|
|
Braucher v. Durrani
| C-250100, C-250357 | CIV.R. 50(B) — JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT — CIV.R. 59(A) — MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL — CONSOLIDATED TRIALS — CIV.R. 42 — COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT — EXPERT TESTIMONY — EVID.R. 702 — HARMLESS ERROR — JURY INSTRUCTIONS — MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT — R.C. 2323.43 — CATASTROPHIC INJURY — SETOFF — PREJUDGMENT INTEREST — CUMULATIVE ERROR: The court correctly instructed the jury and did not abuse its discretion when it did not issue defendants’ proposed jury instructions concerning defendant doctor’s absence from trial. The trial court did not err by admitting expert opinion testimony where the expert was qualified to testify to the standard of care when dictating surgical notes or whether defendant doctor exaggerated or fabricated imaging findings. While the trial court erred by admitting improper expert opinion testimony, the error was harmless where the challenged testimony was echoed by other expert testimony, including, in one instance, defendants’ own expert. Although the trial court improperly joined plaintiffs’ claims for trial under Civ.R. 42, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that defendants were prejudiced and therefore that error was harmless. [See CONCURRENCE IN JUDGMENT ONLY: The rationale of Wilson v. Durrani, 2026-Ohio-2279 (1st Dist.), relied on by the majority in its Civ.R. 42 analysis, is incorrect.] The cumulative effect of the evidentiary errors at trial did not warrant reversal of the trial court’s judgment. The trial court erred in its judgment permitting plaintiff to recover the higher cap of $500,000 on noneconomic damages because she did not present sufficient evidence under R.C. 2323.43(A)(2) to support the trial court’s award. The trial court erred in denying defendants’ request for a setoff where this court has held that intentional tortfeasors are entitled to a setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A). The trial court did not err in awarding past medical damages where (1) defendants did not specifically argue that plaintiff provided no evidence of the amount of her past medical expenses and (2) defendants waived this issue on appeal when they stipulated to the amount of the medical expenses at trial. | Moore | Hamilton |
9/4/2026
|
9/4/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3467 |
|
cFIRST, L.L.C. v. Serv. Global, Inc.
| C-260021 | BREACH OF CONTRACT — SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for plaintiff where defendant failed to pay under the terms of the agreement and defendant’s performance was not excused. | Nestor | Hamilton |
9/4/2026
|
9/4/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3468 |
|
Baird v. Daniels
| C-260138 | ACTUAL NOTICE — CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE – TRIAL DATE: Although the trial court’s entry setting the trial date appeared on the court’s public docket, the trial court failed to provide actual or constructive notice of the trial date when it issued but did not serve an entry scheduling the trial date a mere five days before the trial, which included two weekend days and left the parties too little time to actually see it. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
9/4/2026
|
9/4/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3469 |
|
Adm. Order Regarding Sealing & Expungement of Appellate Case Dockets & Records
| M-260005 | EXPUNGEMENT — APPELLATE RECORD SEALING — R.C. 2953.32 — R.C. 2953.33 — R.C. 2953.34: This administrative order addresses the procedures for the sealing and expungement of appellate case dockets and records when a trial court seals or expunges the underlying criminal case pursuant to R.C. 2953.31 through 2953.34. Appellate courts must seal or expunge their records when a trial court issues a sealing or expungement order under R.C. 2953.32 or 2953.33, and the time for appealing that order has passed: the plain language of the applicable statutes requires appellate courts, as public offices or agencies, to seal or expunge records related to convictions or nonconvictions that have been sealed or expunged by the trial court. Based on this interpretation of the statutes, the clerk of courts for the First District is ordered to seal or expunge the appellate docket 40 days after receiving notification of the trial court’s order to seal or expunge the underlying criminal case. Where an opinion was issued in the case ordered to be sealed or expunged, the First District will issue a redacted version of the opinion to replace the original, unredacted version, and the redacted version will be provided to the Ohio Supreme Court Reporter. | Per Curiam | Hamilton |
9/4/2026
|
9/4/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3470 |
|
Keller v. Keller
| C-250337 | DIVORCE — DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS — SEPARATE PROPERTY — CHILD SUPPORT — EQUITABLE DIVISION – R.C. 3119.05(P): The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it equitably divided the parties’ marital property where the court’s classification and division of property was supported by the record. The court did not err in requiring Father to share the dependent-child income tax exemption with Mother where parenting time was essentially equal and it was equitable to do so. The trial court did not err in requiring that child-care expenses should be paid through child support, because R.C. 3119.05(P) mandates that child-care costs are paid through child support. The trial court abused its discretion when it adopted a percentage division of child-care costs that was not supported by the record. | Moore | Hamilton |
9/2/2026
|
9/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3422 |
|