|
|
O'Leary v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals
| 114700; 114706; 114709 | Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry; youth drop-in center; charitable institution; nonconforming use; certificate of occupancy; notice of nonconformance; use variance; area variance; Board of Zoning Appeals; Franklin Blvd. property; residential zoning; R.C. 2506.04; unnecessary hardship; practical difficulties; administrative appeal; subject-matter jurisdiction; joint notice of appeal; Civ.R. 11; legislative zoning authority; abuse of discretion. The trial court properly upheld the City’s notice of nonconformance on the grounds that the proposed youth drop-in center constitutes an enlargement or change of Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry’s lawful nonconforming charitable use under the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. The trial court exceeded its limited authority under R.C. 2506.04 by reweighing the evidence and effectively substituting its judgment for that of the Board of Zoning Appeals in reversing the Board’s grant of use and area variances, and the court reinstates the Board’s variance decisions and conditions. Under R.C. 2506.01, each appellant must independently perfect a notice of appeal, and the joint notice failed to comply with Civ.R. 11 as to the non-signing pro se neighbors. The matter is remanded with instructions to implement the reinstated variances. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
7/9/2026
|
7/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2605 |
|
State v. Campbell
| 115344; 115762 | Guilty plea; conceded error. The State conceded that the trial court failed to advise the defendant of the rights waived by entering a guilty plea. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
7/9/2026
|
7/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2606 |
|
State v. Barkley
| 115410 | Dismissal; reindictment; speedy trial. Judgment reversed. The time between the dismissal of the first case with prejudice and the reindictment of the defendant did not count for speedy-trial purposes. The dismissal of the first case was valid. Although it was not dismissed in open court, this court and Ohio courts have not required strict compliance with the requirement. Moreover, the defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the dismissal. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
7/9/2026
|
7/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2607 |
|
FCX Performance, Inc. v. Aurorium, L.L.C.
| 115240 | Breach of contract; action on account; limited warranty; failure to pay; answer; admission; amend; defective products; delay of delivery. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for leave to amend its answer because appellant failed to demonstrate that its request was timely and not prejudicial to the appellee. Appellant waited until appellee moved for summary judgment that relied on admissions made in appellant’s answer. Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of appellee on its breach-of-contract claim because no issue of fact remained that appellant did not pay for goods and services delivered and appellant did not demonstrate any defense for such failure. Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of appellee on appellant’s counterclaim because appellant failed to satisfy its reciprocal burden of demonstrating an issue of material fact whether its terms and conditions in its purchase order modified the original contract or that appellee agreed to be bound by those terms and conditions. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
7/9/2026
|
7/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2608 |
|
Cleveland v. WP Brooklyn SPE, L.L.C.
| 115505 | Community control; fines; R.C. 2929.31; building and housing code; due process. Housing court did not err where it imposed community-control sanctions upon a limited liability company. Housing court’s community-control sanctions were overbroad where they addressed an administrative-violation notice without any evidence regarding whether appellant had been provided due process of law. Conditions that governed maintenance at appellant’s other properties was overbroad because they were not the subject of the complaint before the court and the city retained the remedy of filing citations and/or complaints for the alleged violations. Further the trial court’s no-sale provision was proper where the appellant admitted that the property was in decent condition when they purchased it and deteriorated because of mismanagement during its ownership. The housing court’s order did not impose community control on minor misdemeanor citations where the court’s sentence on the first-degree misdemeanor included conditions for appellant’s other properties. Appellant waived a challenge to the applicability of Cleveland Cod.Ord. Chapter 365 by complying with the provisions of that code and failing to raise a challenge to the ordinances before the housing court. The housing court erred when it imposed a $50,000 on one first degree misdemeanor count when the statutory maximum in R.C. 2929.31 was $5,000. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
7/9/2026
|
7/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2609 |
|