| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
SER Liquidation Dealz, L.L.C. v. Hummer
| 25AP-488 | Petitioner has not shown he is entitled to either a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition. Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein, and grant respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismiss petitioner’s action in its entirety. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
1/22/2026
|
1/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-193 |
|
State v. Michie
| 25AP-299 | Defendant-appellant’s postconviction motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to vacate or set aside his sentence for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as they raised issues he either did litigate previously or could have litigated previously. Trial court’s judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
1/20/2026
|
1/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-163 |
|
Rhoades v. Ohio State Racing Comm.
| 25AP-443 | Racing Commission order imposing penalties for violating its regulations based on a positive blood test result for D-methamphetamine in a racehorse was not in accordance with law because the Commission failed to establish that it had promulgated a rule or issued an order classifying D-methamphetamine as a prohibited foreign substance. Common pleas court decision affirming Racing Commission order reversed and remanded. | Dorrian | Franklin |
1/15/2026
|
1/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-113 |
|
State v. Scheaffer
| 25AP-571 & 25AP-572 | CRIM.R. 32.1 – POSTSENTENCE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA – RES JUDICATA: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas under Crim.R. 32.1 without a hearing. Because defendant’s challenge raised issues that could have been raised on direct appeal and was not based on evidence outside of the record, res judicata applied. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
1/15/2026
|
1/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-114 |
|
State v. Abdi
| 24AP-312 | The trial court erred in dismissing appellee's indictment based on Double Jeopardy and Allied Offense grounds. | Jamison | Franklin |
1/13/2026
|
1/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-91 |
|
S.L. v. L.R.
| 25ap-173 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, nor did the trial court commit plain error in its decision to allow S.L. to claim K.L. for tax benefits. | Boggs | Franklin |
1/13/2026
|
1/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-92 |
|
Estate of Branscomb v. OhioHealth Corp.
| 25AP-373 | A judgment entered against a deceased plaintiff is void due to the trial court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff. Because a void judgment is not a final, appealable order, the appeal is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | Jamison | Franklin |
1/13/2026
|
1/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-93 |
|
Klickovich v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
| 24AP-446 | Appellant’s second assignment of error was not rendered moot by virtue of our determination regarding his first assignment of error and remand to the trial court. Thus, upon remand, in addition to conducting the proper review as set forth in R.C. 119 in the first instance as instructed in our prior decision, the trial court is hereby instructed to consider and rule upon the assignments of error asserted by appellant in the trial court. Application for reconsideration granted. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-31 |
|
State v. Houser
| 24AP-651 | The trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty of one count of gross sexual imposition and three counts of rape. Appellant fails to show that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to secure expert testimony, present a sufficient opening statement, and properly cross-examine witness J.B. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-32 |
|
H.C. v. C.P.
| 25AP-328 | The trial court erred in granting appellee’s request for a civil stalking protection order against appellant. The record contained no competent, credible evidence to support the order. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-33 |
|
Momentum Freight Logistics Corp. v. Benie Logistics, Inc.
| 24AP-263 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly found the purchaser, Benie, breached the parties’ Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) by failing to provide the seller, Momentum, with both the $69,269.00 and the $257,999.32 BWC policy holder dividend payments. Evidence from the BWC demonstrated that both payments were dividend reimbursements calculated based on the premiums an employer paid in 2019. Because both payments were a “premium dividend reimbursement” for the 2019 policy period, the APA obligated Benie to provide both payments to Momentum in a timely fashion. The trial court did not err by finding that Momentum could pierce the corporate veil of Benie. Competent and credible evidence demonstrated the owners of Benie, Elizabeth and Russell Dawson, operated Benie as their alter ego, used their control over Benie to commit a fraudulent transfer and civil theft, and that Momentum suffered damages as a result of the Dawsons’ control and wrongful conduct of Benie. The economic loss rule did not bar Momentum’s claim for civil theft but did bar Momentum’s claims for fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy, because the damages resulting from the fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy were the same as the damages resulting from the breach of contract. However, because the trial court did not award any damages attributable to the fraudulent transfer or civil conspiracy claims, there was no aspect of the trial court’s judgment to reverse. | Mentel | Franklin |
1/6/2026
|
1/15/2026
| 2025-Ohio-5738 |
|
Alapini v. SK Food Group
| 25AP-314 | Appellant’s assignments of error, which challenged the trial court’s determination that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies because he did not allege in his charge to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission that he had been constructively discharged, were moot because appellant did not assign as error the trial court’s independent determination that his claims of discrimination and retaliation predicated on constructive discharge were time-barred under R.C. 4112.052(C). Trial court’s judgment is affirmed on that unchallenged basis. | Boggs | Franklin |
1/6/2026
|
1/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-17 |