|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State ex rel. Smalley v. Lauth
| 23AP-700 | Magistrate’s decision sustaining respondent’s motion to dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and dismissing petition is adopted and petition dismissed, where petitioner filed no objections and petitioner could not demonstrate that he had a clear legal right to relief. Respondent ODRC’s alleged violation of its internal policy did not create a legal duty enforceable in mandamus. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2824 |
|
State v. Lyons
| 23AP-194 | The trial court erred in waiving the mandatory fine required to be imposed by R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d)(iii), R.C. 2929.18(B)(3), and R.C. 2929.19(C)(2), and further erred in failing to note the mandatory term of incarceration in its sentencing entry. Judgment vacated; cause remanded with instructions. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2820 |
|
State v. Favours
| 23AP-130 & 23AP-131 | The trial court did not err and did not run afoul of the holding in State v. Jones, 171 Ohio St.3d 496, 2022-Ohio-4485, by ordering defendant to serve the sentence in his 2019 case consecutively to his sentence in his 2018 case for violation of his community control. The trial court also did not err by imposing a three-year sentence on the firearm specification to which defendant pled guilty or by adding that sentence to both the minimum and maximum terms of his indefinite sentence for involuntary manslaughter when it stated his aggregate sentence. The trial court’s imposition of an indefinite sentence for involuntary manslaughter did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights. The trial court did, however, err in its calculation and application of jail-time credit to defendant’s sentences in his 2018 and 2019 cases and by ordering the sentences in his 2018 and 2019 cases to run consecutively to his already terminated 2017 case. First, the court erroneously subtracted from defendant’s days of jail-time credit 730 days, which the court claimed to have credited to defendant’s 2017 case. But in the 2017 case, the trial court did not revoke defendant’s community control and did not impose a reserved prison sentence before discharging defendant from community control, and neither the state nor the defendant appealed the termination of the 2017 case. Because the trial court never imposed a prison term in the 2017 case, there was no prison sentence to reduce with application of jail-time credit. The trial court committed a clerical error because its judgment entry set out a different sentence for the offense of involuntary manslaughter than it had announced during the sentencing hearing. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2819 |
|
Fikes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-115 | R.C. 2743.10 precludes this court from exercising jurisdiction over the merits of appellant’s argument that his case should not have been transferred to the court of claims administrative docket. Appeal dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2826 |
|
State ex rel. Canales v. Kron
| 23AP-738 | The magistrate properly concluded that relator failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 because relator failed to file a cashier’s statement with the information required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate’s decision as our own. Motion to dismiss granted; writ of mandamus denied; complaint dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2825 |
|
State ex rel. Hillman v. McIntosh
| 23AP-508 | Writ of procedendo denied and action is dismissed. Appellant has not established he is entitled to a writ of procedendo. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2821 |
|
Ezeh v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 23AP-648 | Court of Claims did not err by dismissing claim for unlawful kidnapping, because the claim was subject to a one-year statute of limitations and the complaint was filed more than one year after the offense dates alleged in the complaint. Court also did not err by dismissing complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to the extent it sought to assert a constitutional claim. | Dorrian | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2823 |
|
Adkins v. MedCentral Health Sys. Mansfield Hosp.
| 23AP-603 | Judgment reversed. A probate court’s finding of incompetency does not conclusively establish that the incompetent individual was of unsound mind for purposes of R.C. 2305.16. Viewing the summary judgment evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the injured party had continually been of unsound mind since the claims accrued. Therefore, because R.C. 2305.16 potentially tolled the applicable statutes of limitations and repose, the trial court erred by granting appellees’ motions for summary judgment. | Leland | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2822 |
|
State ex rel. David v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-380 | In this action in mandamus concerning claimant’s eligibility for temporary total disability compensation, the SHO’s clear legal error of its misapplication of the AutoZone decision and in ignoring R.C. 4123.56(F), which was enacted in 2020 specifically to “supersede judicial decisions applying the voluntary abandonment doctrine,” taints the SHO’s entire ruling. Such a clear legal error can only be rectified by remanding the matter to the commission for the proper analysis. Objections of relator overruled; limited writ of mandamus granted; and matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/23/2024
|
7/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2790 |
|
State v. Welch
| 23AP-462 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant’s motion is barred by res judicata. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/18/2024
|
7/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2722 |
|
State v. Jackson
| 23AP-388 | Appellant’s convictions for murder and tampering with evidence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
7/18/2024
|
7/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2721 |
|
Palmieri v. Palmieri
| 21AP-146 | In this divorce action, the trial court erred in failing to equally and/or equitably divide the parties’ marital debt as it relates to the division of assets and liabilities of the parties and failed to allocate the Chase credit card debt. The trial court further erred in failing to make adequate findings and conclusion or indicate any consideration of the factors contained in R. C. § 3105.171(F) as it relates to the allocation of marital debt. In addition, the trial court erred in allocating all personal property located in pods and storage units to Sharon contrary to the parties’ in-court stipulation, and further erred in finding that the parties waived valuation of all personal property; that the parties waived their rights to written findings of fact; and that the parties agreed that the distribution of personal property, while if not precisely equal, is in fact equitable and in accord with their agreed stipulation in contravention of the parties’ joint waiver related to the personal property in Wife’s possession and control. Further, the trial court erred in finding that all retirement accounts had accumulated during the marriage. The evidence showed that the Lucent Technologies pension contained both marital and separate property, and thus should be divided utilizing a coverture fraction. Finally, the trial court did not err in failing to establish a de facto termination date of marriage of September 30, 2020 for purposes of property division. Cross-appellant’s fifth assignment of error is overruled; his first, second, third, fourth and sixth assignments of error are sustained; the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, for further proceedings consistent with the decision. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/18/2024
|
7/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2720 |
|
Academy Ridge v. Gahanna
| 23AP-440 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellants do not have taxpayer standing under R.C. 733.59. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/16/2024
|
7/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2699 |
|
Griffin v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 23AP-646 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of ODRC when an inmate is unable to demonstrate that ODRC had notice of the dangerous defect or condition. The judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio is affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
7/11/2024
|
7/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2626 |
|
State ex rel. King v. Hoying
| 23AP-708 | The magistrate’s decision contained no error of law or other defect on its face, and we adopt it as our own. Relator’s petition fails to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), and dismissal is proper. Relator’s request for a writ of mandamus is denied, and pending motions are moot. | Jamison | Franklin |
7/11/2024
|
7/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2627 |
|
State ex rel. Berry v. Indus. Comm.
| 21AP-548 | Writ of mandamus granted. Relator has established that there was an applicable and specific safety requirement in effect at the time of his injury, the employer failed to comply with the requirement and that was the cause of the injury in question. Specifically Relator has shown there was a violation of a specific safety requirement under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(7) as there was a heavy object on a level above and near the excavation according to the common and ordinary meaning of the words of the regulation. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/9/2024
|
7/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2616 |
|
State v. J.J.S.
| 23AP-441 | INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE – EVID.R. 404: Trial counsel’s deficient performance in opening the door to the unfettered presentation of other-acts evidence about alleged sexual abuse of his stepdaughters was highly prejudicial where the state had no pretrial intention of presenting such evidence at trial, the state’s case hinged almost exclusively on the jury’s determination of the minor victim's credibility, and the jury was not instructed on the limited purpose for which it could consider the other-acts evidence presented. Because there is a reasonable probability the jury’s verdict was impermissibly based on the pervasive other-acts evidence presented at trial, trial counsel’s deficient performance undermines confidence in the outcome of appellant’s trial, and thus constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
7/5/2024
|
7/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2645 |
|
Bridges v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 23AP-443 | Finding no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate's decision, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, we dismiss this action. | Jamison | Franklin |
7/2/2024
|
7/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2548 |
|
Blank v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
| 23AP-183 | The trial court improperly accorded claim-preclusive effect to appellant’s R.C. 4112.02 retaliation claim based upon the District Court’s judgment of dismissal. The District Court’s decision dismissing appellant’s Title VII retaliation claim “with prejudice” for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, on the unique procedural facts of this case, did not serve to bar appellant from pursuing a R.C. 4112.02 retaliation claim in state court. The District Court’s judgment did not meet the first element of res judicata/claim preclusion as it was not a judgment on the merits. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the retaliation claim. However, the trial court properly accorded claim-preclusive effect to appellant’s R.C. 4112.02 race discrimination claim based upon the District Court’s judgment of dismissal. The judgment met all the elements of res judicata/claim preclusion. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the race discrimination claim. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in part. Judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part. Case is remanded to the trial court. | Dorrian, J. | Franklin |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2500 |
|
State ex rel. Diamond v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-360 | We adopt the magistrate's findings of fact and revise some conclusions of law. The evidence showed the amputation of relator's left middle finger severed some of his proximal phalanx, and R.C. 4123.57(B) thus required the commission to award relator the total loss of that finger. The commission's finding that relator lost no more than two-thirds of his left index finger, however, was supported by some evidence in the record. The requested writ of mandamus is granted in part and denied in part. | Leland, J. | Franklin |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2499 |
|
Badawi v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.
| 23AP-444 | The Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting rebuttal testimony from witness after rendering pretrial ruling allowing such testimony only under certain circumstances that did not occur at trial. The court did not improperly rely on a medical text to reach its judgment because the text is a learned treatise under Evid.R. 803(18) and was discussed by expert witnesses at trial. Nothing in the court’s final decision suggests the court reversed its earlier directed verdicts on informed consent and negligent training. The court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony of doctor who was member of the hospital’s peer review committee because the hospital repeatedly invoked the peer review committee privilege during the doctor’s deposition and the doctor was unable to separate out independent source knowledge from information he learned through work on the committee. Even if the trial court erred in finding one of three medical providers acted negligently, such error would be harmless because the hospital is already liable for the negligent acts of the other two providers whose negligence was not challenged on appeal. Finally, expert testimony was not necessary to establish permanency of parents’ mental injury because it is self-evident from the circumstances of the case. However, even if such expert testimony would have been necessary, parents’ treating psychologist provided sufficient testimony. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein, J. | Franklin |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2503 |
|
State v. Craine
| 23AP-359 | Following no contest plea, defendant’s challenge to warrants to search two locations overruled and judgment of conviction affirmed. Defendant did not make the preliminary showing required to demonstrate that he was entitled to a hearing challenging the truth of the statements in the search warrant affidavit pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, trial court did not err in refusing to order state to disclose identities of confidential informants prior to trial where the evidence provided by those informants was not directly related to the elements of the offenses with which defendant was charged and convicted, and trial court did not err by overruling defendant’s motions to suppress based on stale information. Even assuming warrants probable cause, officers who executed the warrants were entitled to rely in good faith on magistrate’s determination of probable cause in facially valid warrants. Assignments of error overruled and judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt, J. | Franklin |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2501 |
|
Irani v. AMF Bowling Co.
| 23AP-654 | The trial court did not err in ruling that plaintiff’s retained expert witness, who was not timely disclosed, could not testify in plaintiff’s case-in-chief or on rebuttal. However, the trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing plaintiff’s action under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) when plaintiff’s violations of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s orders did not warrant such a severe sanction. | Jamison, J. | Franklin |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2504 |
|
State ex rel. Urban v. Wano Expiditing Inc.
| 22AP-164 | WORKERS’ COMPENSATION — PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY — OAC 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i): SHO failed to fully comply with Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i)’s requirement that allowed psychological conditions to be considered in combination with the allowed physical conditions when assessing an injured worker’s application for PTD compensation. By omitting some of the psychological limitations contained in the report on which the SHO’s order relied (namely, injured worker’s need for ability to take break from tasks) and failing to reference Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i) or its operative language in its decision, record does not support finding that SHO fully analyzed whether the entirety of injured worker’s psychological restrictions in combination with the physical restrictions rendered injured worker eligible for PTD compensation, as required by Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i). Objection to magistrate’s decision sustained; writ of mandamus granted. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2461 |
|
State v. Jordan
| 23AP-256 | The trial court’s explanation for denying appellant’s application under R.C. 2953.73(D) was reasonable and was not contrary to law. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s application as DNA testing was generally accepted, the results of DNA testing were generally admissible in evidence, and DNA testing was available at the time of trial. The trial court’s alternative determination that DNA testing on the requested items would not prove outcome determinative was also reasonable. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2462 |
|
State ex rel. Arline v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-420 | Because relator did not timely notify BWC or the commission of her change of address, the commission did not abuse its discretion in determining there was some evidence to support its conclusion that relator’s failure to receive notice of the commission’s order was not due to circumstances beyond her control and/or that relator’s failure to receive the order was due to her own fault or neglect, and, therefore she was not entitled to relief under R.C. 4123.522. Writ of mandamus denied. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2463 |
|
State v. Worrell
| 23AP-611 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to remove him from the sex offender registry. Judgment affirmed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2464 |
|
Omni Energy Group, L.L.C. v. Vendel
| 23AP-361 | The trial court erred in applying the wrong standard of review because the proper standard of review in this case is the standard of review applicable to appeals brought pursuant to R.C. 119.12, not R.C. 1509.37. The trial court further erred and violated appellant’s due process rights by refusing to conduct a hearing and/or include evidence sufficient to determine the rights of the parties as permitted by (former) R.C. 119.12 (K) and as required by due process. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2439 |
|
Gardner v. Das
| 23AP-497 | The trial court properly found that an agreement to stipulate liability is not a stipulation unless approved by the court and that a stipulation of liability is not a partial settlement agreement. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2429 |
|
State v. Cameron
| 23AP-635 | DEADLY FORCE - SELF DEFENSE - JURY INSTRUCTION - EXPERT REPORT DISCLOSURE - CRIM.R. 16(K) - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - MANIFEST WEIGHT: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying self-defense instruction in murder trial where, even when viewed in the light most favorable to appellant, evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to show appellant actually believed he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, much less support any finding that such belief would have been reasonable. Although the state violated Crim.R. 16(K) by untimely producing ballistics expert's report concerning bullets recovered from the victim's body to a firearm seized from the location where appellant was arrested, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the state to present evidence and testimony concerning that report where appellant admitted in his video-recorded police interview played in open court to brandishing a firearm and stealing a truck of another man after the shooting, appellant's aggravated robbery conviction following a bench trial was supported by suffcient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2427 |
|
State v. Hough
| 23AP-478 | Trial court did not impose vindictive sentence following appellant’s successful appeal of his first conviction; trial court affirmatively stated its reasons for sentence imposed and stated reasons for increased sentence were not pretextual | Leland | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2430 |
|
State v. Cumberlander
| 23AP-90 | Jury did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice when it found that the state disproved beyond a reasonable doubt defendant’s claim that he acted in self-defense or defense of another when he committed felonious assault. | Dorrian | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2431 |
|
Moon v. Moon
| 23AP-553 | In this divorce case, we find the trial court erred in effectively requiring appellant to finance appellee’s retention of the marital residence. The trial court also erred, as part of its division and allocation of marital assets and liabilities, in not considering the interest on credit cards arising from his purchases on those cards after the de facto termination date of the marriage. The trial court did not err, however, in directing the parties to sell the timeshare purchased during the marriage. Judgment affirmed in part, and reversed in part; cause remanded. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/25/2024
|
6/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2428 |
|
Wright-Patt Credit Union v. Nunley
| 23AP-509 | Summary judgment affirmed. Although the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment two days before the plaintiff's time to respond expired, the error was harmless because the result would have been the same, as the defendant established there were no genuine issues of material fact and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | Dorrian | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2340 |
|
Calypso Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. 180 Indus., L.L.C.
| 22AP-718 | Sanctions, Frivolous conduct, Attorney fees | Baldwin | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2339 |
|
State v. Johnston
| 22AP-09 | On appeal by State of Ohio, trial court judgment imposing definite sentence of four years incarceration for second-degree felony burglary reversed and cause remanded for a new sentencing hearing and sentence that complies with State v. Hacker, 2023-Ohio-2535, 173 Ohio St.3d 219. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2337 |
|
State ex rel. Liberty Steel Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-169 | In this original action in mandamus, in which relator seeks a writ ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its finding that relator committed a violation of a specific safety requirement that was the proximate cause of claimant's injury, the decision of the magistrate is adopted and part and rejected in part. The magistrate’s decision is adopted with respect to its recommendation to dismiss the claimant’s motion to dismiss as moot, as well as with respect to the issues raised in relator’s first and second objections, which are overruled. The magistrate’s decision is rejected insofar as it finds that the commission did not abuse its discretion by failing to address relator’s arguments under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-17(I)(1) and (J), and insofar as it recommends denying the writ. We grant a limited writ and remand this matter to the commission only for consideration of relator’s arguments concerning the application of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-17(I)(1) and (J). The commission’s motion to dismiss its Chairman Jim Hughes as a party is overruled as moot. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2338 |
|
Hayes v. Baldwin
| 23AP-722 | The magistrate did not err in concluding that petitioner’s noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A), (C), and 2725.04 warrants dismissal of this action. Objections overruled; case dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2343 |
|
Nippon Sushi & Steak, L.L.C. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.
| 23AP-527 | Judgment affirmed. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction an administrative appeal filed by appellant, Nippon Sushi and Steak, L.L.C. (“Nippon”), from two orders by defendant-appellee, the Ohio Liquor Control Commission (the “commission”). The common pleas court correctly determined that Nippon did not file a timely response to the commission’s motion to dismiss, and its decision granting that motion did not deny Nippon the opportunity to respond. Neither Civ.R. 6(C)(1), which provides for an extended 28-day response period with respect to motions for summary judgment, nor Loc. R. 53.01 extended the 14-day response period for Nippon to respond to the commission’s motion to dismiss. Nippon did not perfect its appeal in accordance with R.C. 119.12(D) and 4301.28(C) because the commission did not receive Nippon’s notice of appeal within 21 days after the commission mailed its orders. Therefore, the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction over Nippon’s appeal. The common pleas court did not err by not considering Nippon’s motion for reconsideration and motion for relief from judgment, as neither type of motion is properly filed in an administrative appeal. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2341 |
|
State ex rel. Allen v. Miller
| 24AP-86 | Because respondent had issued a judgment on the matters listed in relator’s complaint, the procedendo action is moot. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2346 |
|
State ex rel. Robinson v. Chambers-Smith
| 24AP-99 | Because Relator failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25 at the time of filing his complaint, the action must be dismissed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2347 |
|
Village at Galloway Run Condominium Assn. v. Taylor
| 23AP-732 | CIV.R. 60(B) – EXCUSABLE NEGLECT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – PRO SE LITIGANT: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying condominium owner’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment without a hearing where owner did not refute condominium association’s contention that he violated HOA rules and regulations in owner’s pro se answer and response in opposition to the association’s summary judgment motion. After trial court entered judgment against him, owner sought relief by claiming excusable neglect based on his lack of understanding of the applicable law and legal standards due to his pro se status. Because pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures, such unawareness did not constitute excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B)(1). Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2344 |
|
Algoma Group, A Gen. Partnership v. Marchbanks
| 23AP-535 | In an action for declaratory judgment and injunction by landowners challenging the necessity of appropriations for public use and the type of appraisals to support a good faith offer prior to instituting appropriation proceedings under Revised Code Chapters 163 and 5501, summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Ohio Department of Transportation and Director Jack Marchbanks (collectively “ODOT”) was warranted where the properties are being acquired to improve State Route 315 and the appraisals were sufficient as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2342 |
|
State ex rel. Ellis v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 23AP-775 | Because relator does not demonstrate his underlying convictions and sentences were void, relator cannot establish OAPA patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over his parole proceedings, and, thus, cannot demonstrate entitlement to a writ of prohibition. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/18/2024
|
6/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2345 |
|
State v. Scott
| 22AP-475 | MARSY'S LAW - RIGHT TO TIMELY RESTITUTION - SUSPENSION OF RESTITUTION DURING INCARCERATION: Sentencing court's preemptive suspension of defendant's obligation to pay ordered restitution while defendant is incarcerated due to his present and future inability to pay violated victim's Marsy's Law right to timely restitution under Article I, Section 10a(A)(7) of the Ohio Constitution. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2274 |
|
State v. Chapple
| 23AP-404 | The trial court did not err in accepting Chapple's Alford plea as knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, and the trial court's imposition of the jointly recommended sentence was authorized by law and not subject to appellate review pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2275 |
|
Villavicencio v. Columbus
| 23AP-765 | PROHIBITION – CIV.R. 12(B)(6): Environmental court had subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the orders challenged in relator’s complaint for a writ of prohibition and appellate district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a request for a prohibitory injunction. Magistrate's decision adopted; respondent's motion to dismiss granted; complaint for writ of prohibition dismissed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2276 |
|
State v. Khalif
| 23AP-274 | The trial court did not err in denying Khalif’s motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy, did not plainly err in instructing the jury on the offense of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises, and did not provide an incorrect statement of the law in instructing the jury on self-defense. Additionally, Khalif’s conviction of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, Khalif did not demonstrate plain error from prosecutorial misconduct, and Khalif did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. However, because the verdict form did not contain the degree of the offense or any aggravating elements, the jury verdict form supports only a conviction of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises as a first-degree misdemeanor, and the three-year firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A) cannot be attached to a misdemeanor offense. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
6/11/2024
|
6/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2239 |
|
Craver v. Haefner
| 23AP-448 | The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch, did not err when it adopted a magistrate’s decision and modified appellant’s child-support obligation. Appellant’s appellate brief does not comply with App.R. 16(A), notably because it does not contain a statement of the assignments of error presented for review, with reference to the place in the record where each error is reflected. Noncompliance with the appellate rules constitutes good cause for dismissal of an appeal. Appellant erroneously argued that his obligation to pay child support is a contractual obligation. Craver’s other arguments—based on federal statutes and vague allegations of a violation of due process—lack merit. Judgment affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
6/11/2024
|
6/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2242 |
|
State ex rel. Saia v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-667 | Petition for a writ of mandamus is denied and objections to the magistrate’s decision are overruled. Industrial Commission of Ohio’s denial of Saia’s request to participate in vocational rehabilitation was not an abuse of discretion as some evidence in the record supported Saia was not feasible for vocational rehabilitation. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/11/2024
|
6/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2238 |
|