed guardian ad litem fees, consider mother’s ability to pay additional fees after parents’ deposit to guardian ad litem was exhausted, and evaluate the fairness in the allocation of fees. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
11/4/2025
|
11/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5016 |
|
State v. Lowry
| 24AP-668 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Boggs | Franklin |
11/4/2025
|
11/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5017 |
|
State v. Henderson
| 24AP-669 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellate counsel submitted an Anders brief having found no issues of arguable merit. After our own independent review of the record, we cannot find any non-frivolous issues for appeal. | Boggs | Franklin |
11/4/2025
|
11/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5018 |
|
State v. G.P.C.
| 24AP-691 | Before the trial court, the state asserted the existence of a second conviction in its objection to appellant’s application to seal the record pursuant to 2953.32(B)(1)(a); however, before this court, the state conceded it does appear it was mistaken in stating there was a second conviction. The proper remedy at this stage is not to grant the application. However, given that we are unable to discern from the entry or the record whether the trial court considered and gave weight to either the state’s assertion of a second conviction or appellant’s denial of the second conviction, we find it appropriate to reverse the trial court’s judgment denying appellant’s application to seal the record and remand this case to the trial court. On remand, the trial court shall consider the information which the state provided to this court in its brief that it does appear the state was mistaken in stating there was a second conviction as well as any other relevant information provided by the state or appellant. On considering the same, the trial court shall determine whether to grant or deny the sealing of record. Judgment reversed and remanded with instructions for further consideration and determination. | Dorrian | Franklin |
11/4/2025
|
11/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5019 |
|
Lupton v. Ohio State Racing Comm.
| 24AP-687 | The trial court did not err in ordering a new hearing before the Ohio State Racing Commission (“Racing Commission”), or in finding the Racing Commission hearing officer abused his discretion in granting the Racing Commission’s motion to quash the subpoena of a witness. However, the trial court, like the Racing Commission, erred in defining “cruelty” for the purpose of Adm.Code 3769-2-26(A)(9). Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4984 |
|
State v. Whitfield
| 24AP-325 | Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the admission of alleged other-acts evidence or a photographic exhibit introduced by the state. The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting into evidence the alleged other-acts evidence. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4957 |
|
In re E.H.
| 24AP-718 | As the records at issue, consistent with the trial court’s entry, were “destroyed, deleted, or erased so that the record is permanently irretrievable,” we are unable to meaningfully review the trial court’s decision to grant the expungement. Because appellant failed to seek a stay of execution, her appeal from the trial court’s grant of appellee’s application for expungement of the criminal records is rendered moot. Case dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4958 |
|
Damron v. Ohio Parole Bd.
| 24AP-724 | The trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s complaint for a declaratory judgment for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. An inmate has no clear legal right to review his parole record prior to a parole hearing, and appellant did not allege that he was denied the right to respond to information discussed at his parole hearing or to submit additional pertinent information following the hearing. Appellant’s complaint contained no nonspeculative facts that the parole board denied him meaningful consideration for parole by failing to produce copies of the materials upon which the parole board relied, by basing its decision on substantively incorrect information, or by basing its decision on an unwritten “first flop” policy. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4959 |
|
Craig v. Sagraves
| 25AP-214 | In this insurance coverage dispute, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellant fails to show appellee, the insurer, had a duty to defend appellant against claims arising from a home renovation contract dispute between a limited liability company (the named insured) and the party suing appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4960 |
|
Mohler v. Univ. of Toledo Athletic Dept.
| 25AP-248 | The Court of Claims erred in determining that discretionary immunity applied to appellant’s claims related to appellant’s dismissal from the university’s soccer team. However, summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and negligence claims was proper because no genuine issues of material fact remained and appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court of Claims’ decision is affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4961 |
|
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ.
| 25AP-376 | The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err by overruling appellant’s objections to a special master’s report and recommendation, adopting the report and recommendation, and entering judgment for appellee, The Ohio State University, on appellant’s complaint alleging a denial of access to public records. In determining that the requested materials—lists of names and email addresses of all persons who receive newsletters about the university’s athletic activities—are not public records, the Court of Claims did not err by relying on this court’s binding precedent in Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 2024-Ohio-5891 (10th Dist.). Because the identities and addresses of those who receive the university’s athletics newsletters reveal nothing about the university’s organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities, the Court of Claims did not err by concluding that the requested materials did not qualify as records under R.C. 149.011 or public records under R.C. 149.43. Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s motion to strike portions of appellee’s appellate brief is denied. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4962 |
|
In re A.O.
| 24AP-712 | The trial court’s decision granting legal custody of the child to a family friend was not an abuse of discretion, and its finding that the placement was in the child’s best interest was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although the appellant putative father maintained a strong familial bond with the child, he failed to comply with important aspects of the case plan related to drug use and lack of stable housing, and the child had flourished under the care of her custodian over the course of over two years. | Dingus | Franklin |
10/28/2025
|
10/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4923 |
|
State v. Sheppard
| 24AP-741 | The trial court correctly determined that Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky. Because the trial court called the state's witness as a court witness, it did not error in allowing the state to impeach its own witness. The trial court did not plainly error in refusing to give an accomplice jury instruction because the state's witness was not charged with complicity as a result of his involvement in this matter. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/28/2025
|
10/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4924 |
|
In re Estate of Schwarzbach
| 25AP-753 | Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Trial court erred in dismissing Appellant’s objections on questions of law for failure to file a transcript, as Appellant did not need to provide a transcript for the trial court to review and decide Equal Protection Clause arguments. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/28/2025
|
10/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4925 |
|
State v. McDonald-Glasco
| 25AP-498 | The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s petition for postconviction relief because the petition was untimely, and no exception set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A) applied. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/28/2025
|
10/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4926 |
|
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Thomas
| 24AP-350 | The trial court did not err, as a matter of law, in granting judgment for the mortgagor despite the evidence in the record regarding the existence and amount of damages. Having offered into evidence a partial payment history of the mortgage loan, the mortgagee cannot complain that the trial court erred in considering that evidence in determining whether the mortgagee met its burden to prove the amount of principal and interest due on the loan. The trial court’s judgment in the mortgagor’s favor is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in denying the mortgagee’s motion for a new trial. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4856 |
|
Reed v. Reed
| 25AP-179 | Domestic relations court did not err by denying motion to modify agreed divorce decree. The requested modification did not satisfy the requirements of R.C. 3105.171(I) because there was not express written consent or agreement to the modification by both spouses. Even if not barred by statute, appellant was not entitled to the requested relief under Civ.R. 60(B) because her motion was untimely, having been filed more than eight years after the agreed divorce decree was entered. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4857 |
|
State v. Hussein
| 25AP-181 | Appellant’s convictions for aggravated robbery, robbery, and felonious assault were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state presented evidence that a theft offense occurred, and that the victim suffered serious physical harm. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4858 |
|
State v. Quarles
| 25AP-243 | Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant-appellant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea. Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4859 |
|
State v. Smith
| 23AP-669 | The trial court erred by denying appellant’s motion to suppress. During an inventory search, law enforcement opened a closed container without a standardized policy or practice specifically governing the opening of such containers. Because the discovery of the drug paraphernalia was the result of the officer improperly opening the closed container, all evidence obtained as a result of the search must be suppressed. Judgement reversed and cause remanded. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4806 |
|
State ex rel. Richardson v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-301 | Respondents did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision recommending this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission to vacate its decision that denied relator’s request for permanent total disability compensation and issue a new decision in accordance with the law. Finding no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, it is adopted in full and the requested writ of mandamus is granted. | Edelstein | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4807 |
|
Mitchell v. Geiger
| 24AP-366 | The trial court abused its discretion in terminating the parties’ shared parenting plan without first conducting the proper best interests analysis as required. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4808 |
|
Donna Keels, L.L.C. v. Nofal Foods, L.L.C.
| 24AP-612 | Trial court did not err in vacating magistrate’s attorney fee award decision where voluntary dismissal by parties of all claims nullified the action and dissolved all prior interlocutory orders, including prior partial summary judgment decision, and such dismissal divested trial court of jurisdiction to award fees to appellant as a prevailing party under the terms of a lease agreement as there was no adjudication on the merits. | Leland | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4809 |
|
Wuerth v. Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C.
| 24AP-660 | The trial court’s decision to award summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee on plaintiffs-appellants’ individual claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act was proper because no genuine issues of material fact remain and appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the trial court’s decision is affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4810 |
|
M.F. v. Ohio State Univ. College of Medicine
| 24AP-84 | Because the manifest weight of the evidence does not support the Court of Claims’ finding regarding proximate cause, the Court of Claims erred in entering judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor on defendants’ claims for medical negligence, loss of consortium, and lack of informed consent. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4814 |
|
Croley v. JDM Servs., L.L.C.
| 23AP-544 | The trial court erred by granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment as there is a reasonable dispute of fact whether the display of a noose in appellant’s vehicle was severe enough conduct to create a hostile work environment. The trial court also erred by granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment as to appellant’s retaliation claim. There is a reasonable dispute of fact whether appellant’s termination based on his refusal to turn over the noose to appellees, or allow them to cut a piece of it for use in the investigation, was protected activity. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/16/2025
|
10/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4762 |
|
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Ohio Parole Bd.
| 24AP-708 | Objections to magistrate’s decision sustained. The relator’s certified inmate account statement complied with R.C. 2969.25(C) as it set forth the balance in the inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. This matter is remanded to the magistrate to address the remaining arguments in respondent’s motion to dismiss. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/16/2025
|
10/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4763 |
|
State v. Allen
| 24AP-34 | The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for rape, sexual battery, and gross sexual imposition of the three victims; therefore, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. Further, the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant did not identify any conflicting evidence that would support his argument that the jury clearly lost its way and created such a miscarriage of justice that the convictions must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4727 |
|
In re K.P.
| 24AP-549 & 25AP-350 | JUVENILE – CONCEALED WEAPON – FOURTH AMENDMENT – MOTION TO SUPPRESS – PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE WEAPONS SEARCH – SPECIAL SAFETY NEEDS – INEVITABLE DISCOVERY: The trial court did not err in denying juvenile’s motion to suppress evidence he claimed was obtained in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution where the public high school had a written policy for daily weapons searches that included a bag check and metal detection screening of all students as part of the school's entry procedure. Notwithstanding the Security Resource Officer ("SRO")'s practice of simultaneously patting down each student while performing the hand-held wand scan and his testimony about feeling the firearm in the juvenile's waistband before scanning that area with the metal detector wand, the discovery of the firearm was inevitable. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4728 |
|
State ex rel. Kaminski v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-632 | Relator did not demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission to approve his request for permanent total disability compensation. The commission considered all the evidence before it and determined, based on medical evidence and consideration of the nonmedical factors, that relator was not permanently and totally disabled. Because the commission had some evidence upon which to rely, specifically identified the evidence upon which it relied, and provided a brief explanation for its reasoning, the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying relator’s application for permanent total disability compensation. Writ of mandamus denied | Edelstein | Franklin |
10/9/2025
|
10/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4663 |
|
State ex rel. Jones v. Hildebrand
| 25AP-305 | The magistrate correctly found relator failed to file a R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit of prior civil actions despite having filed at least one civil action in the previous five years. The magistrate further correctly found relator failed to file with his affidavit of indigency a statement that sets forth the balance in the inmate account of the inmate for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier, pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). Accordingly, this court grants the motion to dismiss filed by respondents and dismisses relator’s action. Writ of mandamus denied; complaint dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
10/7/2025
|
10/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4647 |
|
State v. Gooch
| 23AP-424 & 23AP-439 | Appellant does not establish plain error requiring reversal based on the trial court’s jury instructions on the charged offenses of operating a vehicle while under the influence (“OVI”). R.C. 4511/19(A)(1)(i)—the OVI per se offense—is not an alternative-means offense, and the trial court correctly instructed the jury of the elements it was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt to return a guilty verdict for OVI per se. The jury instructions on the OVI impaired offense under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) were erroneous to the extent they implied to the jury that it could find appellant guilty based on his operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs of abuse, when the state presented no evidence that appellant was under the influence of drugs of abuse, but reversal is not required to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. The guilty verdict on the OVI impaired offense did not affect appellant’s sentence, because the trial court sentenced Gooch only for OVI per se. Appellant does not establish plain error requiring reversal based on the trial court’s failure to define “under the influence of alcohol” in the jury instructions on the OVI impaired offense. Reversal of the jury’s finding of guilt on the OVI impaired offense is not required to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, as the jury also found appellant guilty of the OVI per se offense, and it was the OVI per se offense for which the trial court convicted and sentenced him. Appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/2/2025
|
10/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4595 |
|
State ex rel. Holderman v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-237 | Death benefits; prospective dependency; partial dependency; dependency in fact; incapacitated from earning. On objections to the magistrate’s decision recommending a limited writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Industrial Commission, to partially vacate its order and issue a new order determining whether relator, the adult daughter of a deceased employee, was partly dependent-in-fact under R.C.4123.59(D)(2) using the proper legal standards. Objections overruled, and writ of mandamus granted in part and denied in part. Respondent had the discretion to determine that relator was not incapacitated from earning based on evidence of relator’s actual sustained employment. Respondent must determine whether petitioner was partially dependent in fact based on the relevant facts of the case rather than the standard for establishing a legal presumption of whole dependency. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4553 |
|
State v. A.W.
| 23AP-421 | On defendant’s appeal of bench verdict of guilty and total aggregate sentence of fifteen years to lifetime incarceration for three counts of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition. Defendant’s three assignments of error assert improper admission of hearsay evidence and evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause, as well as the trial court’s alleged failure to safeguard defendant’s rights to due process in a bench trial. Reviewing courts presume that the court considered only relevant and competent evidence when a case is tried to the bench, and it is the defendant’s burden on appeal to affirmatively show otherwise and to establish prejudice. Here, the defendant has not pointed to any specific inadmissible or unfairly prejudicial statements in the record, and even assuming that some evidence was inadmissible, the record does not contain any indication that the trial court relied upon that evidence in determining its verdict. For this reason, all three of defendant’s assignments of error are overruled and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4554 |
|
State v. Phillips
| 23AP-582 | Appellant did not establish that the trial court committed plain error in warning him about the dangers of testifying, so as to deny his constitutional right to testify. The trial court informed appellant of his constitutional right to testify and repeatedly reminded him that the decision was his to make. Appellant acknowledged that the judge was not telling him which decision to make. Further, the record contains no express invocation by appellant of the right to testify. This case does not present the exceptional circumstance in which reversal is required to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice or to protect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a limited number of photos from the victim’s autopsy, crime-scene photos, or an investigator’s statement about the gruesomeness of the crime scene. The trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses of unlawful restraint and involuntary manslaughter with a predicate of unlawful restraint. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving a neutral jury instruction on consciousness of guilt, because the record contained evidence supporting an inference that appellant took active measures to avoid being found. The trial court did not err by overruling defense counsel’s objections to allegedly improper lay opinion testimony by a detective about what he observed on a surveillance video. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4555 |
|
State v. Smith
| 23AP-599 | Trial court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury how to apply its finding on Smith’s defense-of-another affirmative defense. The remaining assignments of error and the state’s sole cross-assignment of error are rendered moot. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. | Leland | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4556 |
|
State ex rel. Phillips v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
| 23AP-606 | Objections to Magistrate’s Decision overruled; OPERS did not abuse its discretion in denying relator’s application for disability benefits. | Leland | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4557 |
|
Copp v. Roush Honda
| 24AP-598 | The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant when a genuine issue of material fact remained regarding whether the spot of water that caused plaintiff to slip and fall constituted an open and obvious hazard. | Mentel | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4558 |
|
Westerville City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Harris
| 24AP-768 | The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) did not err in affirming the Tax Commissioner of Ohio’s final determination, ordering remission to appellee, The HTH Partners, LLC (HTH), of taxes, interest, and penalties for tax years 2016 and 2017 with respect to property owned by HTH. Although appellant argued that the Tax Commissioner lacked authority to grant remission from prior years unless it first found that the property was subject to exemption for the year in which the application was filed, nothing in R.C. 5715.25, 5713.08, or 5713.081 requires an applicant to prevail on the request for exemption in the tax year during which the application was filed to activate the Tax Commissioner’s discretionary authority to consider the request for remission for the previous three years. The BTA applied the plain and unambiguous language of the relevant statutes, giving effect to the provisions of each. The BOE did not demonstrate error based on the BTA’s consideration of evidence regarding tax year 2019 . | Boggs | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4559 |
|
Wolfe v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 25AP-330 | No error in the trial court’s decision granting the summary judgment motion of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The court complied with both Civ.R. 56(C) and (F). Judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4560 |
|
State v. Hodge
| 23AP-463 & 23AP-464 | Appellant’s convictions for kidnapping and aggravated riot were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence; matter remanded for re-sentencing, however, as sentence imposed by trial court’s sentencing entry was not the sentence verbally announced at sentencing hearing. | Leland | Franklin |
9/23/2025
|
9/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4434 |
|
In re A.M.
| 23AP-540 | The evidence upon which the trial court relied does not clearly and convincingly show that A.M. is a child “[w]hose condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, in the interests of the child, in assuming the child's guardianship,” as required to make a finding of dependency under R.C. 2151.04(C). Nor does the evidence show that Father abandoned his child pursuant to R.C. 5151.414(B)(1). Thus, insufficient evidence supported the adjudication of dependence, and the trial court’s judgments adjudicating A.M. as a neglected and/or dependent child and granting permanent custody of A.M. to Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS") must be reversed. Judgments reversed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/23/2025
|
9/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4435 |
|
State v. Brefford
| 23AP-644 | MOTION TO SUPPRESS — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — AGGRAVATED ROBBERY — ASSAULT — CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — SENTENCING — MULTIPLE FIREARM SPECIFICATIONS — R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g): The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered during an investigatory stop where evidence established that officers had reasonable suspicion for extending the consensual encounter with defendant in order to investigate whether criminal activity was afoot based on the overwhelming odor of raw marijuana emanating from defendant's person and defendant's presence in front of a known drug house in a high crime area operated by a known gang, use of multiple bags and a bicycle (consistent with persons selling narcotics), nervous behavior when questioned about the marijuana odor, and multiple denials of marijuana possession before attempting to flee. Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to move for discharge based on statutory speedy trial grounds and failure to object to the trial court's answers to jury's question about the carrying a concealed weapon jury instruction where defendant failed to establish he was prejudiced by trial counsel's purported failures. Defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery, assault with firearm specification, and carrying a concealed weapon were supported by sufficient evidence and are not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant admitted to carrying a partially concealed firearm in his waistband and the officers' testimony and body-worn camera footage showed defendant's physical altercation with officers during which a firearm fell from defendant's person onto the ground and a prolonged struggle over the firearm ensued. At sentencing, trial court did not err in exercising its discretion to impose mandatory prison sentences for each of the three firearm specifications under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) and State v. Bollar, 2022-Ohio-4370. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
9/23/2025
|
9/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4436 |
|
Anand v. Jones
| 24AP-728 | The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellant failed to comply with the contractual time limitations, and his reliance of general policy provisions is foreclosed by the contract’s plain language. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
9/23/2025
|
9/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4437 |
|
Tassone v. Tassone
| 25AP-95 | The trial court plainly erred in imposing a seek work order on Appellant without notice or an opportunity to be heard. Appellant's remaining assignments of error are rendered moot. | Jamison | Franklin |
9/18/2025
|
9/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4389 |
|
State v. Groce
| 24AP-334 | Because the seizure of a digital video recorder ("DVR") did not exceed the scope of the authorizing search warrant, defendant’s trial counsel had no grounds on which to move to suppress the video evidence contained on the DVR. Defendant, therefore, did not raise any issue in his postconviction petition as to whether his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the video evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s postconviction petition without a hearing. | Leland | Franklin |
9/16/2025
|
9/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4345 |
|
State v. Walker
| 24AP-335 | Because the seizure of a digital video recorder ("DVR") did not exceed the scope of the authorizing search warrant, defendant’s trial counsel had no grounds on which to move to suppress the video evidence contained on the DVR. Defendant, therefore, did not raise any issue in his postconviction petition as to whether his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the video evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s postconviction petition without a hearing. | Dorrian | Franklin |
9/16/2025
|
9/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4346 |
|
Collins v. State
| 24AP-388 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly granted the state’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint for lack of standing. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint asked the trial court to issue a declaratory judgment finding certain provisions of 2023 H.B. 33 unconstitutional. The challenged provisions of H.B. 33 took the authority to oversee education governance in Ohio away from the constitutionally mandated state board of education and provided it to the newly created position of director of education and workforce, a position appointed by the Governor. Plaintiffs, who were parents of public-school children and the board of education for a public school district, alleged H.B. 33 harmed them by causing them to lose the following: advocates who were once their best chance of affecting education policy in the state, representatives who could answer their questions, and access to public meetings of the body setting educational standards in the state. However, plaintiffs’ allegations of harm presented only generalized grievances and/or hypothetical injuries. The trial court’s additional statements finding plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief in Count 3 of their amended complaint were dicta. | Mentel | Franklin |
9/16/2025
|
9/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4347 |
|
Sharonville v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.
| 24AP-255 | On appeal of trial court judgment reversing decision of Ohio Liquor Control Commission to renew liquor permit. Judgment affirmed. Where the trial court is required to employ a hybrid review that permits limited factfinding and credibility analysis, where the Commission failed to engage in any factfinding itself and offered no reasoning for its decision, where extensive evidence in record supported the trial court's conclusion that renewal of the permit would cause substantial interference with public decency, sobriety, peace, or good order in the permitholder's neighborhood, trial court's decision to reverse Commission's renewal of permit was not an abuse of discretion. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/11/2025
|
9/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3289 |
|
Dehen v. Ohio State Univ.
| 24AP-671 | Appellant did not move to set aside magistrate orders regarding discovery motions in the trial court and, therefore, waived a challenge to those orders on appeal. Additionally, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee and dismissed appellant’s claims because the claims challenged appellee’s scholarship criteria which were subject to discretionary immunity as a policy characterized by the exercise of a high degree of official judgment or discretion. Because the claims fell within the scope of appellee’s discretionary immunity, the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction. | Dorrian | Franklin |
9/9/2025
|
9/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3240 |
|