|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Byers
| 24AP-194 | The trial court did not commit plain error by not reassigning the case to the judge originally assigned to the matter in 2019. The trial court did not err in denying Byers’ motion for a definite statement as the Ohio State University ("OSU") complied with Civ.R. 10. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to issue a scheduled order. The trial court did not commit plain error by considering OSU’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court did not err by granting OSU’s motion for summary judgment, denying Byers’ motion for summary judgment, and denying Byers’ motion for default judgment. The trial court did not commit plain error by converting the trial to a pretrial conference. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/29/2025
|
4/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1511 |
|
In re E.R.
| 24AP-434, 24AP-435 & 24AP-438 | The trial court did not err in placing the children in the permanent custody of Franklin County Children Services (“FCCS”). It was unnecessary for the trial court to make a reasonable efforts finding in its permanent custody decision. The children had been in the temporary custody of FCCS for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, and permanent custody was in their best interest. Additionally, appellant mother lacked standing to raise issues for the grandmother. And the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence a screen shot of a placement log for the children. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/29/2025
|
4/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1512 |
|
L.F.W. v. M.H.
| 24AP-665 | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because appellant failed to file timely objections to the trial court’s order adopting the magistrate’s decision denying appellant’s petition for a civil stalking protection order ("CSPO") in accordance with Civ.R. 65.1(G). | Dorrian | Franklin |
4/29/2025
|
4/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1513 |
|
Evans v. Evans
| 23AP-525 | Wife’s appeal from decree of divorce and property division. Trial court’s failure to make required findings of fact and conclusions of law to support equitable property division as required by R.C. 3105.171(G) was error, and accordingly trial court’s decisions dividing property and declining to award spousal support are reversed and remanded for further consideration. Wife’s assignments of error challenging court’s denial of request for continuance, having allegedly had ex parte conversations with wife’s previously-withdrawn counsel, adoption of a de facto termination date for marriage, use of appraisal for valuation of marital home, failure to order sale of the marital home, valuation of husband’s closely-held limited-liability company, and failure to include depreciation of value of L.L.C. property as income to husband overruled. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/24/2025
|
4/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1470 |
|
State v. Canas
| 24AP-209 | The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas did not err in denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief without a hearing when the record does not indicate that counsel was deficient or that appellant suffered any prejudice from counsel’s actions. Affidavits that consist of hearsay and unexecuted affidavits will receive little evidentiary value. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/24/2025
|
4/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1471 |
|
Cox v. Columbus Dept. of Bldg. & Zoning
| 24AP-296 | On appellee City of Columbus’ motion to dismiss appellant property owner’s appeal of common pleas court decision affirming adjudication order that granted variances to the city zoning code and permitted the building of a detached garage on a vacant lot adjacent to property owner’s home. Where property owner failed to seek a stay or otherwise failed to attempt to legally prevent the construction of the garage, there is no relief this court can grant that would alleviate the property owner’s claimed harm. The property owner’s appeal has been rendered moot, appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/24/2025
|
4/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1472 |
|
Professional Fin. Servs. of Georgia, L.L.C. v. Washington
| 24AP-387 | Because a garnishment hearing is not a vehicle for relitigating the lawsuit that resulted in the judgment underlying the garnishment, the trial court did not err in disregarding the judgment debtor’s challenges to the underlying judgment when sustaining the garnishment order. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/24/2025
|
4/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1473 |
|
Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-611 | The trial court did not err in not considering whether the plaintiff properly pled a negligence claim or pled claims timely when his action was barred by claim preclusion. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/24/2025
|
4/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1474 |
|
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 |
4/22/2025
|
4/22/2025
| 2024-Ohio-2343 |
|
State ex rel. Mobley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
| 22AP-541 | Objections overruled; relator's motion for default judgment denied; respondent's motion to dismiss granted. Magistrate did not err by concluding that Franklin County Board of Commissioners reasonably relied on existing case law when denying relator's public records request; therefore, relator was not entitled to statutory damages. | Dorrian | Franklin |
4/22/2025
|
4/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1422 |
|
Clark v. Dyer
| 24AP-274 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing appellant’s action for failure to prosecute is affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/22/2025
|
4/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1423 |
|
In re K.J.
| 24AP-436 | The trial court did not err by overruling in part objection’s to a magistrate’s decision that ordered a juvenile traffic offender to pay restitution of approximately $14,000 to the victims of his admitted offenses. R.C. 2152.203, which authorizes a juvenile court to order payment of full restitution for a victim’s economic loss caused by a juvenile’s delinquent act and which provides for reducing an unpaid restitution order to a civil judgment when the offender turns 21 years old, does not violate the provisions in the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. As required by R.C. 2152.203, the amount of restitution ordered here represented the victims’ actual economic loss, as established by a preponderance of the evidence at a restitution hearing, and was therefore not grossly disproportionate to the juvenile’s offenses. The trial court did not err by refusing a request to apportion the restitution between the juvenile offender and other occupants of the car the offender was driving, when those occupants were not charged with any offenses and were not before the juvenile court. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/22/2025
|
4/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1424 |
|
Wright v. Application for Relief from Disability
| 24AP-526 | Trial court did not err by dismissing petition for writ of mandamus where petitioner failed to file in the name of the state on his relation as required by R.C. 2731.04. Judgment affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
4/22/2025
|
4/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1425 |
|
State ex rel. Mazany v. Mentor
| 22AP-15 | Because relator was not entitled to the presumption of dependency under the criteria of R.C. 4123.59(D)(2) in his claim for death benefits, the staff hearing officer denying the claim was required to apply the final paragraph of R.C. 4123.59, which applies “[i]n all other cases” and states that “the question of dependency, in whole or in part, shall be determined in accordance with the facts in each particular case . . . .” Once he did not qualify as a presumptive dependent, relator had a clear legal right to have the question of dependency determined in accordance with the facts of his case, and the Industrial Commission had a clear legal duty to make that determination. Accordingly, the decision of the magistrate is adopted in part, and a limited writ of mandamus is granted. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/17/2025
|
4/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1380 |
|
In re K.S.
| 23AP-566; 23AP-627; 23AP-628; & 23AP-629 | The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to solicit counsel to present closing arguments as doing so would not have changed the outcome. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/17/2025
|
4/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1381 |
|
State v. Foster
| 24AP-341 | Defendant's conviction for felony murder as a result of committing the offense of complicity to felonious assault was supported by sufficient evidence. The record does not support defendant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an expert witness. The trial court did not err in rejecting the lesser-included offense of Involuntary Manslaughter. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/17/2025
|
4/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1382 |
|
Brime v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-466 | The Court of Claims’ dismissal without prejudice of a complaint under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) for failure to comply with an order pursuant to Civ.R. 37(B)(1) was not a final appealable order. The appeal is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | Jamison, J. | Franklin |
4/17/2025
|
4/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1383 |
|
Estate of Mullinix v. Mullinix
| 23AP-466 | On appeal from domestic relations court decisions finding defendant in contempt of prior divorce orders. On review of the trial court’s order, the appellate court held that the trial court had properly ruled upon all of defendant’s objections to magistrate’s decision and that the order finding her in contempt was final and appealable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was sufficient evidence of personal property value in the record and that there was sufficient evidence that defendant had refused to return personal property to the plaintiff as previously ordered, that the trial court’s determinations regarding defendant’s credibility on all other matters were within its discretion. Defendant’s assignments of error overruled and judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/15/2025
|
4/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1336 |
|
Tarahfields, L.L.C. v. Wilson
| 24AP-355 | The trial court did not err by granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion to dismiss, which the trial court converted into a motion for summary judgment, because plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claims were barred by the four-year statute of repose in R.C. 2305.117(B). Contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments, the trial court reviewed the correct version of the complaint when ruling on defendants’ motions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by not ruling on plaintiffs’ motion to compel, filed after the discovery-cutoff date, and did not err by denying plaintiffs’ untimely motion for substitution of a deceased defendant. Judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/15/2025
|
4/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1337 |
|
State v. Phillips
| 23AP-147 | The trial court erred by accepting appellant’s guilty plea without strictly complying with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). The trial court did not inform appellant that, by pleading guilty, he was giving up the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses to testify on his behalf. The trial court’s question whether appellant understood he was waiving his right to present any defenses did not reasonably inform appellant that he had the right to utilize the court’s subpoena power to compel witnesses to appear and testify on his behalf. Judgment reversed. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/8/2025
|
4/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1235 |
|
Colt's Neck Homeowners Assn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
| 24AP-273 | The trial court erred by dismissing this administrative appeal concerning a joint county improvement petition without first convening a panel of judges consisting of one judge of the court of common pleas from each of the affected counties, as required by R.C. 6133.10(A). The inclusion of a demand for damages in the notice of appeal did not transform the appeal of an order to proceed with a petition following a first hearing into “an appeal on compensation or damages” for purposes of R.C. 6133.10(A). R.C. 6131.25 provides the right to appeal an order to proceed made at the conclusion of a first hearing on a joint county improvement petition, and appellant is an “affected owner” under R.C. 6131.25(A) who may maintain such an appeal. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/8/2025
|
4/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1236 |
|
State v. Gordon
| 24AP-552 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed appellant’s eighth postconviction petition without a hearing. The petition was filed over twenty years after judgment. Therefore, it is untimely and no exceptions applied. In addition, res judicata bars the issues raised in the petition. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/8/2025
|
4/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1237 |
|
Eric Petroleum Corp. v. Vendel
| 24AP-272 & 24AP-275 | To have standing to appeal a Chief’s Order pursuant to R.C. 1509.36, a person must demonstrate he or she was “adversely affected” by showing the Order produced an effect that is harmful to his or her interest, i.e., an actual injury or a realistic danger of injury arising from the challenged action that is not so remote as to be merely speculative. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment holding otherwise was reversed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/8/2025
|
4/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1238 |
|
State v. Cox
| 24AP-305 | Judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court is affirmed, appellant has not shown that her counsel’s actions denied her effective assistance of counsel. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/8/2025
|
4/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1239 |
|
State v. Tarver
| 23AP-640 | Appellant’s rape convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the victim’s testimony established all necessary elements of the rape charges, and the jury did not lose its way in resolving conflicts in the evidence and believing the victim’s account. The trial court did not plainly err by failing to sua sponte merge two rape offenses after defense counsel conceded that the offenses should not merge. The jury’s not-guilty verdict for gross sexual imposition was not impermissibly inconsistent with its guilty verdicts for rape. Appellant did not establish plain error in the admission of the victim’s narrative statement to a sexual assault nurse examiner where the statement was merely cumulative to the victim’s testimony. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/3/2025
|
4/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1190 |
|
Ohio Veterans & Fraternal Charitable Coalition, Inc. v. Charitable Mgt. & Capital Group, L.L.C.
| 24AP-353 | Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part. The parties’ contract required appellee to pay appellant two percent of the income derived from electronic raffle machines operating “Raffle 3.0 or other legal upgraded charitable electronic games.” The trial court did not err by finding the plain and unambiguous meaning of the term “legal” in the contract meant conformance with statutory laws. Because the electronic raffle machines operating the Raffle 2.0 software did not comply with the charitable gaming laws in R.C. Ch. 2915, the Raffle 2.0 machines were not “legal” charitable electronic games. Therefore, the two percent fee described in the contract did not apply to the machines operating Raffle 2.0. Appellee admitted it breached the parties’ contract by failing to pay appellant two percent of its gross revenue from the machines operating the Raffle 3.0 software and claimed the damages resulting from the breach totaled $581.17. However, the evidence appellee presented demonstrated the damages resulting from the Raffle 3.0 machines totaled $2,375.89. As such, we found genuine issues of material fact regarding the damages resulting from appellee’s admitted breach of contract and reversed, in part, the trial court’s decision granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Because the trial court did not address the parties’ arguments regarding the meaning of a term in the contract, this court would not address the arguments in the first instance on appeal. The trial court did not err by granting appellee summary judgment on appellant’s claim for an accounting. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/3/2025
|
4/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1191 |
|
State v. Figueroa-Benitez
| 23AP-749 | Trial court erred by imposing sentence that was contrary to law because it was outside the mandatory range provided by statute. Judgment reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment entry and plea agreement. | Dorrian, J. | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1146 |
|
Marshall v. Franklin Cty. Treasurer
| 24AP-91 | Judgment affirmed. Because the Franklin County Treasurer and the Franklin County Auditor are political subdivisions engaged in governmental functions and therefore “not liable in damages in a civil action” under the immunity granted by R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), the trial court did not err when sustaining their motion for judgment on the pleadings in a civil suit filed by a taxpayer seeking damages from them for allegedly misidentifying her as a property owner and sending her a bill for unpaid taxes. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1147 |
|
In re B.W.
| 24AP-182 | Appellant’s adjudication for rape was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in permitting testimony of nurse that a normal exam is consistent with sexual abuse. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by not reopening the evidence to allow testimony of juvenile who opted not to testify during the adjudicatory hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1148 |
|
Tanner v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-241 | The Court of Claims did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the employer in a racial discrimination action. Plaintiff was not able to establish that the comparable individual was similarly situated, and thus failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1149 |
|
Crosscut Capital, L.L.C. v. DeWitt
| 24AP-278 | Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements in App.R. 16. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1150 |
|
State v. Williams
| 24AP-292 | EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - MANIFEST WEIGHT - COMPLICITY - INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: Convictions for offenses involving a shooting death and felonious assault of another were supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant’s identity as a principal offender or an aider and abettor in the offenses was established by video evidence and witness testimony. Because the state satisfied its burden in disproving, beyond a reasonable doubt, any claim of self-defense in this case, defendant cannot establish the prejudice required to support his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1151 |
|
State v. Cherry
| 24AP-351 & 24AP-352 | The trial court erred in failing to allocate any jail-time credit to case No. 23CR-3214 as some portion of appellant’s pre-sentence confinement was attributable only to that case. Any error in allocating jail-time credit to case No. 24CR-440 cannot be corrected as appellant has completed his imposed sentence of time served in that case. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for trial court to allocate appropriate number of jail-time credit days to case No. 23CR-3214. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1152 |
|
Columbus v. DeWitt
| 24AP-12 | On appeal of dismissal of operating a vehicle impaired ("OVI"), operating without license, driving with suspended license, failure to control, and refusing a chemical alcohol test while having a prior OVI conviction within the preceding 20 years, the City of Columbus asserts that the trial court committed plain error by dismissing the charges based on a violation of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Review of the record demonstrates that dismissal pursuant to R.C. 2941.401 is improper because that statute’s 180-day clock had not expired on the date of the dismissal, and dismissal based on R.C. 2945.71 is improper because the speedy trial clock was tolled between June 13, 2023 and September 19, 2023, and between October 19, 2023 and November 6, 2023 pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(H). The City of Columbus’ sole assignment of error is sustained, and the judgment dismissing the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1067 |
|
State v. Cunningham
| 24AP-260 | Order dismissing charge based on finding of incompetence to stand trial affirmed. Appellant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel in seeking second competency evaluation because she does not contest the psychologist’s observations or conclusions and did not establish a reasonable probability of a different outcome if her counsel acted differently. Trial court did not err by finding appellant incompetent to stand trial because the second evaluation report was reliable and credible evidence supporting the trial court’s decision. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1068 |
|
State v. Ndiaye
| 24AP-306 | Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress; judgment of conviction affirmed | Leland | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1069 |
|
State v. Walker
| 24AP-329 | Defendant's convictions for Rape, Kidnapping, Attempted Rape, and Felonious Assault were supported by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, Defendant failed to show on appeal that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1070 |
|
Konkel v. Ohio Parole Bd.
| 24AP-464 | Because appellant failed to raise a cognizable claim that the Ohio Parole Board denied him meaningful consideration for parole, the trial court did not err in granting the board’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1071 |
|
Hopkins v. Certificate of Qualification for Emp.
| 24AP-502 | The trial court abused its discretion in denying petition for certificate of qualification for employment under R.C. 2953.25(C)(3) without first considering the rebuttable presumption in favor of granting the petition contained in R.C. 2953.25(C)(5). Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further consideration in accordance with the statutory framework set forth in R.C. 2953.25. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1072 |
|
In re Estate of Carter
| 24AP-518 | The probate court did not err in interpreting the language in the decedent’s will that bequeathed to his daughter a motor vehicle of her choice other than “the one used by my wife.” Additionally, the probate court did not err in determining from the evidence that the motor vehicle the daughter chose did not qualify as the motor vehicle the decedent’s wife used at the time of the decedent’s death. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/27/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1073 |
|
State v. Elkhabiry
| 22AP-445 | Appellant’s convictions for aggravated murder and having a weapon while under disability, both with accompanying firearm specifications, were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, nor were they based on legally insufficient evidence, where appellant was found hiding in the trunk of his girlfriend’s car with the murder weapon minutes after a shooting. Appellant’s right to confront witnesses under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution was not violated by the state’s failure to produce the witnesses heard on the video recordings of law enforcement officers’ body-worn cameras because their statements, made minutes after the shooting, had the primary purpose of assisting the officers during an ongoing emergency and were therefore nontestimonial in nature. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1028 |
|
State ex rel. Huber v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-164 | The magistrate correctly found there was some evidence in the record supporting the commission’s order denying temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation for the period of September 7, 2022 through November 7, 2022. The magistrate further correctly found the commission’s determination denying relator’s second request for TTD compensation for an identical time period was entirely proper based upon principles of res judicata. Writ of mandamus denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1029 |
|
Wilkes v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
| 24AP-106 | Because a reasonably prudent person would foresee that vandals would use the removal of the protective fencing on the north side of an overpass to throw or drop objects onto the highway below, the Ohio Department of Transportation owed a special duty to the motorists on the highway to take adequate measures to prevent vandalism. The Ohio Department of Transportation breached its duty to a passenger in a vehicle traveling on the highway below the overpass because it took no measures to prevent future vandalism after removing the protective fencing from the overpass. A reasonably prudent person would anticipate that taking no measures to prevent vandalism would result in damage to persons and property from the projectiles launched from the overpass. Thus, the passenger’s death was a natural and probable consequence of the Ohio Department of Transportation’s negligence. Finally, the Ohio Department of Transportation was not entitled to discretionary immunity where it did not make a discretionary policy decision to take no action but, instead, took no action because it did not perceive a problem. | Jamison | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1030 |
|
Wilkes v. Wilkes
| 24AP-210 | Judgment reversed. Although appellant did not answer the complaint for divorce, appellant’s appearance at the final hearing and statement informing the trial court she “needed more time” to answer the complaint should have alerted the court to the fact she intended to contest some issue in the divorce. Because the trial court did not offer appellant an opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine the witnesses, or present an argument at the final hearing, the court erred by denying her a meaningful opportunity to participate in the final hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to continue the final hearing. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1031 |
|
Fong v. Faires
| 24AP-467 | The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees because it incorrectly applied the requirements of the saving statute, R.C. 2903.19. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1032 |
|
State ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-553 | On review of magistrate’s decision in this public records case, recommending dismissal of petition for writ of mandamus for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25. As relator failed to file objections, and as we have found no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, we adopt it as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law as they are set forth in the decision. Respondent Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. ("ODRC")’s motion to dismiss is granted, relator’s complaint is dismissed, and relator’s motion for default judgment is dismissed as moot. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1033 |
|
Keil v. Ohio Atty. Gen.
| 24AP-654 | The magistrate properly applied the relevant law to the facts of the case concluding that the respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted as the relators can prove no set of facts entitling them to the relief they seek in mandamus. Moreover, while the respondent did not technically comply with Loc.R. 2(E), the error is harmless and cannot provide a basis for reversal as there was no delay or prejudice from the respondent serving the relators by email. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate’s decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. The relators’ objections are overruled, and we dismiss the relators’ complaint for a writ of mandamus. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1034 |
|
C.T.F. v. A.B.M.
| 24AP-440 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in issuing its decision and judgment entry adopting the December 15, 2023 magistrate’s decision in which the magistrate granted sole custody of the parties’ minor child to Father, with parenting time for Mother to be determined, and overruling Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
3/25/2025
|
3/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1036 |
|
State ex rel. Castellon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 23AP-565 | Relator filed no objection to the magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss the mandamus complaint because its accompanying affidavit failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25. Finding no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, it is adopted in full and the relator’s complaint is dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/20/2025
|
3/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-972 |
|
Robol v. Columbus
| 24AP-348 | The trial court did not err in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment on appellant’s claims related to appellees’ implementation and enforcement of COVID-19 policies and protocols. The statute of limitations bars appellant’s claims related to certain Columbus City Council meetings in 2020, and both the City of Columbus and individual employees of the city are entitled to immunity on appellant’s intentional tort claims brought under state law. Appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on his claims of infringement of his right to religious expression, deprivation of civil rights, infringement of his freedom of speech and of the press, violations of the Takings Clause, and conspiracy. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in impliedly denying the motion to compel discovery by ruling on the motion for summary judgment, and we deny appellant’s motion to take judicial notice. Judgment affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
3/20/2025
|
3/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-973 |
|