|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Harvey v. McNamee
| 24AP-605 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying respondent’s second request to continue a full civil protection order hearing. The trial court had previously continued the full hearing upon respondent’s request, so respondent could obtain counsel. Respondent’s reasons for requesting a second continuance were the same as his reasons for requesting the first, and respondent did not explain why the initial continuance was insufficient. Respondent claimed he had hired counsel the night before the rescheduled hearing, but his new counsel was not available for the hearing and had not entered a notice of appearance. The trial court did not violate respondent’s right to a full hearing when it warned him against speaking directly to the petitioner. Respondent was present for the entire hearing and was given the opportunity to testify, which he declined. Judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/1/2025
|
7/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2332 |
|
Bittner v. Bittner
| 24AP-600 | On appeal of domestic relations court order denying in part father’s motion to modify child support. The trial court had jurisdiction to enter new orders of support for a disabled child past the age of majority, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that there was evidence in the record establishing the child’s disability. Uncontroverted evidence established that the other child had not attended high school on a full-time basis after reaching the age of majority, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion only insofar as it ordered support to continue past that child’s reaching the age of majority. Judgment affirmed as modified. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/1/2025
|
7/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2333 |
|
Sultaana v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-344 | The Court of Claims did not err in granting Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC")’s motion for summary judgment on appellant’s claims of false imprisonment and negligence as appellant’s sentencing entry was not facially invalid. Additionally, the Court of Claims did not err in refusing to strike the affidavit of an ODRC employee authenticating appellant’s sentencing entry and did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s discovery motions, motions for an extension of time, and request to take judicial notice. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2312 |
|
State ex rel. Bowling v. DeWine
| 25AP-191, 25AP-192, 25AP-193 | After this court addressed the merits of an interlocutory appeal, and after the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed a subsequent appeal as moot, the trial court did not err in proceeding to final judgment on the underlying action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mandamus. Because the Supreme Court of Ohio did not address the merits of the interlocutory appeal or the merits of the underlying claims that were not at issue in the interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s dismissal based on mootness did not require the trial court to dismiss the entire case on remand. The trial court did not err in applying the law of the case from our previous appellate decision holding that R.C. 4141.43(I), along with Article II’s exclusive reservation of legislative power to the General Assembly, did not allow the Governor to prematurely terminate Ohio’s participation in the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (“FPUC”) program, 15 U.S.C. 9023, which was part of the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The trial court properly ordered the Governor to rescind his early termination of the FPUC program and attempt to obtain the federal benefits that would have been paid to Ohio citizens from June 26 to September 6, 2021. The Governor failed to establish that it would be impossible to recover the benefits, and therefore failed to establish that the action was moot based on the impossibility of meaningful relief. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2313 |
|
State ex rel. Blaine v. State Emp. Relations Bd.
| 23AP-54 | On objections of relator and respondent to magistrate’s decision recommending the issuance of a limited writ of mandamus ordering respondent State Employment Relations Board ("SERB") to vacate its order dismissing relator’s charge that respondent Union had engaged in an unfair labor practice and directing SERB to issue a new order explaining its reasoning. Relator’s objection overruled, respondents’ objections sustained and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. The record evidence demonstrates respondent SERB did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Union had a legitimate, rational basis for its decision not to proceed to arbitration on relator’s grievance against the City of Youngstown. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2233 |
|
State ex rel. Columbus Schools, Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Mizer
| 23AP-111 | Adopting the recommendation and decision of the magistrate, relator’s request for a writ of mandamus vacating the Industrial Commission’s order granting respondent’s request for reconsideration and awarding her temporary total disability is denied. Respondent, a teacher who elected to be paid over twelve months for work performed during the nine months of the academic school year, suffered a loss of wage during the summer months that was a direct result of her work injury. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2234 |
|
State v. Justice
| 23AP-204, 23AP-205, 23AP-214 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Trial court did not violate appellant’s constitutional right to counsel when she was not represented by counsel at her arraignment, first pre-trial hearing and through the competency hearings as appellant repeatedly refused counsel. Trial court went to great lengths to balance appellant’s right to self-representation and its need to determine her competency to stand trial and substantially complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 44. Trial court also did not abuse its discretion in not ordering another competency evaluation and allowing appellant to continue representing herself. Trial court failed to inform appellant of the five mandatory advisements under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) and we remand for a limited resentencing hearing. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2235 |
|
In re L.W.
| 23AP-690 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court’s granting of Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS")’s motion for permanent custody was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and its determination of L.W.’s best interest did not lack sufficient evidence. The lack of an Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice or had a material adverse effect on the proceedings as there is no indication from appellant that she or L.W. has Native American heritage. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2236 |
|
Neighbors Opposing Pit Expansion, Inc. v. Stevenson
| 24AP-93 | Order reversed. The appellant sought to appeal a permit-to-install (“PTI”) to the Environmental Appeals Review Commission (“commission”). R.C. Chapter 3745 provides two avenues for appeal to the commission: R.C. 3745.04 and 3745.07. While R.C. 3745.07 specifically provides appeal rights to non-parties, such as the appellant in the present case, the appellant failed to file its notice of appeal within the time required by R.C. 3745.07. R.C. 3745.04 provides appeal rights to entities who were a “party to a proceeding before the director” of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“OEPA”). The appellant relied on two documents to claim it was a party to the proceeding for the PTI, but neither document presented OEPA with the appellant’s position, arguments, or concerns regarding the pending application for the PTI. As such, the appellant was not a party to the proceeding for purposes of R.C. 3745.04. Because the appellant failed to timely file its notice of appeal pursuant to R.C. 3745.07 and could not appeal the PTI pursuant R.C. 3745.04, the commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s appeal of the PTI. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2237 |
|
State v. Hayes
| 24AP-216 | Issues regarding bail are moot after a conviction. The court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear violations of the code of judicial conduct. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to quash because appellant did not have standing to challenge a subpoena issued to law enforcement officers. The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress because a uniformed state trooper had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle based on observations of traffic violations by a task force following the vehicle that were relayed to the trooper. | Jamison | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2238 |
|
State ex rel. Thelen v. State Emp. Relations Bd.
| 24AP-283 | Trial court did not err in denying relator-appellant’s request for a writ of mandamus following State Employment Relations Board ("SERB")’s dismissal of unfair labor practice charge for lack of probable cause. | Leland | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2239 |
|
Columbus v. 71-73 E. Norwich Ave., L.L.C.
| 24AP-484 | R.C. 715.30 – PERMANENT INJUNCTION – PUBLIC NUISANCE – CITY CODE VIOLATIONS: Trial court erred in permanently enjoining property owner “and any successors and heirs . . . from maintaining a public nuisance at the subject property or any other property in Franklin County” after the specific nuisance violations alleged in the City’s complaint were abated. R.C. 715.30 did not permit the overbroad permanent injunction imposed by the trial court in this case and instead should have been limited to the conditions giving rise to the trial court’s violation findings. Judgment reversed, in part, and cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2240 |
|
State v. Hogan
| 24AP-520 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea as he failed to articulate a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2241 |
|
Rice v. Stuckey
| 24AP-582 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for stay pending arbitration because the parties’ alleged settlement agreement is not subject to the parties’ prior arbitration agreement governing the operation of the parties’ business pursuits. Further, the portion of the trial court’s decision and entry denying appellant’s motion to dismiss is not a final order which this court may review. Thus, appellant’s first assignment of error is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2242 |
|
State v. Paul
| 23AP-505 | Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Appellant's challenges to the legal sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence supporting his convictions for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13, two counts of failure to comply with an order of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331, and obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31 have no merit. Testimony showed that appellant refused the police officers' orders to halt and instead accelerated his vehicle while an officer's hand was inside, requiring the officer to shatter the window to free himself to prevent being dragged as appellant fled and causing injury to the officer's hand. The state concedes the error in sentencing appellant to a term in state prison on a misdemeanor charge and, as a result, the case must be remanded for resentencing. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/24/2025
|
6/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2203 |
|
State v. Copeland
| 24AP-331 | Appellant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel based on his claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to sever the counts of the indictment and for failing to object to expert testimony purportedly vouching for the witness’s veracity because he did not establish a reasonable probability of a different outcome in the bench trial. Appellant also failed to demonstrate his rights under the confrontation clause were violated by the introduction of a forensic video interview of a witness who had already testified. | Dorrian | Franklin |
6/24/2025
|
6/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2204 |
|
Liu v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
| 24AP-458 | On appeal from Court of Common Pleas decision affirming order of the State Medical Board that permanently revoked appellant’s license to practice massage therapy in Ohio. The trial court’s decision finding that the Board’s order was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and was in accordance with law was not an abuse of the court’s discretion. On review, the appellate court determined that there was reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of false information in the appellant’s licensure application materials, that the board had not improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the appellant, and that the notice of hearing appellant received was sufficiently specific to satisfy appellant’s right to due process. Assignments of error overruled and judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/24/2025
|
6/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2205 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 24AP-569 | CRIM.R. 33 — DELAYED MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL — NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE — COUNSEL CONFLICT: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's delayed motion for a new trial where defendant failed to show that his trial counsel's undisclosed prior representation of one of the state's witnesses entitled him to relief under Crim.R. 33(A)(6). Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/24/2025
|
6/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2206 |
|
Law Office of Josh Brown, L.L.C. v. Ohio Secy. of State
| 24AP-170 | Judgment affirmed. The Court of Claims did not err when adopting the report and recommendation of the special master ordering the Secretary of State’s Office to comply with the appellee’s public records request. Appellee satisfied the required burden of production in a proceeding under R.C. 2743.75 by pleading and proving that he sought an identifiable public record under R.C. 149.43 and that his request was denied. This triggered a corresponding burden on the Secretary’s Office to prove an exemption to disclosure, but the proof it submitted addressed only the alleged limitations of its email database, not the asserted reason for the denial of the request as being overly broad. Furthermore, the request, which was temporally limited to emails of one office from one eight-month period with a unique keyword, was not overly broad. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/17/2025
|
6/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2130 |
|
Starner v. Johnson
| 24AP-205 | The trial court did not err when granting summary judgment in favor of appellees on the basis of res judicata. The claims brought by appellants arose out of a transaction that had resulted in a previous cognovit note judgment, and the appellees were either defendants in the previous case or their privies. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/17/2025
|
6/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2131 |
|
State ex rel. Stokes v. Combs
| 25AP-129 | Relator’s objections overruled and respondent’s motion to dismiss granted; because relator-inmate’s affidavit of prior actions was incomplete, pursuant to the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A)(2), magistrate properly found petition for writ of mandamus was subject to dismissal. | Leland | Franklin |
6/17/2025
|
6/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2132 |
|
In re C.L.
| 23AP-607 | The trial court's decision to grant Franklin County Children Services motion for permanent custody was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's written decision was not deficient for failing to specify what R.C. 2151.414(E) factors applied. The trial court did not err in adopting the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by Franklin County Children Services. | Jamison | Franklin |
6/12/2025
|
6/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2078 |
|
State v. Perry
| 23AP-714 | EVIDENCE — FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING — EVID.R. 804(B)(6) — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERT TESTIMONY — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: The trial court did not err in finding, prior to trial, that the defendant actively engaged in wrongdoing with the purpose of persuading the victim to stop cooperating with the state, to recant, and not to testify against him at trial and, thus, forfeited his confrontation right. Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting, in the victim’s absence, the victim’s out-of-court statements at trial. Although the state did not establish an adequate foundation to admit testimony from the state’s domestic violence expert about the characteristics of domestic violence victims, in the absence of an objection from the defense and given the considerable evidence supporting the defendant’s guilt, the trial court did not plainly err in failing to exclude, sua sponte, the domestic violence expert’s testimony at trial. Defendant’s convictions for felonious assault, abduction, and domestic violence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury believed the victim’s testimony and the nature of her injuries was supported by testimony from first responders who encountered the victim, photographs, and medical evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/10/2025
|
6/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2054 |
|
Leveque 41, L.L.C. v. Leveque Tower Condominium Assn., Inc.
| 24AP-368 | The trial court did not err in granting the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration because the arbitration clause contained in the condo association’s governing documents is enforceable, requires binding arbitration, and applies to appellants’ claims against the condo association. Additionally, the portion of appellants’ appeal related to the trial court’s denial of their motion to reconsider the immediate appointment of receiver is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/10/2025
|
6/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2055 |
|
State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys.
| 24AP-432 | Magistrate’s decision is adopted. We grant Ohio Public Employee Retirement System ("OPERS")’s motion to dismiss, and deny Relator’s motions. Relator has not established that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
6/10/2025
|
6/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2056 |
|
Brown v. Brown
| 24AP-285 | The trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to enter a support order for a disabled child whose disability occurred before he turned 18 but who was older than 18 at the time of the parties’ divorce. Though the trial court reasonably relied on Geygan v. Geygan, 2012-Ohio-1965 (10th Dist.) as the controlling precedent to conclude it lacked jurisdiction to enter a child support order for the disabled child pursuant to former R.C. 3119.86, this decision overrules Geygan. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter to determine the question of support for the disabled child from the time of appellant’s counterclaim of divorce until the time of the disabled child’s death. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/5/2025
|
6/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1998 |
|
In re E.B.
| 24AP-474 & 24AP-490 | Despite father’s argument that FCCS should have done more to help him obtain housing, the trial court did not err in concluding that FCCS engaged in reasonable efforts toward reunification, in making evidentiary determinations related to testimony about contents of agency records, and in considering and determining the children’s wishes before making its decision that granting the motion for permanent custody and terminating father’s and mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/5/2025
|
6/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1999 |
|
HDDA, L.L.C. v. Vasani
| 24AP-516 & 24AP-517 | The trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motions to quash and for protective order, or in granting appellee’s motions to compel. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
6/5/2025
|
6/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2000 |
|
State ex rel. Thomas v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-542 | Action for a writ of mandamus dismissed because the incarcerated relator failed to comply with the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/5/2025
|
6/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2001 |
|
Dutton v. Dutton
| 24AP-286 | Appeal dismissed because appellant did not file a timely appeal of the underlying divorce decree; the qualified domestic relations order from which she appealed is not an independent final order; and appellant did not seek a finding or resolution of ambiguity in the divorce decree from the trial court. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/3/2025
|
6/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1980 |
|
State v. Muhammad
| 24AP-424 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. A firearm specification and a having weapons while under disability charge does not violate the double jeopardy clause, as a firearm specification is not a separate offense but a penalty enhancement. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/3/2025
|
6/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1981 |
|
Chaganti v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
| 24AP-429 | The trial court did not err by dismissing as untimely appellant’s complaint for breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing. Appellant’s claims, which accrued in 2010, were subject to the version of the R.C. 2305.06 statute of limitations enacted by 2012 Sub.S.B. No. 224. The limitations period for appellant’s claims expired on September 28, 2020, more than three years before appellant filed his complaint. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/3/2025
|
6/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1982 |
|
Gadway v. Univ. of Toledo
| 25AP-128 | CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — MOTION TO DISMISS — WRONGFUL DEATH — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — DISCOVERY RULE — EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL — EQUITABLE TOLLING: The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s wrongful death complaint against a state university because it was filed more than two years after decedent’s death and plaintiff failed to meet her burden of pleading facts establishing the discovery rule, equitable tolling, or equitable estoppel should have applied as an exception to the university’s statute-of-limitations defense. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/3/2025
|
6/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1983 |
|
Dimitrievska v. Dimitrievski
| 24AP-70 | In the judgment entry of divorce, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to value the marital property and failing to support its division of property and orders regarding the refinancing of the marital residence with findings of fact under R.C. 3105.171(G). The trial court also erred by designating one parent the sole residential parent and legal custodian, but the other parent for as the residential parent for school placement purposes because it was an impermissible division of the custodial rights of the custodial parent. The judgment is reversed in part and remanded. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/29/2025
|
5/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1937 |
|
Tanner v. Robinson
| 24AP-405 | Appeal dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order where decision overruling objection to a magistrate’s decision failed to specify whether the trial court vacated, modified, or adhered to its earlier judgment adopting the magistrate’s decision, as provided by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/29/2025
|
5/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1938 |
|
State ex rel. Williams v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 24AP-471 | Relator failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 where strict compliance is required. Complaint is dismissed, motion for default judgment is moot, and motion of respondent is granted. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/29/2025
|
5/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1939 |
|
Davis v. Diley Ridge Med. Ctr.
| 24AP-521 | Emergency room physician and her employer were immune from prosecution for negligence and wrongful death due to injuries to a hospital employee caused by a patient who had abruptly left the emergency department during his assessment for mental health issues. Immunity under R.C. 2305.51(B) applied because the physician met the statutory definition of a “mental health professional,” the patient met the statutory definition of “mental health client or patient,” and the patient had not made an explicit threat of fatal or serious physical harm against the hospital employee or any other identifiable potential victim. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the physician and her employer. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
5/29/2025
|
5/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1940 |
|
Corpus Christi Firefighters’ Retirement Sys. v. Macellum Capital Mgt., L.P.
| 24AP-269 | Where the question of standing was squarely before the trial court and fully briefed by both parties, the trial court erred in failing to determine whether appellant had standing to commence its action for an alleged violation of R.C. 1707.043 and instead addressed the merits of the action. Because we must remand the matter to the trial court to determine the question of standing, we do not reach the question of whether the trial court properly interpreted R.C. 1707.043. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1895 |
|
State ex rel. Suburban Driving School, L.L.C. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp.
| 23AP-241 | Some evidence supported the determination of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation that relator was “essentially the same employer” as a previous entity under Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-13(A), allowing the agency to combine the entities' policies under Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-13(D). Relator’s sole objection is overruled as it does not address the actual regulation relied upon by the BWC. The decision of the magistrate is adopted in full. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/22/2025
|
5/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1841 |
|
Scott v. Kendricks
| 23AP-658 | Judgment affirmed. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered appellant to appear in person for a hearing under R.C. 3119.66 to review the child support agency’s revision to a child support order. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/22/2025
|
5/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1842 |
|
State ex rel. Clisby v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 24AP-166 | Relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“OAPA”) to terminate his postrelease control or to recall a warrant placed with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and to impose sentence in absentia for a violation of his postrelease control, as he has not shown a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the OAPA is under a clear legal duty to provide it. For an individual detained in federal prison, the OAPA has no duty to hold a revocation hearing until after the offender completes his federal sentence and federal authorities have transferred the offender into state custody. Magistrate’s decision adopted and writ of mandamus denied. | Boggs | Franklin |
5/22/2025
|
5/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1843 |
|
State v. Conway
| 24AP-700 | SUCCESSIVE POSTCONVICTION PETITION — DEATH SENTENCE — APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL — R.C. 2953.21(J)(1) — FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER: R.C. 2953.21(J)(1) generally provides indigent persons who have been sentenced to death with a statutory right to the appointment of counsel to litigate a postconviction petition for relief. Given the unique nature of capital proceedings, an appeal following a judgment on the merits of a postconviction motion may offer a remedy to a trial court’s denial of the appointment of counsel, but not an adequate one in cases involving a death sentence. Thus, the trial court’s order denying the motion for appointment of counsel of an indigent person who has been sentenced to death is a final, appealable order subject to appellate review under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). However, because this court has previously interpreted R.C. 2953.21(J)(1) as requiring a trial court to appoint counsel only in the case of a timely-filed first petition for post-conviction relief—and in the absence of any challenge to that precedent in this case—the principles of stare decisis compel us to find the indigent defendant did not have a statutory right to the assistance of counsel to litigate his third petition for postconviction relief, despite having been sentenced to death. As such, the trial court did not err in denying his motion for appointment of counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/22/2025
|
5/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1844 |
|
AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
| 24AP-704 | R.C. 1509.37 — SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION — CIV.R. 12(B)(1): Because appellant failed to timely file a copy of its notice of appeal in the common pleas court, as required by R.C. 1509.37, the trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/22/2025
|
5/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1845 |
|
State ex rel. Parsons v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-30 | Magistrate’s decision adopted and petition for writ of mandamus denied. Some evidence in the administrative record supports the Industrial Commission of Ohio’s determination that relator’s psychological conditions did not sufficiently worsen during the time between the denial of his first application for permanent total disability and his second application for permanent total disability to demonstrate new and changed circumstances under R.C. 4123.59(G). | Boggs | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1792 |
|
Rericha v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr.
| 24AP-240 | On defendants’ appeal from court of claims trial verdict for plaintiffs. Trial court did not err in affirming magistrate’s decision and finding that plaintiff’s injuries from two separate auto accidents were not divisible, where the defendants failed to present any expert medical evidence supporting their theory of divisibility and apportionment; trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to find that defendants’ accident reconstruction expert was competent to opine on divisibility of plaintiff’s bodily injuries; trial court did not err by concluding that defendants had failed to meet their burden to establish an intervening and superseding cause of plaintiff’s bodily injuries; trial court did not err in its application of rule of damages governing plaintiff’s preexisting injuries; trial court did not err in application of joint and several liability to defendants. Defendants’ six assignments of error overruled and judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1793 |
|
State v. Williams
| 24AP-382 | Where victim testified that defendant dragged her by her hair and threw her against a wall hard enough that she lost consciousness, defendant’s conviction for domestic violence withstood defendant’s challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1794 |
|
State v. Bowman
| 24AP-398 | The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for sexual battery of the victim, in violation of R.C. 2907.03, a third-degree felony. Further, the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1795 |
|
Clark v. Duffy
| 24AP-506 | Relator lacks standing for a writ of quo warranto against respondents, who hold various offices and positions within the Franklin County Probate Court. Magistrate’s decision adopted. Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted, and relator’s motions to compel denied as moot. | Boggs | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1796 |
|
Moore v. Bott Moore
| 24AP-643 | On interlocutory appeal from Franklin County Probate Court’s denial of motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss for lack of a final order. Trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel does not fall within the definition of a final order set forth in R.C. 2595.02(B)4) because it is not an ancillary proceeding, and because the appealing party cannot demonstrate that the party would not be afforded meaningful review following final judgment as to all proceedings in the probate case. Motion granted and appeal dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1797 |
|
Cotten v. Chambers-Smith
| 24AP-702 | Dismissal order based on failure to file affidavit of civil actions reversed because subsequent filing created question of whether plaintiff complied with the statutory requirement. Remanded for further proceedings regarding the authenticity of the relevant document. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1798 |
|