|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State ex rel. Tarrier v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd.
| 18AP-12 | Objection of respondent sustained and writ of mandamus denied. Relator has not shown that she has a clear legal right to the relief she requests, nor that respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the act requested. Therefore, relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Public Employees Retirement Board, to retroactively modify relator's retirement plan with the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System from the Combined Plan to the Traditional Pension Plan, effective to October 8, 1987, her original date of hire by the Franklin County Public Defender. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
2/27/2020
|
2/27/2020
| 2020-Ohio-681 |
|
State ex rel. Merritt v. Indus. Comm.
| 18AP-234 | Mandamus denied. There is some evidence on which the commission could rely to conclude that relator was terminated from his employment for testing positive for marijuana. Therefore, the commission did not abuse its discretion. | Klatt | Franklin |
2/27/2020
|
2/27/2020
| 2020-Ohio-682 |
|
MDC Coast I., L.L.C. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision
| 18AP-721 | The Board of Tax Appeals erred in failing to consider all the non-sale-price evidence, including the entirety of the appraisal, that the property owner offered to prove the true value of the subject property for tax purposes. | Klatt | Franklin |
2/27/2020
|
2/27/2020
| 2020-Ohio-683 |
|
Brown v. Corr. Reception Ctr.
| 19AP-104 | Construing the evidence most favorably to the non-moving plaintiff and conducting a de novo review, genuine issues of fact as to each of the disputed elements of retaliation claim exist, making it not suitable for resolution on summary judgment according to evidence in record. | Brunner | Franklin |
2/27/2020
|
2/27/2020
| 2020-Ohio-684 |
|
State v. Clemonts
| 19AP-406, 19AP-407, 19AP-408, & 19AP-409 | The trial court did not err in resentencing Clemonts pursuant to the remand order, and the duration of Clemonts' sentences and the imposition of consecutive sentences are in accordance with law. However, the trial court made a clerical error in the judgment entries in Case Nos. 18CR-238 and 18CR-434. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
2/27/2020
|
2/27/2020
| 2020-Ohio-685 |
|
Ohio Dept. of Taxation v. Davis
| 19AP-474 | In an action to collect on an R.C. 5747.13 tax assessment judgment, the trial court erred in denying the judgment creditor's Civ.R. 69 motion to compel discovery. Judgment reversed, cause remanded. | Sadler | Franklin |
2/27/2020
|
2/27/2020
| 2020-Ohio-686 |
|
State ex rel. Gerald v. Court of Claims
| 19AP-778 | The magistrate properly determined that this matter should be sua sponte dismissed because relator failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C). Thus, the magistrate's decision is adopted, and this action is sua sponte dismissed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
2/27/2020
|
2/27/2020
| 2020-Ohio-687 |
|
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Capital Roofing, L.L.C.
| 18AP-689, 18AP-691, 18AP-692 | Where genuine issues of material fact existed in the summary judgment record as to elements of the plaintiff's claims for vicarious liability, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on that claim is reversed. Where the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff was not entitled to a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. | Brunner | Franklin |
2/25/2020
|
2/25/2020
| 2020-Ohio-642 |
|
State v. L.A.A.
| 19AP-218 | Trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's petition for postconviction relief for lack of jurisdiction because petition was untimely filed and appellant failed to meet the requirements under R.C. 2953.23(A) for untimely filing. | Dorrian | Franklin |
2/25/2020
|
2/25/2020
| 2020-Ohio-643 |
|
Jezerinac v. Dioun
| 18AP-479 | Motion for reconsideration granted; original majority decision contained obvious errors. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery to decide issues of law; trial court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing default and termination provisions in a commercial lease; trial court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected one purchase offer and approved another purchase offer for a business in receivership. | Klatt | Franklin |
2/20/2020
|
2/20/2020
| 2020-Ohio-587 |
|