Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 195 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Enyart 22AP-645CRIM.R. 32.1 – POSTCONVICTION MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA – JURISDICTION: In State ex rel. Davis v. Janas, 160 Ohio St.3d 187, 2020-Ohio-1462, the Supreme Court of Ohio made clear that the holding of State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978), does not bar a trial court’s jurisdiction over postconviction motions permitted by the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure after a defendant’s direct appeal and an affirmance of the conviction. Because Crim.R. 32.1 permits a defendant to seek relief from a final judgment by filing a postconviction motion to withdraw a guilty or no contest plea, the trial court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea and denying defendant’s motion based on that determination. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.EdelsteinFranklin 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3373
Miller v. NWD 355 McConnell, L.L.C. 22AP-725The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to grant appellant 120 days to respond to NWD’s motion for summary judgment as appellant failed to aver in his affidavit, through particularized facts, why additional time was required to conduct discovery. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending the resolution of NWD’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court did not err granting NWD’s motion summary judgment as to appellant’s cause of action for vicarious liability. Judgment affirmed.MentelFranklin 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3374
State ex rel. McCarley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 23AP-22Petitioner has satisfied the strict compliance required under R.C. 2969.25(A). Magistrate’s decision vacated and remanded to the magistrate for further consideration.BoggsFranklin 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3375
Kessler v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. 23AP-110The trial court did not abuse its discretion by affirming the decision of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, which found there was no probable cause to issue an administrative complaint regarding appellant’s charge of housing discrimination. Judgment affirmed.MentelFranklin 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3376
Nyamusevya v. Nkurunziza 22AP-713Trial court order adopting magistrate’s decision filed with magistrate’s decision in same docketed entry did not indicate trial court failed to conduct required facial review or denied appellant opportunity to file objections. As issuance of magistrate’s decision and trial court’s judgment entry were in accordance with law, appellant failed to demonstrate error. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 9/14/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3263
Turner v. Bexley Bd. of Zoning & Planning 22AP-554 & 22AP-562The trial court did not err in reversing the Bexley City Council’s decision, which affirmed a decision of the Bexley Board of Zoning and Planning to grant a developer’s conditional use application. Under the clear and unambiguous language of the Bexley zoning code, the developer could not construct a multifamily dwelling in a zoning district in which multifamily dwellings were a prohibited use.Beatty BluntFranklin 9/12/2023 9/12/2023 2023-Ohio-3225
Vacheresse v. Paulchel 22AP-583DIVORCE – R.C. 3105.171 – PROPERTY VALUATION – EQUALIZATION PAYMENT: Although neither party called appraiser as a witness at trial and both parties disagreed with his valuation of marital property, the trial court did not plainly err in admitting the appraiser’s report as evidence where wife’s counsel hired the appraiser, husband paid the appraiser, counsel for both parties received the report prior to trial, husband’s counsel tendered the appraisal report as an exhibit at the conclusion of trial, wife’s attorney did not object to its admission, and nothing in the record suggests any substantive issues with the report or the appraiser’s qualifications. Furthermore, since neither party presented expert evidence supporting any other value for the home and because its valuation did not factor into trial court’s equitable division analysis, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relying on admitted appraiser’s report to determine the value of that property. Although the trial court’s division of the net marital assets resulted in wife receiving 45.10 percent and husband receiving 54.90 percent, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that an equalization payment would be inequitable in this case. Judgment affirmedEdelsteinFranklin 9/12/2023 9/12/2023 2023-Ohio-3226
Tyack v. Mobley 23AP-72Trial court did not err in declaring appellant a vexatious litigator pursuant to R.C. 2323.52.Per CuriamFranklin 9/12/2023 9/12/2023 2023-Ohio-3227
WWSD, L.L.C. v. Woods 20AP-403The trial court granted appellee's motions for judgment on the pleadings to quiet title and for a declaratory action and for summary judgment regarding slander of title and fraud, and jury determined punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed. Appellants’ motion for reconsideration is sustained regarding the finding of fraud and any punitive damages resulting from that fraud. The judgment of the trial court regarding the fraud claim is reversed.JamisonFranklin 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3174
State ex rel. McCarley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 22AP-111Objections to magistrate’s decision overruled and petition for writ of mandamus denied. Relator’s complaint did not establish that Respondent, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, had a clear legal duty to vacate decision of institutional rules infraction board and could not establish a clear legal right to such relief.Beatty BluntFranklin 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3175
State v. Rohrig 22AP-735, 22AP-736 & 22AP-742The trial court did not err in finding that defendant was incompetent to stand trial and there was not a substantial probability that he could be restored to competency within the time allotted by law. Therefore, the trial court did not err in ordering the complaints against defendant dismissed and discharging defendant. Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not, as defendant alleged, disclose communications protected by the attorney-client privilege to the evaluator of defendant’s competency. The trial court did not err by not disqualifying the prosecutors in the cases against defendant, or by enforcing a judgment of conviction entered against defendant before the trial court found him incompetent to stand trial. The entry of the judgment finding defendant incompetent rendered moot all issues regarding the disclosure of evidence to defendant prior to trial. Defendant failed to establish that the trial court and prosecutors engaged in a civil conspiracy against him.Per CuriamFranklin 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3176
State ex rel. Heilman v. Indus. Comm. 21AP-353Objections to magistrate’s decision are overruled. The magistrate properly determined the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law. The magistrate correctly determined that medical reports from a physician who did not examine the claimant’s deceased husband could not constitute “some evidence” to support the Industrial Commission’s order denying the claimant’s motion for compensation for her husband’s loss of use of both arms and legs, loss of vision in both eyes, and/or loss of hearing in both ears prior to his death, because the non-examining physician did not accept the objective findings of the examining coroner, as required by State ex rel. Wallace v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.2d 55 (1979). Limited writ of mandamus is granted ordering the Industrial Commission to vacate its order denying the claimant’s motion for loss-of-use compensation, to issue an order determining whether the claimant has established the decedent’s loss of use of both arms and legs, loss of vision in both eyes, and/or loss of hearing in both ears, pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(B), and to enter an order granting or denying compensation accordingly.BoggsFranklin 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3073
Dolin v. Lupo 21AP-562Trial court erred in substituting for the plaintiff who died during the pendency of this partition action the deceased plaintiff’s husband, as administrator of decedent’s estate, because no estate had been opened. The trial court could not have substituted the decedent’s husband, individually, as the plaintiff, because he had not filed a timely motion for substitution in his individual capacity. Trial court then erred in entering judgment for the nonexistent, substituted plaintiff. Because no motion for substitution of a proper party was made within 90 days after the filing of notice of the plaintiff’s death, the trial court was required to dismiss the action without prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 25(A)(1) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judgment reversed.BoggsFranklin 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3074
State ex rel. Moore v. Indus. Comm. 21AP-563Objections overruled; relator failed to show Industrial Commission abused its discretion in denying application for permanent total disability compensationLelandFranklin 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3075
State v. Pack 22AP-56Appellate review of felony sentence challenged under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 is limited to whether sentence is in accordance with law. Controlling Supreme Court of Ohio precedent in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729 precludes further analysis and could not be disregarded. Because sentence was in accordance with law, judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3076
Miller v. Mission Essential Group, L.L.C. 22AP-448 & 22AP-449Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Trial court did not err by denying the company's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, Civ.R. 56(F) motion, or motion to reconsider the court's ruling on the Civ.R. 56(F) motion. The court's entry imposing a stay permitted the court to rule on a potentially dispositive issue during the stay, and the company failed to establish any harm resulting from the stay. The trial court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment because the company's operating agreements did not provide any basis for determining and paying the fair cash value of a dissenting member's interest. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the expert's testimony and the manifest weight of the evidence supported the court's determination of the fair cash value of plaintiffs' membership interests. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by setting the interest on the judgment at the rate of 6%. Although R.C. 1705.42(B) did not prohibit the trial court from applying minority or marketability discounts to determine the fair cash value of plaintiffs' membership interests, the court abused its discretion by applying minority and marketability discounts in the present case because the discounts resulted in a windfall to the company's remaining majority member.LelandFranklin 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3077
State v. Kennedy 22AP-534 & 22AP-536The state failed to demonstrate the trial court committed reversible error by granting judicial release of an offender pursuant to R.C. 2929.20. The offender was eligible for judicial release under former R.C. 2929.20(C)(5) considering the aggregated nonmandatory prison term spanning her consecutive sentences in multiple cases, and the trial court made the necessary findings under former R.C. 2929.20(J) to permit judicial release of an offender imprisoned for second degree felonies. Judgment affirmed.LelandFranklin 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3078
C.T. v. N.Y. 22AP-499Respondent was not denied a “full hearing” within the meaning of R.C. 3113.31 when trial court provided assistance to pro se petitioner. Guidance on procedural matters did not derogate respondent’s right to be meaningfully heard, but allowed both parties to proceed on the merits. Issuance of the domestic violence civil protection order was in accordance with law. Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations is affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 8/29/2023 8/29/2023 2023-Ohio-3029
Shalash v. Shalash 22AP-691Because appellant did not make hearing transcript and exhibits necessary for resolution of his assigned error part of the appellate record as required by App.R. 9, we must presume regularity of the proceedings below and validity of the trial court’s judgment without reaching the merits of appellant’s sole assignment of error. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 8/29/2023 8/29/2023 2023-Ohio-3030
Crane v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 23AP-117CIV.R. 12(B)(1) – JURISDICTION – DISMISSAL: Because appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority, is part of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction—a state agency—and is not an agency of a political subdivision of the state, R.C. 2506.01(A) did not give the trial court subject-matter jurisdiction to consider appellant’s “appeal” from the parole board’s decision denying him release on parole. Accordingly, trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and dismissing the civil action below. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 8/29/2023 8/29/2023 2023-Ohio-3031
State v. McGee 21AP-543On direct appeal of defendant’s convictions for felonious assault, improper discharge into a habitation, discharge into a habitation and weapon under disability and attached specifications, judgment affirmed. Warrantless search of defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment was protective sweep and justified by exigent circumstances, warrant for defendant’s Facebook account was supported by probable cause, defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing defendant to be impeached with evidence of prior conviction, and defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.Beatty BluntFranklin 8/22/2023 8/22/2023 2023-Ohio-2935
State v. Jones 22AP-626Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court did not err as Jones’s motion for a new trial is barred by res judicata.BoggsFranklin 8/22/2023 8/22/2023 2023-Ohio-2936
Autovest, L.L.C. v. Ruff 23AP-29The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Autovest, L.L.C., nor did it err in finding Autovest, L.L.C. to be the owner of an alleged note to which Gerry Ruff and Adrienne Ruff are parties. Because appellant neither responded to Autovest's requests for admissions nor sought relief from admission under Civ.R. 36, he conceded the facts asserted in the request for admissions and admitted a matter he is now trying to contest: namely, that Autovest is entitled to enforce the obligations under the Note. Although the admissions did not establish the assignment of the debt to Autovest, an affidavit submitted by Autovest provided evidence of that assignment. Thus, coupled with the evidence of the affidavit, it was proper for the trial court to determine that Autovest was entitled to summary judgment in this matter, and upon our de novo review, we conclude the same. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 8/22/2023 8/22/2023 2023-Ohio-2937
Jezerinac v. Dioun 22AP-505 & 22AP-506Appeal dismissed. The trial court’s order was not a final, appealable order because it did not affect a substantial right or grant or deny a provisional remedy, but implemented a prior order affirmed on appeal in accordance with the law-of-the-case doctrine. Appeal was not frivolous or in bad faith because it raised valid, albeit unpersuasive, questions for review, and thus the request for sanctions under App.R. 23 was denied.EdelsteinFranklin 8/17/2023 8/17/2023 2023-Ohio-2882
S.M. v. N.G. 23AP-8Trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s objections to magistrate’s decision denying his motion for shared parenting.Per CuriamFranklin 8/17/2023 8/17/2023 2023-Ohio-2883
State v. Jones 22AP-209Trial court did not err in proceeding with trial having found that the defendant was voluntarily absent. There was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.BoggsFranklin 8/15/2023 8/15/2023 2023-Ohio-2855
Williams v. Thomas 22AP-426Trial court abused its discretion by deferring ruling on motion for contempt based on failure to comply with discovery order until after hearing on merits of divorce petition because that decision effectively extinguished the defendant’s right to discovery and hindered her ability to present evidence regarding a fundamental issue in the case.DorrianFranklin 8/15/2023 8/15/2023 2023-Ohio-2856
Landers v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 22AP-573With respect to a former inmate’s claims that three former employees of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections had used excessive force against him and caused him serious injuries, the Court of Claims of Ohio determined that only one of the three former employees was subject to personal immunity under R.C. 9.86. The plaintiff and the ODRC cross-appealed. Neither plaintiff nor ODRC challenged the court of claims’ determination that the former employee who instigated the physical altercation with the plaintiff was not entitled to immunity, as he acted with a malicious purpose and in a wanton or reckless manner. The court of claims did not err with respect to the other former employee whom it concluded was not entitled to immunity. Competent, credible evidence supported the court of claims’ determination that that employee knew or should have known that joining and furthering the attack on the plaintiff would create an unnecessary risk of serious physical harm. On the other hand, the court of claims erred as to the former employee whom it concluded was entitled to immunity under R.C. 9.86. That employee’s status as a probationary employee did not render his actions other than wanton or reckless when he had undergone training in acceptable use of force and de-escalation techniques, and there was no evidence that the probationary employee was simply following the other officers’ leads. There was no competent, credible evidence on which the court of claims could distinguish the probationary employee’s conduct from that of the other former employees. None of the three former employees was entitled to immunity under R.C. 9.86. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.BoggsFranklin 8/15/2023 8/15/2023 2023-Ohio-2857
Columbus v. State 22AP-676PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION — CIV.R. 65(D): The trial court abused its discretion by finding the City of Columbus was entitled to a preliminary injunction against the original and amended versions of R.C. 9.68, Ohio’s Firearms-Uniformity Law. The preliminary injunction order contained no specific findings regarding the City’s likelihood of success on its constitutionality challenge to original R.C. 9.68 and was impermissibly overboard in that it enjoined the State from enforcing all of 2018 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 228’s modifications to R.C. 9.68 despite the trial court’s narrow finding that only two limited components of the amended statute infringed on the City’s home-rule authority—thus violating the form and specificity requirements of Civ.R. 65(D). Further, in finding the four preliminary-injunction factors weighed in favor of the City’s March 2019 request to temporarily enjoin the State’s enforcement of amended R.C. 9.68—which took effect in December 2019—the trial court relied on stale evidence when it evaluated the irreparable harm, justifiable-harm-to-third-parties, and service-of-public-interest factors, and misstated the City’s burden of proof as to the last two. Because evidence in the record did not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s finding, in 2022, that the City was entitled to a preliminary injunction against the original or amended versions of R.C. 9.68 almost four years after the City requested it, its issuance constituted an abuse of discretion. Moreover, as to the preliminary injunction against 2018 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 228 in its entirety, the City conceded error on appeal because the other 14 statutory provisions affected by its enactment were never challenged in the trial court. Judgment reversed, preliminary injunction vacated, and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.EdelsteinFranklin 8/15/2023 8/15/2023 2023-Ohio-2858
State v. Simpson 23AP-139The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions to vacate his December 6, 2016 sentence. Because the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction in the case and personal jurisdiction over appellant, any alleged sentencing error renders the judgment voidable, not void, and could only be raised on direct appeal. Because appellant could have, but did not, raise the alleged sentencing error on a direct appeal, he is now precluded from raising the issue by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 8/15/2023 8/15/2023 2023-Ohio-2859
State v. Castile 23AP-155The trial court did not err in denying Castile’s motion to dismiss certain counts of his indictment as res judicata barred the motion.Luper SchusterFranklin 8/15/2023 8/15/2023 2023-Ohio-2860
State v. Solt 22AP-419Trial court erred by conducting a bench trial when the record did not contain a signed written waiver of the defendant’s right to a jury trial. Notwithstanding this erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, the appellate court considered appellant’s insufficient-evidence claim and concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for tampering with records.DorrianFranklin 8/10/2023 8/10/2023 2023-Ohio-2779
State v. Golden 22AP-481Judgment modified; postconviction petition dismissed. The trial court lacked jurisdiction over appellant’s “motion to dismiss” because it was in actuality a collateral attack on his conviction and therefore subject to the requirements of an untimely or successive petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23.MentelFranklin 8/10/2023 8/10/2023 2023-Ohio-2780
Jabr v. Columbus 23AP-182CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — MOTION TO DISMISS: Trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s complaint and denying, as moot, his pending discovery-related motions. Because appellant’s complaint did not allege any misconduct or action by the City or its employees, trial court properly found it failed to state a claim against the City upon which relief could be granted. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 8/10/2023 8/10/2023 2023-Ohio-2781
State v. J.G. 23AP-59The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas correctly dismissed appellant’s motion to vacate a void sentence. The motion was properly construed as an untimely motion for postconviction relief and was dismissed due to the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed.JamisonFranklin 8/8/2023 8/8/2023 2023-Ohio-2743
Compass Homes, Inc. v. Upper Arlington Bd. of Zoning 22AP-663The trial court erred in rejecting appellant’s constitutional claim with respect to the application of Upper Arlington’s Unified Development Ordinance § 7.17 to appellant’s proposed lot split and that, as applied to appellant, § 7.17 is void-for-vagueness. A person of common intelligence would necessarily be required to guess what is meant by the terms “consistent” and “compatible” with the neighborhood when contemplating a proposed lot split. Thus, as applied to appellant’s proposed lot split, § 7.17(B) does not provide fair notice of what a proposed lot must look like to be deemed “consistent” and “compatible” with the neighborhood characteristics so as to comport with basic notions of due process. Judgment reversed and vacated.Beatty BluntFranklin 8/8/2023 8/8/2023 2023-Ohio-2744
State v. Johnpillai 22AP-612The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to vacate a void sentence as the alleged sentencing error concerning the imposition of post-release control constituted voidable error and is barred under res judicata. Appellant’s argument that his sentence and plea should be vacated because there was no record of the sentencing hearing is moot as the transcript was supplemented into the record. Any alleged error in appellant’s sentencing entry related to the disposition of the firearm specifications attached to Count One does not render the judgment entry less than final. Judgment affirmed.MentelFranklin 8/8/2023 8/8/2023 2023-Ohio-2745
State v. Robertson 22AP-227The trial court erred by denying appellant’s motion to suppress as the relevant language of H.B. 197 was unambiguous, and therefore, the officer’s mistake of law was objectively unreasonable when he initiated a stop of appellant’s vehicle. The trial court erred by applying the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule and determining the evidence gathered from the illegal stop, and eventual search of appellant’s vehicle, was admissible. Judgment reversed.MentelFranklin 8/8/2023 8/8/2023 2023-Ohio-2746
State v. Rogers 21AP-546Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when it granted the motion to suppress filed by the defendant. Because he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his hospital medical records, the state was required to procure a warrant to obtain the records. No good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule justified the state's reliance on an investigate subpoena instead of a warrant.MentelFranklin 8/8/2023 8/8/2023 2023-Ohio-2749
Childs v. Kroger Co. 22AP-524Judgment affirmed. Although the appellant designated only the trial court’s final judgment in his notice of appeal, this court could address the trial court’s interlocutory rulings because interlocutory orders merge with a court’s final judgment. The trial court did not err by denying the appellant’s motion to compel, motion for sanctions, motion to strike, or motion in limine. The appellant failed to demonstrate that his employer either waived its ability to rely on, or was prevented from relying on, his criminal background as the grounds for terminating his at-will employment. The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion for judicial notice or motion for summary judgment. The trial court properly granted appellees summary judgment on appellant’s claims of race discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, unlawful aiding and abetting of discrimination, and defamation.EdelsteinFranklin 8/3/2023 8/3/2023 2023-Ohio-2034
State v. Butts 22AP-763SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME – DELAYED NEW TRIAL MOTION – STATE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL: State’s motion for leave to appeal did not sufficiently demonstrate a probability that the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it granted defendant leave to file a delayed new trial motion and ordered a new trial. Defendant’s 2003 convictions were almost entirely predicated on medical testimony that child died from shaken baby syndrome and that defendant was responsible for child’s injuries because defendant was last person with child. Following 2021 hearing on defendant’s motion for a new trial, trial court found that medical advancements and shifts in the opinion of the medical and forensic communities on shaken baby syndrome diagnosis constituted newly discovered evidence pursuant to Crim.R. 33(B) which, in light of the meager nonmedical evidence of guilt presented at defendant’s 2003 trial, made it probable that a jury today might not convict defendant. State’s motion for leave to appeal denied.EdelsteinFranklin 8/1/2023 8/1/2023 2023-Ohio-2670
State ex rel. Ellis v. Chambers-Smith 22AP-14Objections to magistrate’s decision overruled and petition for writ of mandamus denied, when trial court’s grant of additional jail-time credit to relator was proper under R.C. 2967.191 and was not a “resentencing” entry as relator claimed, and relator has not shown and cannot show that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction failed to perform a clear legal duty relating to the entry.Beatty BluntFranklin 8/1/2023 8/1/2023 2023-Ohio-2671
State ex rel. Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. 21AP-357On objections to magistrate decision recommending denial of writ of mandamus. Objections overruled and writ denied. Claimant presented sufficient evidence for hearing officer to conclude that light-duty work offered by employer required claimant to use both hands in violation of physician’s restrictions on claimant’s release to light work, and magistrate correctly found that Industrial Commission’s decision granting claimant temporary total benefits was supported by some evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.Beatty BluntFranklin 7/27/2023 7/27/2023 2023-Ohio-2593
Hillman v. Richardson 22AP-468The trial court did not err in granting defendant’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss because plaintiff failed to allege or imply facts on material points necessary to find defendant liable for tortious interference with contract. The trial court also did not err in entering judgment in favor of counterclaim plaintiff on his claim for legal malpractice as plaintiff presented evidence proving that the breach of the standard of care—failure to comply with discovery rules—proximately caused him injury. The doctrine of election of remedies did not apply.BoggsFranklin 7/27/2023 7/27/2023 2023-Ohio-2594
Watkins v. Ohio Bd. of Edn. 22AP-694In this R.C. 119.12 appeal, documents relied upon by appellant that were not admitted into evidence at the administrative hearing and/or were stricken from the record by the hearing officer could not considered by the common pleas court or this court. Even if the materials could be considered, they did not support appellant’s contention that the State Board of Education was divested of jurisdiction over the proceedings.DorrianFranklin 7/27/2023 7/27/2023 2023-Ohio-2595
Ball v. Octopus Constr., L.L.C. 22AP-780Trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision not to impose personal liability on a member of an L.L.C. because appellants failed to prove that appellee exercised control over the L.L.C. in such a manner as to commit fraud or an illegal act. Judgment affirmed.JamisonFranklin 7/27/2023 7/27/2023 2023-Ohio-2596
State ex rel. Braddy v. Hoying 23AP-197The Ohio Adult Parole Authority did not put forth the substantial evidence required to find relator violated the terms of his postrelease control by possessing a firearm. Accordingly, we grant a writ of mandamus ordering respondents to vacate the order finding realtor violated the terms of his postrelease control and to hold a new revocation hearing at which it must find relator not guilty of the alleged Rule 4 violation and issue a new sanction on the remaining violations.Luper SchusterFranklin 7/27/2023 7/27/2023 2023-Ohio-2597
Reproductive Gynecology, Inc. v. Wu 22AP-141The trial court did not err in finding that appellant was not entitled to court appointed counsel in a civil contempt matter and informing appellant that continued contempt violations may result in jail time. Because appellant did not file a complete transcript or an acceptable alternative, this court must presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings. Judgment affirmed.JamisonFranklin 7/25/2023 7/25/2023 2023-Ohio-2557
State ex rel. Parker v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 22AP-752R.C. 2969.25(A) – AFFIDAVIT OF PRIOR ACTIONS – MANDAMUS – DISMISSAL: Because an inmate who initiates an action against a government entity must strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25’s requirements and relator’s affidavit of prior actions did not fully comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)(3), dismissal of relator’s complaint against respondent Ohio Adult Parole Authority is warranted. Magistrate’s decision adopted, in part, respondent’s motion to dismiss granted, and relator’s action for mandamus is dismissed.EdelsteinFranklin 7/25/2023 7/25/2023 2023-Ohio-2558
Besack v. Kroger Co. 22AP-341Trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant and denial of plaintiff’s renewed motion for sanctions and/or to compel discovery in this negligence case, in which plaintiff slipped and fell on a grape on the floor of a grocery store, are reversed. The trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s discovery motions with respect to incident reports of plaintiff’s fall and other similar falls in defendant’s stores because defendant did not demonstrate that the requested reports were shielded from discovery by either attorney-client privilege or as attorney work product. The trial court likewise abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and/or to compel discovery with respect to plaintiff’s effort to depose a corporate representative of defendant pursuant to Civ.R. 30(B)(5). In light of defendant’s failure to provide requested discovery, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in defendant’s favor was, at least, premature. Judgment reversed.BoggsFranklin 7/20/2023 7/20/2023 2023-Ohio-2497