|
|
State v. Wappner
| 24AP-8 | On appeal from jury convictions for felonious assault, felony murder, and reckless homicide, arising from the defendant’s acts of striking the victim with a gun and shooting the victim. The defendant admitted to the acts but attempted to assert that he struck the victim in defense of others and shot the victim by accident. The court allowed the accident defense but instructed the jury that it could not consider defense of others, holding that the two defenses were mutually exclusive. The trial court erred in disallowing the defendant’s defense-of-others claim; because each defense applied to a separate act, the two defenses were not mutually exclusive. The error affected defendant’s felonious assault and felony murder convictions, but it did not impact the reckless homicide conviction. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Cause remanded for further proceedings on the charges of felonious assault and felony murder. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1350 |
|
State ex rel. Woodard v. Hoying
| 24AP-307 | Relator failed to establish that respondent is under a clear legal duty to provide the requested relief. Respondent's conclusion that relator violated the terms of his parole was supported by substantial evidence. Having found no error of law or other evidentiary defects in the magistrate's decision, we adopt that decision in its entirety and deny relator's petition for a writ of mandamus. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1351 |
|
Thomas v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
| 25AP-89 | The Court of Claims of Ohio erred by entering summary judgment for the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) on plaintiff-employee’s claims relating to BWC’s subrogation demand for fees related to an independent medical examiner’s review and report ordered by BWC. The Court of Claims erroneously held that BWC acquired vested contractual rights defining the parties’ subrogation obligations and rights under R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931 when they executed a settlement agreement. A state agency may not obtain vested contractual rights to funds it was not statutorily entitled to recoup. The independent medical examiner’s fee was unlawfully included in BWC’s subrogation demand, in part, because BWC is statutorily required to bear the cost of the medical reviews it orders. As the independent medical examiner’s fee did not fall within the statutory definition of “subrogation interest,” the disputed fee was not encapsulated by the settlement agreement and release’s reference to the “subrogation lien.” | Boggs | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1352 |
|
Castro v. Hero Havens, L.L.C.
| 25AP-397 | Judgment affirmed; trial court did not err in granting appellee leave to amend its counterclaim and in denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment. | Leland | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1354 |
|
State ex rel. Jones v. Sadler
| 25AP-596 | Relator failed to establish that respondent is under a clear legal duty to provide relief or that relator lacks an adequate remedy at law. In short, it was the clerk of courts' duty to notate upon the journal the date of filing of the dismissal entry. It was not the respondent's duty. Thus, we adopt the magistrate's decision in its entirety, overrule relator's objections, grant respondent's motion to dismiss, and deny relator's petition for a writ of mandamus. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1355 |
|
State ex rel. Cotten v. Aveni
| 25AP-869 | On review of magistrate's decision. Having found no error with that decision, it is adopted in full , including the findings of fact and conclusions of law as they are set forth in the decision. The respondent’s motion to dismiss is sustained, and the relator’s petition for writ of procedendo is dismissed as moot. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1356 |
|
State v. Slaughter
| 25AP-255 | Judgment affirmed. Because the evidence demonstrated appellant failed to pay any of his court-ordered child support during the relevant timeframe, both sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence supported appellant’s conviction for nonsupport of dependents under R.C. 2919.21(B). Appellant failed to demonstrate the jury instructions amounted to plain error, the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct, or that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/9/2026
|
4/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1291 |
|
In re A.S.
| 25AP-582 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s request for a continuance on the first day of trial where mother had not made meaningful progress toward reunification with the child and testified she was not seeking custody of the child. Additionally, mother did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when assigned counsel sent substitute counsel in his place. Mother did not articulate any prejudice from substitute counsel proceeding to trial in place of assigned counsel, and mother did not challenge the trial court’s determination that granting Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS")’s motion for permanent custody was in the best interest of the child. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/9/2026
|
4/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1292 |
|
Muhammad v. PNC Fin. Servs.
| 25AP-696 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Res judicata barred appellant’s claims. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/7/2026
|
4/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1252 |
|
Columbus v. Argous, L.L.C.
| 25AP-139, 25AP-140, 25AP-141, 25AP-142, 25AP-143 | The trial court did not err by excluding appellant from participating in the January 2025 hearing as he was not an “interested party” as defined under R.C. 3767.41. Because appellant is not an interested party under the statute, he has no standing to raise arguments concerning the trial court’s grant of the order of sale. Appeal dismissed in part; judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/7/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1353 |
|
Allen v. Marre
| 25AP-717 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellee demonstrated that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to appellant’s claims, and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to those claims. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/2/2026
|
4/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1186 |
|
BBI Logistics, L.L.C. v. GRS Transport, Inc.
| 23AP-766 | Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the requests for admission resulted in the requests becoming admissions. The trial court did not err either in refusing to grant plaintiff leave to withdraw its default admissions or in considering those admissions as evidence. Plaintiff demonstrated a lack of diligence by making no attempt to conduct the depositions it needed to respond to summary judgment within the discovery period. Additionally, plaintiff opposed extending the case schedule deadlines, and it only reversed its position and sought court intervention after the discovery cut-off deadline passed. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant plaintiff a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance. Because plaintiff did not establish that the trial court relied on inadmissible evidence in granting defendant summary judgment, the trial court did not err in implicitly denying plaintiff’s motion to strike that evidence. Finally, the trial court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and bad faith as defendant demonstrated that the lost and/or damaged property at issue was not covered property under the insurance policy. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1146 |
|
State v. Robertson
| 24AP-184 | The trial court committed plain error in requiring appellant to appear in visible shackles in front of the jury without adequate justification. The jury’s view of appellant’s shackles was neither brief nor inadvertent, and it occurred in the courtroom, during trial, and just prior to appellant’s testimony to assert his affirmative defense of duress. Based on these unique facts, we find this case to be the exceptional circumstance that requires correction of a manifest miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s convictions for aggravated robbery, improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation, felonious assault, aggravated murder, and felony murder, but we affirm appellant’s conviction of murder under Count 7 as the duress defense was not applied to that charge at trial. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1147 |
|
Miller v. Miller
| 24AP-730 | Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Trial court’s determination of the value of the marital business was supported by competent, credible and reliable evidence. Appellant’s second assignment of error is barred by res judicata and the trial court did not err in not retaining jurisdiction over the spousal support order. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1148 |
|
Jones v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.
| 25AP-186 | The Court of Claims did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant's age and sex discrimination claims because appellant did not present a genuine issue of material fact that appellee's reason for appellant's termination was a pretext for discrimination. Judgment affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1149 |
|
C.L. v. McFadden
| 25AP-317 | The trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of a home daycare provider on claims of negligence and loss of consortium brought by the parents of two minor children who were sexually abused when the daycare provider left them alone with her husband. The trial court erroneously held that no duty of care existed, because the criminal acts were not reasonably foreseeable to the daycare provider. The daycare provider owed a duty of care to the children, both due to the special, custodial relationship between herself and the children and because she voluntarily undertook to render services she should have recognized as necessary for the children’s protection. Questions of foreseeability are relevant to whether the daycare provider breached her duty of care to the children, not to whether she owed a duty at all. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1150 |
|
Hicks for a Better Clermont v. Ohio Election Integrity Comm.
| 25AP-736 | The common pleas court erred in finding Adm.Code 3517-1-11(A) is an invalid administrative rule. The Ohio Election Integrity Commission had statutory authority to develop procedures different from those contained in R.C. Chapter 119, and the rule is not internally inconsistent. Judgment reversed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1155 |
|
State ex rel. Fraley v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 25AP-732 | Motion to dismiss mandamus petition for failure to comply with statutory requirements of the Public Records Act denied. The relevant statutory requirements were added to the Public Records Act by legislative amendment. The amendment had not gone into effect when relator made his public records request but had become effective by the time relator filed his mandamus claim. Consistent with Supreme Court of Ohio precedent holding that public records requests are governed by the version of the Public Records Act in effect at the time the request was made, petition is not subject to dismissal for failure to comply with statutory amendments that went into effect after relator made his public records request. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1156 |
|
Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman Ltd. Partnership
| 22AP-638 | Judgment reversed. The trial court applied the doctrine of waiver by estoppel, rather than the doctrine of equitable estoppel, to find the defendant/landlord was estopped from claiming the leases terminated on December 31, 2021. However, competent, credible evidence did not support the court’s estoppel determination, because the defendant/landlord accepted the rent from the plaintiff/tenant prior to the expiration of the parties’ final standstill agreement, and the defendant/landlord did not engage in any conduct inconsistent with its right to claim either that the final standstill agreement expired on April 15, 2022 or that the leases expired on December 31, 2021. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/26/2026
|
3/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1057 |
|
CPC Parts Delivery, L.L.C. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
| 25AP-403; 25AP-406; 25AP-408 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motions for summary judgment. Because appellants cannot show that they were treated differently than a party similarly situated in all relevant respects, their equal protection claims fail. Judgments affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
3/26/2026
|
3/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1058 |
|
Lupia v. Lupia
| 25AP-483 | DIVORCE – CUSTODY – SHARED PARENTING – SCHOOL-PLACEMENT PARENT – BEST INTEREST – R.C. 3109.04: Where the trial court appropriately balanced the competing testimony of Mother and Father with the best interest of their child, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in naming Mother as the residential parent for school-placement purposes, notwithstanding the guardian ad litem’s recommendation that Father be designated the school-placement parent. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/26/2026
|
3/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1059 |
|
Kemba Fin. Credit Union v. Leeper
| 25AP-519 | The Franklin County Municipal Court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff credit union on its claims against the defendant for nonpayment of an automobile loan and a credit card. The credit union met its initial burden of pointing to evidentiary materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) showing there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant did not satisfy her reciprocal burden under Civ.R. 56(E) of setting forth by evidence permitted under Civ.R. 56(C) specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue for trial. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/26/2026
|
3/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1060 |
|
Reading Recovery Council of N. Am., Inc. v. State
| 25AP-515 | Appellants pled facts sufficient to establish standing to sue under Count III of their complaint, and the trial court erred in finding otherwise. Judgment reversed in part; cause remanded. | Leland | Franklin |
3/24/2026
|
3/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1000 |
|
State ex rel. Yost v. Best Choice Industries, L.L.C.
| 25AP-753 | The trial court did not apply the incorrect legal standard to appellant’s motion to vacate for lack of personal jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in concluding appellant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service. Service by ordinary mail was accomplished in accordance with Civ.R. 4.6(D), and appellant did not provide any evidence to substantiate his claim he was incarcerated at that time. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/24/2026
|
3/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1001 |
|
White v. Ross Corr. Inst.
| 25AP-800 | PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST—R.C. 149.43—REMEDIES—R.C. 2743.75: Because respondent failed to certify that a copy of its objections to the special master's report and recommendation was sent to requester via “certified mail, return receipt requested,” as required by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), neither party timely lodged objections in the manner prescribed by the statute. Thus, pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), the court of claims should have "issue[d] a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” In recognizing the statutory defect in respondent’s certificate of service, and in the absence of any evidence showing requester was served with a copy of respondent's objections “by certified mail, return receipted requested,” the court of claims erred in considering respondent’s objections and conducting an independent review of the evidence. Judgment reversed in part; cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision and the applicable law. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/24/2026
|
3/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1002 |
|
State v. Brime
| 25AP-858 | GUILTY PLEA—CRIM.R. 32.1—POSTCONVICTION MOTION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing. Defendant failed to show that a hearing was warranted or that withdrawal of his pleas was necessary to correct a manifest injustice where defendant failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating his actual innocence of the charged offense, legal impossibility, or any error on the part of trial counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/24/2026
|
3/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1003 |
|
State v. Armstead
| 25AP-475 | On appeal from a criminal sentence, imposed pursuant to a guilty plea, that included a non-mandatory two-year prison term for felonious assault and a mandatory one-year prison term for a firearm specification attached to the felonious-assault offense. Because the felonious assault offense had an attendant firearm specification, a prison term was required by R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) as interpreted in State v. Logan, 2025-Ohio-1772. Because the prison term was required by R.C. 2929.13(F)(8), it was a “mandatory prison term” as defined in R.C. 2929.01(X). The trial court erred in designating the two-year prison term for felonious assault as non-mandatory. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
3/24/2026
|
3/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-999 |
|
State ex rel. Harris v. Franklin Med. Ctr.
| 24AP-622 | Objection to Magistrate’s Decision overruled. Limited writ of mandamus granted ordering respondent to provide three records sought by relator in public records request; relator’s request for statutory damages denied. | Leland | Franklin |
3/19/2026
|
3/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-908 |
|
In re Estate of Fogle
| 25AP-594 | Appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error in the probate court’s decision to overrule all objections and adopt the magistrate’s decision, resulting in the appointment of Steven Fogle as administrator of Helen Fogle’s estate. All five assignments of error overruled; judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
3/19/2026
|
3/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-911 |
|
State v. Smith
| 25AP-824 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial. Appellant failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds upon which he relied for his proposed motion for new trial. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/19/2026
|
3/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-912 |
|
Maleky v. Ohio State Univ., Office of Compliance & Integrity
| 25AP-304 | The Court of Claims did not exceed the scope of our remand from the direct appeal in this matter. The judgment entry issued by the Court of Claims on remand was limited to the issue of Family Education Rights and Privacy Act redactions. Despite appellant's claims to the contrary, the Court of Claims judgment entry issued after our remand did not vacate prior binding rulings. Additionally, any of appellant's claims regarding unresolved issues could have been raised in the direct appeal and therefore are barred by res judicata. Appellant failed to establish that the Court of Claims erred in entering final judgment prior to appellee's full production of public records. By the plain language of R.C. 2743.75(F)(3), the cost recovery provision in subsection (b) did not apply because an appeal was taken from the Court of Claims final order. Appellant's claim that the trial court permitted improper redactions could not be considered because it relied upon appellee's record productions that occurred after the judgment entry at issue, and were therefore outside of the record on appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/17/2026
|
3/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-890 |
|
Peters v. Lawson
| 25AP-576 | Absent a showing of inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability under R.C. 2725.04, Teresa Peters may not litigate a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of her brother, petitioner David Peters. Teresa Peters did not make this showing, and so the Tenth District Court of Appeals strikes the objections to the magistrate’s decision. Finding no error or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, this court adopts the magistrate’s decision as our own. Petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed; action dismissed. | Leland | Franklin |
3/17/2026
|
3/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-891 |
|
Galoski v. MedVet Assocs., L.L.C.
| 25AP-610 | Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of veterinary medical facility on claims related to treatment of appellant’s dog. The gist of appellant’s claims sounded in veterinary malpractice and appellant did not name any of the individual veterinarians as defendants. The veterinary medical facility did not practice veterinary medicine and could not be directly liable for veterinary malpractice. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/17/2026
|
3/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-892 |
|
State ex rel. Kurtz v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-395 | The commission did not abuse its discretion in determining claimant’s Temporary Total Disability ("TTD") compensation terminated as of the date of the examining physician’s report opining she had reached Maximum Medical Improvement ("MMI"). However, the commission abused its discretion in ordering recoupment of any overpayment of TTD compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.511(K) because the procedural posture of this case does not fall within R.C. 4123.511(K). We grant claimant a limited writ of mandamus and remand the matter to the commission for further proceedings. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/12/2026
|
3/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-824 |
|
State ex rel. Fought v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-706 | The magistrate correctly held that relator has not demonstrated that the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in making its findings regarding his “vocational potential” since some evidence supported those findings. We also agree with the magistrate that these facts provide adequate assurances that the staff hearing officer appropriately considered the psychological condition in conjunction with the physical conditions when reaching the decision that relator’s permanent total disability application should be denied. Objections overruled. Writ of mandamus denied. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/12/2026
|
3/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-825 |
|
Fields-Arnold v. Cent. State Univ. Bd. of Trustees
| 25AP-485 | The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in granting appellee’s summary judgment motion. Appellant failed to satisfy her burden on summary judgment as to her sex discrimination and FMLA retaliation claims, she waived her hostile work environment claim, and she failed to adequately brief her race discrimination claim. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/12/2026
|
3/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-826 |
|
In re R.S.
| 25AP-518 | Based on the circumstances surrounding appellant's request to continue the permanent custody hearing, it cannot be concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying that request. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/5/2026
|
3/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-731 |
|
Yates v. Rigby
| 25AP-601 | APPELLATE REVIEW – DIVORCE: Because the transcript from the uncontested divorce hearing was not included in the record under App.R. 9, and in the absence of any apparent procedural error by the trial court or cognizable argument or legal authority supporting appellant’s assignment of error, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings and affirm the trial court’s judgment granting appellee a divorce on the grounds of incompatibility. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/5/2026
|
3/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-732 |
|
State v. Gill
| 25AP-738 | The trial court erred in denying Mr. Gill’s Crim.R. 29(A) motion for judgment of acquittal on the weapons under disability charge. The state formally rested its case without making exception for the having weapons under disability charge and failed to present any evidence of Mr. Gill’s alleged disability when it closed its case in chief. Additionally, the state presented insufficient evidence to find Mr. Gill guilty of tampering with evidence. The state offered evidence only that Mr. Gill possessed a gun, law enforcement did not recover the gun, and Mr. Gill was not present at the scene when law enforcement arrived. However, the state did not present any evidence that Mr. Gill engaged in an act to alter, destroy, conceal, or remove the gun with the purpose of impairing an investigation. We reverse the judgment of conviction of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and enter a judgment of acquittal. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/5/2026
|
3/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-748 |
|
Hargreaves v. Barwell
| 24AP-714 | The trial court did not err in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment and denying as moot appellant’s motion for summary judgment. In this legal malpractice action, appellant presented no evidence supporting the causation element of appellant’s underlying claim. Thus, appellees were entitled to summary judgment. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
3/3/2026
|
3/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-718 |
|
In re A.H.
| 25AP-445 | The trial court, did not err in granting the motion of appellee, Franklin County Children Services (“FCCS”), for permanent custody of appellant’s minor child. The trial court properly found, both previously and in its decision granting permanent custody, that FCCS made reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for the continued removal of the child from appellant’s custody. In particular, contrary to appellant’s assertion, the trial court appropriately found that FCCS made reasonable efforts to link appellant with a provider for a court-ordered parenting abilities psychological evaluation. Further, the trial court’s determination that an award of permanent custody was in the child’s best interest was supported by competent, credible evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/3/2026
|
3/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-719 |
|
Thompson v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
| 25AP-561 | In accordance with the magistrate’s recommendation, based on relator’s failure to comply with the captioning requirement of R.C. 2731.04 we sua sponte dismiss relator’s requested writ of mandamus; objection overruled, and remaining objections rendered moot. | Leland | Franklin |
3/3/2026
|
3/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-720 |
|
State v. Hollingsworth
| 24AP-336 | The trial court did not err in admitting a portion of the 9-1-1 call despite the caller not testifying. The statements were nontestimonial because their primary purpose were to assist law enforcement in addressing an ongoing emergency. The trial court did not err in overruling objections to certain other-acts testimony. Under Evid.R. 404(B), the other-acts evidence was relevant and admissible for purposes other than proving appellant's character and his conformity therewith. Appellant failed to demonstrate bias or partiality in favor of the state in the trial court's interrogation of witnesses. Even if the court were to assume trial counsel's performance was deficient, appellant failed to demonstrate that trial counsel's performance was prejudicial. | Jamison | Franklin |
2/26/2026
|
2/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-659 |
|
In re P.A.
| 24AP-693 | On petitioner's appeal of juvenile court's dismissal of his uncontested petition for custody over his minor half-brother. The trial court erred by failing to comply with rules of court regarding magistrate decisions without cause to do so or proper notice to petitioner. Trial court's explanation that the magistrate's decision was incomplete and missing information it deemed to be crucial was not justified, where the trial court wholly failed to identify what that information was, failed to notify counsel that any such information was required, and failed to respond to counsel's inquiries about the status of the case. Trial court's decision to informally reserve magistrate's decision for nearly six months without notifying counsel, and without approving or rejecting the decision on the record was prejudicial to the petitioner and the juvenile. Trial court's terse explanation that it was “overburdened” and had a “congested docket” is not a sufficient reason for the lengthy delay where the case was uncontested, the facts were undisputed, and the legal relief sought was uncomplicated. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
2/26/2026
|
2/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-660 |
|
Willow Bend Townhomes II, LP v. Koster
| 25AP-160 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. The trial court did not err in finding that appellant violated the terms of the agreed entry and failed to plead a meritorious defense to each violation. Judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court is affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
2/19/2026
|
2/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-569 |
|
State v. Dixon
| 25AP-163 | Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. The trial court erred by granting the state’s motion for summary judgment, but properly denied the claimant’s motion for summary judgment, in the claimant’s action to be declared a wrongfully imprisoned individual. The trial court concluded the claimant failed to establish his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence, but the court failed to consider whether the claimant satisfied his reciprocal summary judgment burden to demonstrate there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding his innocence. The summary judgment evidence demonstrated there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the claimant’s innocence, because both of the eyewitnesses to the shooting recanted their trial testimony and averred that the claimant was not the shooter. As such, the court could not award summary judgment in favor of either party. | Dorrian | Franklin |
2/19/2026
|
2/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-570 |
|
Cleary v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
| 25AP-226 | The trial court erred in granting appellee’s motions for summary judgment and denying appellant’s partial motion for summary judgment. The auto policy’s use of the undefined term “rated driver” on the declarations page created an ambiguity that must be construed in favor of underinsured motorist coverage for appellant. Additionally, appellee did not submit evidence in support of its claim that it was prejudiced by appellant’s lack of cooperation. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
2/19/2026
|
2/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-571 |
|
Glenn v. White Oak Automotive, L.L.C.
| 25AP-473 | On appeal of municipal court decision overruling plaintiff-appellant's objections and adopting decision of magistrate following trial of small claims complaint against auto repair business. Trial court adopted magistrate's conclusion that plaintiff-appellant had failed to present a preponderance of evidence to establish claims of negligence. Plaintiff-appellant argues that magistrate erred in receiving testimony from defendant's owner, that testimony of defendant 's agents who performed work on her automobile was required but not presented at trial, that magistrate disregarded evidence plaintiff-appellant argues established damages and causation, that magistrate erred by relying on negligence caselaw that did not involve auto repairs, and that magistrate's conclusion that air conditioner in plaintiff's car had been repaired was against the manifest weight of the evidence. On review of record, exhibits, and orders, trial court acted well within its discretion by concluding that the plaintiff-appellant failed to present sufficient evidence of causation, by overruling objections, and by adopting magistrate's decision, as exhibits and record fully supported the magistrate's conclusions. Plaintiff's assignments of error overruled and judgment of trial court affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
2/19/2026
|
2/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-572 |
|
Curry v. Wendy’s Internatl., L.L.C.
| 25AP-521 | Appellant, Carline Curry, a vexatious litigator, violated R.C. 2323.52(D)(3) by initiating legal proceedings with this court without first obtaining leave to proceed under R.C. 2323.52(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2323.52(I), Curry’s appeal is dismissed for failure to obtain leave of this court to proceed under the statute. Appeal dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
2/19/2026
|
2/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-573 |
|
State v. T.W.C.
| 23AP-196 | Former R.C. 2953.32(A)(1)(b), as applied to indigent offenders, does not violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution or the Equal Protection and Due Course of Law Clauses of the Ohio Constitution. | Jamison | Franklin |
2/17/2026
|
2/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-526 |
|