|
|
Arndts v. Univ. of Cinti Med. Ctr.
| C-250687 | DEFAMATION PER QUOD — CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — SPECIAL DAMAGES — FRAUD — R.C. 2307.60 — PARTICULARITY — CIV.R. 9(B) — FAILURE TO REPORT ABUSE — R.C. 5101.63 — BIDDLE — RES JUDICATA: The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s defamation claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), where the claim was premised on defamation per quod, and plaintiff failed to plead special damages. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s fraud claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), where she failed to plead each claim with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B). The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s failure to report abuse claim under R.C. 5101.63 for failure to state a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) where plaintiff cited no authority that R.C. 5101.63 states a civil cause of action. The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s unauthorized disclosure of medical information cause of action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) where the complaint sufficiently alleged, under state law, that a hospital shared her medical information with unauthorized individuals without her consent. See Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp., 86 Ohio St.3d 395, 401 (1999). The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s state-law claim for the unauthorized disclosure of medical information based on res judicata pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), because res judicata generally involves examining evidence outside the four corners of the complaint. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
8/12/2026
|
8/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3093 |
|
DSWDWK, L.L.C. v. Airgas USA, L.L.C.
| C-250580 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT — ECONOMIC LOSS RULE — CONVERSION — TRESPASS TO CHATTELS — BREACH OF CONTRACT — TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT: The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule where plaintiff’s tort claims for conversion, trespass to chattels, and tortious interference with a contract did not rest on an independent duty outside of the parties’ contract. The trial court erred in denying defendant’s counterclaim for breach of contract on the basis of waiver, as a nonbreaching party may continue to perform under the contract and sue to collect damages. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
8/12/2026
|
8/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3092 |
|
State v. Noonan
| C-260024 | MANIFEST WEIGHT — ASSAULT — CREDIBILITY — PHYSICAL HARM — HAIR-PULLING: Defendant’s conviction for assault was not against the manifest of the evidence where the trial court’s finding that defendant had pulled the victim’s hair out of her head was supported by victim testimony and photographs, and where no evidence so undermined the victim’s credibility as to require the trial court to discredit her testimony. Where the evidence supported a finding that defendant had physically pulled substantial amounts of the victim’s hair out of her head, the trial court permissibly found that the victim had suffered “physical harm” within the meaning of R.C. 2903.13(A) and 2901.01(A)(3). | Crouse | Hamilton |
8/7/2026
|
8/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3048 |
|
Jones v. Morgan
| C-250371 | MOTION TO DISMISS — CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — FRAUD — CIV.R. 9(B) — PRECLUSION — COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL — COLLATERAL ATTACKS — ABANDONMENT — RECEIVERS — IMMUNITY — SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION — R.C. 2301.03(B)(2): The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s fraud claims pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and 9(B), because plaintiff pled neither that defendants had made a false representation nor that they had any duty to disclose to him their actions. The trial court erred by granting motions to dismiss plaintiff’s conversion and replevin claims under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) based on defendants’ collateral-estoppel, collateral-attack, abandonment, and receivership-immunity defenses, where those defenses relied upon orders issued and actions taken in a separate proceeding, and where plaintiff did not allege or incorporate those orders and actions into his complaint. Because plaintiff’s claims were for conversion and replevin, his action was not a divorce, dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or annulment case committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Domestic Relations Division of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, and it could properly be heard by the General Division of that court. | Crouse | Hamilton |
8/7/2026
|
8/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3054 |
|
State v. Burton
| C-250548 | APPELLATE JURISDICTION — FINAL ORDERS — R.C. 2945.67 — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — OHIO CONST., ART. IV, § 3(B)(2) — MOTIONS TO DISMISS — MOTIONS FOR LEAVE: Although R.C. 2945.67(A) permitted the State to appeal the municipal court’s denial of the State’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the order because it was not a “judgment[] or final order[]” as required by Ohio Const., art. IV, § 3(B)(2), and State ex rel. Leis v. Kraft, 10 Ohio St.3d 34 (1984). | Crouse | Hamilton |
8/7/2026
|
8/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3047 |
|