|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
In re C.L.
| 23AP-607 | The trial court's decision to grant Franklin County Children Services motion for permanent custody was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's written decision was not deficient for failing to specify what R.C. 2151.414(E) factors applied. The trial court did not err in adopting the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by Franklin County Children Services. | Jamison | Franklin |
6/12/2025
|
6/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2078 |
|
State v. Perry
| 23AP-714 | EVIDENCE — FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING — EVID.R. 804(B)(6) — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERT TESTIMONY — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: The trial court did not err in finding, prior to trial, that the defendant actively engaged in wrongdoing with the purpose of persuading the victim to stop cooperating with the state, to recant, and not to testify against him at trial and, thus, forfeited his confrontation right. Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting, in the victim’s absence, the victim’s out-of-court statements at trial. Although the state did not establish an adequate foundation to admit testimony from the state’s domestic violence expert about the characteristics of domestic violence victims, in the absence of an objection from the defense and given the considerable evidence supporting the defendant’s guilt, the trial court did not plainly err in failing to exclude, sua sponte, the domestic violence expert’s testimony at trial. Defendant’s convictions for felonious assault, abduction, and domestic violence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury believed the victim’s testimony and the nature of her injuries was supported by testimony from first responders who encountered the victim, photographs, and medical evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/10/2025
|
6/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2054 |
|
Leveque 41, L.L.C. v. Leveque Tower Condominium Assn., Inc.
| 24AP-368 | The trial court did not err in granting the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration because the arbitration clause contained in the condo association’s governing documents is enforceable, requires binding arbitration, and applies to appellants’ claims against the condo association. Additionally, the portion of appellants’ appeal related to the trial court’s denial of their motion to reconsider the immediate appointment of receiver is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/10/2025
|
6/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2055 |
|
State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys.
| 24AP-432 | Magistrate’s decision is adopted. We grant Ohio Public Employee Retirement System ("OPERS")’s motion to dismiss, and deny Relator’s motions. Relator has not established that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
6/10/2025
|
6/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2056 |
|
Brown v. Brown
| 24AP-285 | The trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to enter a support order for a disabled child whose disability occurred before he turned 18 but who was older than 18 at the time of the parties’ divorce. Though the trial court reasonably relied on Geygan v. Geygan, 2012-Ohio-1965 (10th Dist.) as the controlling precedent to conclude it lacked jurisdiction to enter a child support order for the disabled child pursuant to former R.C. 3119.86, this decision overrules Geygan. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter to determine the question of support for the disabled child from the time of appellant’s counterclaim of divorce until the time of the disabled child’s death. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/5/2025
|
6/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1998 |
|
In re E.B.
| 24AP-474 & 24AP-490 | Despite father’s argument that FCCS should have done more to help him obtain housing, the trial court did not err in concluding that FCCS engaged in reasonable efforts toward reunification, in making evidentiary determinations related to testimony about contents of agency records, and in considering and determining the children’s wishes before making its decision that granting the motion for permanent custody and terminating father’s and mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/5/2025
|
6/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1999 |
|
HDDA, L.L.C. v. Vasani
| 24AP-516 and 24AP-517 | The trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motions to quash and for protective order, or in granting appellee’s motions to compel. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus, J. | Franklin |
6/5/2025
|
6/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2000 |
|
State ex rel. Thomas v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-542 | Action for a writ of mandamus dismissed because the incarcerated relator failed to comply with the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/5/2025
|
6/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2001 |
|
Dutton v. Dutton
| 24AP-286 | Appeal dismissed because appellant did not file a timely appeal of the underlying divorce decree; the qualified domestic relations order from which she appealed is not an independent final order; and appellant did not seek a finding or resolution of ambiguity in the divorce decree from the trial court. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/3/2025
|
6/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1980 |
|
State v. Muhammad
| 24AP-424 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. A firearm specification and a having weapons while under disability charge does not violate the double jeopardy clause, as a firearm specification is not a separate offense but a penalty enhancement. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/3/2025
|
6/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1981 |
|
Chaganti v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
| 24AP-429 | The trial court did not err by dismissing as untimely appellant’s complaint for breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing. Appellant’s claims, which accrued in 2010, were subject to the version of the R.C. 2305.06 statute of limitations enacted by 2012 Sub.S.B. No. 224. The limitations period for appellant’s claims expired on September 28, 2020, more than three years before appellant filed his complaint. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/3/2025
|
6/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1982 |
|
Gadway v. Univ. of Toledo
| 25AP-128 | CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — MOTION TO DISMISS — WRONGFUL DEATH — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — DISCOVERY RULE — EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL — EQUITABLE TOLLING: The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s wrongful death complaint against a state university because it was filed more than two years after decedent’s death and plaintiff failed to meet her burden of pleading facts establishing the discovery rule, equitable tolling, or equitable estoppel should have applied as an exception to the university’s statute-of-limitations defense. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/3/2025
|
6/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1983 |
|
Dimitrievska v. Dimitrievski
| 24AP-70 | In the judgment entry of divorce, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to value the marital property and failing to support its division of property and orders regarding the refinancing of the marital residence with findings of fact under R.C. 3105.171(G). The trial court also erred by designating one parent the sole residential parent and legal custodian, but the other parent for as the residential parent for school placement purposes because it was an impermissible division of the custodial rights of the custodial parent. The judgment is reversed in part and remanded. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/29/2025
|
5/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1937 |
|
Tanner v. Robinson
| 24AP-405 | Appeal dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order where decision overruling objection to a magistrate’s decision failed to specify whether the trial court vacated, modified, or adhered to its earlier judgment adopting the magistrate’s decision, as provided by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/29/2025
|
5/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1938 |
|
State ex rel. Williams v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 24AP-471 | Relator failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25 where strict compliance is required. Complaint is dismissed, motion for default judgment is moot, and motion of respondent is granted. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/29/2025
|
5/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1939 |
|
Davis v. Diley Ridge Med. Ctr.
| 24AP-521 | Emergency room physician and her employer were immune from prosecution for negligence and wrongful death due to injuries to a hospital employee caused by a patient who had abruptly left the emergency department during his assessment for mental health issues. Immunity under R.C. 2305.51(B) applied because the physician met the statutory definition of a “mental health professional,” the patient met the statutory definition of “mental health client or patient,” and the patient had not made an explicit threat of fatal or serious physical harm against the hospital employee or any other identifiable potential victim. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the physician and her employer. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
5/29/2025
|
5/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1940 |
|
Corpus Christi Firefighters’ Retirement Sys. v. Macellum Capital Mgt., L.P.
| 24AP-269 | Where the question of standing was squarely before the trial court and fully briefed by both parties, the trial court erred in failing to determine whether appellant had standing to commence its action for an alleged violation of R.C. 1707.043 and instead addressed the merits of the action. Because we must remand the matter to the trial court to determine the question of standing, we do not reach the question of whether the trial court properly interpreted R.C. 1707.043. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1895 |
|
State ex rel. Suburban Driving School, L.L.C. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp.
| 23AP-241 | Some evidence supported the determination of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation that relator was “essentially the same employer” as a previous entity under Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-13(A), allowing the agency to combine the entities' policies under Ohio Adm.Code 4123-17-13(D). Relator’s sole objection is overruled as it does not address the actual regulation relied upon by the BWC. The decision of the magistrate is adopted in full. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/22/2025
|
5/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1841 |
|
Scott v. Kendricks
| 23AP-658 | Judgment affirmed. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered appellant to appear in person for a hearing under R.C. 3119.66 to review the child support agency’s revision to a child support order. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/22/2025
|
5/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1842 |
|
State ex rel. Clisby v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.
| 24AP-166 | Relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (“OAPA”) to terminate his postrelease control or to recall a warrant placed with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and to impose sentence in absentia for a violation of his postrelease control, as he has not shown a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the OAPA is under a clear legal duty to provide it. For an individual detained in federal prison, the OAPA has no duty to hold a revocation hearing until after the offender completes his federal sentence and federal authorities have transferred the offender into state custody. Magistrate’s decision adopted and writ of mandamus denied. | Boggs | Franklin |
5/22/2025
|
5/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1843 |
|
State v. Conway
| 24AP-700 | SUCCESSIVE POSTCONVICTION PETITION — DEATH SENTENCE — APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL — R.C. 2953.21(J)(1) — FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER: R.C. 2953.21(J)(1) generally provides indigent persons who have been sentenced to death with a statutory right to the appointment of counsel to litigate a postconviction petition for relief. Given the unique nature of capital proceedings, an appeal following a judgment on the merits of a postconviction motion may offer a remedy to a trial court’s denial of the appointment of counsel, but not an adequate one in cases involving a death sentence. Thus, the trial court’s order denying the motion for appointment of counsel of an indigent person who has been sentenced to death is a final, appealable order subject to appellate review under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). However, because this court has previously interpreted R.C. 2953.21(J)(1) as requiring a trial court to appoint counsel only in the case of a timely-filed first petition for post-conviction relief—and in the absence of any challenge to that precedent in this case—the principles of stare decisis compel us to find the indigent defendant did not have a statutory right to the assistance of counsel to litigate his third petition for postconviction relief, despite having been sentenced to death. As such, the trial court did not err in denying his motion for appointment of counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/22/2025
|
5/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1844 |
|
AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
| 24AP-704 | R.C. 1509.37 — SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION — CIV.R. 12(B)(1): Because appellant failed to timely file a copy of its notice of appeal in the common pleas court, as required by R.C. 1509.37, the trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/22/2025
|
5/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1845 |
|
State ex rel. Parsons v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-30 | Magistrate’s decision adopted and petition for writ of mandamus denied. Some evidence in the administrative record supports the Industrial Commission of Ohio’s determination that relator’s psychological conditions did not sufficiently worsen during the time between the denial of his first application for permanent total disability and his second application for permanent total disability to demonstrate new and changed circumstances under R.C. 4123.59(G). | Boggs | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1792 |
|
Rericha v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr.
| 24AP-240 | On defendants’ appeal from court of claims trial verdict for plaintiffs. Trial court did not err in affirming magistrate’s decision and finding that plaintiff’s injuries from two separate auto accidents were not divisible, where the defendants failed to present any expert medical evidence supporting their theory of divisibility and apportionment; trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to find that defendants’ accident reconstruction expert was competent to opine on divisibility of plaintiff’s bodily injuries; trial court did not err by concluding that defendants had failed to meet their burden to establish an intervening and superseding cause of plaintiff’s bodily injuries; trial court did not err in its application of rule of damages governing plaintiff’s preexisting injuries; trial court did not err in application of joint and several liability to defendants. Defendants’ six assignments of error overruled and judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1793 |
|
State v. Williams
| 24AP-382 | Where victim testified that defendant dragged her by her hair and threw her against a wall hard enough that she lost consciousness, defendant’s conviction for domestic violence withstood defendant’s challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1794 |
|
State v. Bowman
| 24AP-398 | The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for sexual battery of the victim, in violation of R.C. 2907.03, a third-degree felony. Further, the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1795 |
|
Clark v. Duffy
| 24AP-506 | Relator lacks standing for a writ of quo warranto against respondents, who hold various offices and positions within the Franklin County Probate Court. Magistrate’s decision adopted. Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted, and relator’s motions to compel denied as moot. | Boggs | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1796 |
|
Moore v. Bott Moore
| 24AP-643 | On interlocutory appeal from Franklin County Probate Court’s denial of motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss for lack of a final order. Trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel does not fall within the definition of a final order set forth in R.C. 2595.02(B)4) because it is not an ancillary proceeding, and because the appealing party cannot demonstrate that the party would not be afforded meaningful review following final judgment as to all proceedings in the probate case. Motion granted and appeal dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1797 |
|
Cotten v. Chambers-Smith
| 24AP-702 | Dismissal order based on failure to file affidavit of civil actions reversed because subsequent filing created question of whether plaintiff complied with the statutory requirement. Remanded for further proceedings regarding the authenticity of the relevant document. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1798 |
|
Friedman v. Bexley Pub. Library
| 24AP-762 | CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — R.C. 2323.51 — SANCTIONS: The trial court did not err in granting library’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. However, it was error for the trial court to grant library’s motion for sanctions without first holding a hearing, as required by R.C. 2323.51(B)(2). Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded with instructions. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1799 |
|
State v. Morris
| 25AP-91 | The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s petition for postconviction relief because the petition was untimely, and no exception set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A) applied. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
5/20/2025
|
5/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1800 |
|
Rann v. Maish
| 24AP-347 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in continuing the child support order issued July 27, 2018. The trial court abused its discretion in its allocation of the minor child's cash medical support and in granting the dependent-child tax exemption to the non-residential parent without discussion of any best-interest factors. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, cause remanded. | Leland | Franklin |
5/15/2025
|
5/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1744 |
|
C.R. v. Headley
| 24AP-413 | The trial court erred in determining that appellant's petition for a civil protection order was deficient on its face. Appellant's right to due process was violated by the trial court's failure to hold a full hearing as required by R.C. 3113.31. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/15/2025
|
5/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1745 |
|
1116 Hudson, L.L.C. v. Drycreek Mtge., Inc.
| 24AP-527 | The trial court did not err in granting appellant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The trial court erred in failing to hold a sanctions hearing when there existed an arguable basis to issue sanctions under Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded with instructions. | Leland | Franklin |
5/15/2025
|
5/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1746 |
|
Greer v. Park
| 24AP-617 | The trial court did not err in construing appellant's breach of contract claim as a legal malpractice cause of action for which a one-year statute of limitations applied. The trial court did not err in sua sponte dismissing the complaint because it was clear from the face of the complaint that it was time-barred. The trial court did not err in denying default judgment because it was not required as a matter of procedure. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/15/2025
|
5/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1747 |
|
State v. Carmon
| 24AP-134 | Defendant’s guilty plea to three third-degree felony counts of compelling prostitution, one third-degree felony count of having weapons while under disability, and one first-degree felony count of possession of cocaine was not entered in substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) requirement that “the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.” The trial misstated the maximum penalty for defendant’s first-degree felony offense, failed to warn defendant that based on his plea that he faced mandatory time, and failed to inform defendant he was not eligible for a community control sentence. Judgment reversed and vacated, and cause remanded with instructions. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/13/2025
|
5/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1713 |
|
Ohio Equity Fund for Hous. Ltd. Partnership XXVIII v. Irvin Cobb Mgr., Inc.
| 24AP-375 | The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas decision granting a preliminary injunction was not a final appealable order because defendants have a remedy on appeal following final judgment. Appeal dismissed. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/13/2025
|
5/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1714 |
|
In re Guardianship of K.A.H.
| 24AP-193 | The probate court did not abuse its discretion by removing appellant as the guardian of the person of her adult son, K.A.H. After K.A.H.’s mental healthcare provider notified appellant that it was terminating services to K.A.H., and provided appellant with contact information for several alternative providers, appellant refused to facilitate linking K.A.H. with an alternative provided, even when three months later K.A.H. was days away from running out of his medication. Appellant’s complaints about the healthcare provider that terminated services to K.A.H. do not demonstrate that the probate court acted unreasonably by removing appellant as K.A.H.’s guardian. Appellant’s allegations of constitutional violations are meritless. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
5/8/2025
|
5/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1668 |
|
Kumolu v. Kumolu
| 24AP-236 | The trial court did not err in its decision terminating the parties’ marriage and issuing its decree of divorce. The trial court did not err in not finding a later date as the commencement of the date of marriage and further indicating that appellant should have filed a motion earlier in the case. Neither did the trial court err in awarding modifiable spousal support to Wife. The trial court also did not err in finding the testimony of both Mercy Kumolu and Husband not credible. Further, the trial court did not err in its designation of the minor child as a Castle child. Finally, the trial court did not fail to provide guidance as to the tax exemption status for the minor child and therefore made no error in this regard. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/8/2025
|
5/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1669 |
|
Cirotto v. Am. Self Storage of Pickerington
| 24AP-308 | April 17, 2024 judgment affirmed; March 9, 2023 judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleged facts demonstrating the defendant/storage company engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by disposing of his property two days after a court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the storage company from disposing of the property. Because plaintiff also pled sufficient facts to support the remaining elements of his intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) claim, the trial court erred by granting the defendants’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissing plaintiff’s IIED claim against the storage company. The trial court did not err by granting the defendants’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissing plaintiff’s claims for fraud, extortion, and injunctive relief in their entirety and plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and IIED against the seven, non-storage company defendants. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the storage company’s motion for a protective order limiting discovery to the issue of damages. The trial court did not err by adopting in part and rejecting in part the magistrate’s decision awarding plaintiff damages. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/8/2025
|
5/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1670 |
|
State ex rel. Kerby v. Austintown Twp.
| 24AP-384 | There is no error in the magistrate's findings of fact or conclusions of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision finding that Kerby has not demonstrated the commission erred by failing to apply the waiver provision contained in Adm.Code 4121-3-34(C)(10). Magistrate’s decision adopted as our own, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein. Relator has not shown he is entitled to a writ of mandamus and therefore deny his request for same. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/8/2025
|
5/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1671 |
|
State v. Michie
| 25AP-299 | Defendant-appellant’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal is granted. Defendant-appellant satisfied his burden under App.R. 5(A) of demonstrating a reasonable explanation for his failure to perfect a timely appeal. He stated that he did not learn of the trial court’s decision until the day a timely notice of appeal would have been due. He stated that neither the trial court nor the clerk of courts served him with a copy of the trial court’s decision and entry, and the trial court’s docket does not indicate service of that decision and entry by the clerk of courts. The record contains no evidence to refute defendant-appellant’s claim. Defendant-appellant filed his motion for leave to file a delayed appeal within a reasonable period of 30 days after he claims he first learned of the trial court’s decision and entry. | Boggs | Franklin |
5/8/2025
|
5/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1672 |
|
State ex rel. Siedle v. State Teachers Retirement Sys.
| 22AP-375 | Writ of mandamus granted requiring the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio to respond to two public records requests made pursuant to the Ohio Public Records Act because neither public records request was overbroad. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/6/2025
|
5/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1626 |
|
Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A. v. Croce
| 23AP-9 | Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The trial court erred when it ruled that appellant could not present his recoupment defense to the jury in response to appellee’s breach of contract claim for unpaid attorney fees and instead held a bench trial to try the defense. Because recoupment existed in common law courts, the trial court erroneously concluded that it was an equitable defense to which the right to a jury trial under Article I, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution did not attach. During the jury trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded a portion of the testimony of appellant’s expert witness as a discovery sanction, as the expert attempted to testify about calculations not disclosed in his report. The jury’s verdict in favor of appellee and award of damages is affirmed, but the trial court’s verdict in favor of appellee on the recoupment defense is reversed and the cause is remanded to allow appellant the opportunity to present the defense to a jury. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/6/2025
|
5/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1627 |
|
State ex rel. Siegelman v. Baldwin
| 23AP-625 | Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the Franklin County Sheriff to modify the deposits collected for foreclosure sales according to his idiosyncratic interpretation of R.C. 2329.211 did not allege facts demonstrating that he had the beneficial interest that is a prerequisite to standing as a relator in such an action. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/6/2025
|
5/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1628 |
|
State v. Shappie
| 24AP-327 | Appellant’s convictions for felonious assault and domestic violence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
5/6/2025
|
5/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1629 |
|
State ex rel. Nealey v. McAllister
| 24AP-608 | MANDAMUS - DISMISSAL - R.C. 2731.04: Dismissal of relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus is appropriate because relator does not make any allegations against or seek relief from several of the named respondents and cannot show a clear legal right to the requested relief—disqualification of the trial court judge presiding over his adjudicated eviction case—since the exclusive remedy for seeking removal of a judge is to file an affidavit of disqualification with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio as directed by R.C. 2701.03. Additionally, relator failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04 because relator did not bring the instant petition in the name of the state on the relation of relator. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/6/2025
|
5/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1630 |
|
State ex rel. McCarley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 20AP-337 | Objection to magistrate’s decision sustained and modified magistrate’s decision adopted. Motion to show cause granted and contempt sanction issued; sanction stayed to permit Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("DRC") opportunity to purge contempt by producing requested documents without unsupported redactions within 30 days. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/1/2025
|
5/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1559 |
|
State ex rel. Davids v. Bur. of Sentence & Computation
| 24AP-259 | Petition for writ of mandamus dismissed because relator failed to fully comply with the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/1/2025
|
5/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1560 |
|
State v. Ahart
| 24AP-356 | Judgment of conviction affirmed because defendant’s ineffective-assistance argument turned on allegations not contained in the record, which could not be considered on direct appeal. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/1/2025
|
5/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1561 |
|