|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Batsche v. Batsche
| CA2024-12-097 | The trial court did not err in granting $150,000 in liquidated damages to plaintiff for civil theft by defendant. R.C. 2307.61 provides for liquidated damages "irrespective of whether the property is recovered." R.C. 2307.61 only requires a finding of civil theft to be entitled to liquidated damages set by the statute (if properly elected). WITH DISSENTING OPINION. | Siebert | Clermont |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3017 |
|
State v. Morgan
| CA2025-02-009 | The municipal abused its discretion by (1) imposing a recurring probation fee because the court itself (as opposed to its probation department) was supervising the probation, and (2) ordering the defendant to abstain from alcohol, drugs, and marijuana because nothing in the record indicated these substances played a role in the defendant's commission of theft. | Siebert | Clermont |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3018 |
|
In re B.T.
| CA2025-03-024 & CA2025-03-025 | Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to grant permanent custody of a child beyond the child's 18th birthday. Juvenile court erred in in finding that terminating mother's and father's parental rights and granting permanent custody of their daughter to a public children services agency was in the child's best interest. | M. Powell | Clinton |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3019 |
|
State v. Mahmoud
| CA2023-12-019 | In a reopened appeal, appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel resulting from his appellate counsel's failure to challenge his conviction to third-degree felony failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer where appellant, who failed to object to the verdict form used by the jury at the trial court level, did not establish plain error given the evidence presented at trial clearly established the additional enhancing elements necessary to raise the offense from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree. | Piper | Fayette |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3020 |
|
State v. Hixon
| CA2025-03-002 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea to 40 counts of fourth-degree felony pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor upon remand where the trial court considered all necessary factors and determined that appellant’s motion represented nothing more than appellant’s change of heart regarding the State’s plea offer that included a recommended eight-year prison sentence. | Piper | Fayette |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3021 |
|
Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Republican Cent. Commt.
| CA2025-01-005 | The law-of-the-case doctrine barred appellant's arguments challenging the court of appeals' 2024 opinion. Trial court did not err in granting a political party's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the complaint of an elected committeeperson of the political party. WITH CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION. | M. Powell | Clermont |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2913 |
|
State v. Smith
| CA2025-02-012 | The trial court did not err by denying appellant's untimely petition for postconviction relief where he pled guilty to the offenses. As a result, he cannot satisfy the requirement under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b) that he demonstrate, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty. | Siebert | Warren |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2914 |
|
In re L.D.
| CA2025-03-009, CA2025-03-010, CA2025-03-011, CA2025-03-012, CA2025-03-013, CA2025-03-014, CA2025-03-015, CA2025-03-016, CA2025-03-017, CA2025-03-018, CA2025-03-019, CA2025-03-020, CA2025-03-021, CA2025-03-022, CA2025-03-023 | An incarcerated parent's due process rights are adequately protected, even if he does not attend a permanent custody hearing pertaining to his children, where he was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, his counsel adequately conveyed the parent's interest in reunifying with his children in the future and proffered the parent's expected testimony on the record. Counsel is not ineffective where there is no evidence to demonstrate that counsel's performance created an unjust result or that the proceeding would have been different. A children's services agency engages in reasonable case planning where it creates a case plan that, if completed along with the necessary behavioral changes, could reunify the family. The juvenile court's decision awarding permanent custody of Mother's children to a children's services agency is supported by sufficient evidence and the greater weight of the evidence where the agency established that Mother had not remedied the concerns that led to the children's removal and that the children could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time period. The juvenile court did not err in failing to sua sponte order a six-month extension of temporary custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(D) where there is no evidence to support that the children could be reunified with Mother within a reasonable time. WITH DISSENT IN PART AND CONCURRENCE IN PART. | Hendrickson | Clinton |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2892 |
|
State v. Eberle
| CA2025-01-001 | Appellant cannot meet the statutory requirements for filing an untimely petition for postconviction relief as he pled guilty to the offense. R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b). By pleading guilty, appellant admitted guilt to the substantive crime. As such, he has no basis to claim that a reasonable factfinder would not have found him guilty but for constitutional error at trial. | Hendrickson | Clermont |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2813 |
|
In re C.L.
| CA2025-04-029; CA2025-04-030; CA2025-04-031; CA2025-04-032 | The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to the Department of Job and Family Services. The decision was in the children's best interest because mother continued to expose her children to mental trauma and the risk of physical violence by being unwilling to meaningfully alter her relationship with father or sever her relationship with him. The Agency made reasonable efforts to help mother pursue this goal, including referrals to domestic violence support programs. | Siebert | Clermont |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2814 |
|
Potter v. South
| CA2024-02-030 | Appellants appeal grant of summary judgment in favor of medical providers in medical malpractice case. Under Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(a), appellants timely disclosed identity of expert witness through responses to written interrogatories. Appellants failed, under Civ.R. 26(B)(7)(b), to provide medical providers with appellants' expert's report and court properly granted summary judgment in favor of medical providers. | Byrne | Butler |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2812 |
|
State v. Eads
| CA2024-11-074 | Appellant's conviction for one count of third-degree felony gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury believed the testimony of the victim describing appellant having used both his hands and his penis to touch her thighs at a time when she was less than 13 years of age. | Piper | Warren |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2815 |
|
State v. Colquitt
| CA2024-12-090 & CA2024-12-094 | Appellant's constitutional right to a speedy trial following reversal and remand from his first appeal was not violated. Appellant was responsible for much of the delay, failing to appear at hearings and filing numerous motions and notices of appeal. Trial court did not err by not merging appellant's two failure to comply offenses and obstructing official business offense where each involved separate victims and separate identifiable harms. | Piper | Warren |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2727 |
|
State v. Hollon
| CA2024-10-075 | Defendant, convicted of rape of a minor under 10 years of age. Sufficient evidence of anal penetration to support conviction. Victim testified that defendant "poked" her "butthole" causing pain. Reasonable jurors could conclude that forceful poking was sufficient to demonstrate penetration of the anus. Conviction was supported by weight of the evidence. | Byrne | Clermont |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2725 |
|
Donahue-Jones v. Roberts
| CA2025-03-010 | The trial court did not err by granting appellees' motion to dismiss appellant's complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) where appellant's allegations that appellees had acted recklessly by entrusting appellant's 16-year-old daughter to operate the appellees' all-terrain vehicle were nothing more than bare legal conclusions that were not supported by any operative facts so as to overcome the appellees' motion to dismiss given the clear application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine to the case at bar. | Piper | Madison |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2726 |
|
State v. Moore
| CA2024-10-123 | Appellant's conviction for criminal trespass was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the property owner testified she saw appellant only two inches from her dining room window, despite appellant knowing that he did not have permission to be on her property. Where the sentencing entry mistakenly listed the manner of conviction as a guilty plea when appellant was convicted following a bench trial, the case was remanded for the limited purpose of having the trial court issue a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry to correct the manner of conviction. | Hendrickson | Butler |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2623 |
|
FirstKey Homes v. Howard-McClain
| CA2025-03-022 | The trial court did not err by granting appellee's complaint for forcible entry and detainer against appellants where the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the case and where, even though the trial court may have failed to swear in an appellant before he testified, appellants waived that error by failing to object to the trial court's omission. | Piper | Butler |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2624 |
|
In re N.L.
| CA2025-03-023 | Mother appeals a grant of permanent custody of children to children's services agency. Grant of permanent custody supported by clear and convincing evidence. Children removed due to allegations Mother and boyfriend using methamphetamine and planning on selling the children to human traffickers. | Byrne | Butler |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2625 |
|
State v. Sperry
| CA2024-12-087 | Motorist's convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated vehicular assault were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court properly questioned the State's accident reconstruction expert after cross-examination. | M. Powell | Warren |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2626 |
|
Marinakis v. Marinakis
| CA2024-03-046 | A probate court does not abuse its discretion solely by ordering payment of guardian ad litem fees without first satisfying the procedural requirements of a local rule related to fee payment where enforcement of the local rule is discretionary and there is no resulting prejudice. In ordering payment of guardian ad litem fees, a probate court need not always distinguish between traditional guardian ad litem services and legal services rendered by an attorney-guardian ad litem even in the absence of an express dual appointment as these roles may necessarily overlap. A probate court's decision to authorize contemporary payment of guardian ad litem fees falls well within its broad discretion to manage estate administration. | Hendrickson | Butler |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2554 |
|
Marinakis v. Marinakis
| CA2024-05-070 | The pretermitted-heir statute, R.C. 2107.34, requires courts to determine whether a decedent intended non-probate transfers of assets to a child to constitute provision by settlement. (CONCURRING OPINION) | Byrne | Butler |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2555 |
|
Jones v. W. Chester Hosp., L.L.C.
| CA2025-02-015 | Trial court did not err by denying appellants' motion to modify arbitration award and/or motion to vacate arbitration award where appellants failed to demonstrate that the arbitrators' decision should be modified pursuant to R.C. 2711.11(C) and/or vacated under R.C. 2711.10(D). | Piper | Butler |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2556 |
|
State v. Frost
| CA2025-03-029 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2557 |
|
State v. Todd
| CA2024-07-046 | Defendant's convictions for misdemeanor menacing by stalking supported by sufficient evidence and the weight of the evidence, which demonstrated that the defendant knowingly caused the victim to believe she would cause him physical harm. Trial court did not commit prejudicial error where it referred to the felony sentencing guidelines in the sentencing entry. Trial court inadvertently checked box on sentencing form imposing community control. Court of appeals remanded for the issuance of a nunc pro tunc entry correcting clerical error. | Byrne | Warren |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2559 |
|
State v. Basye
| CA2024-12-085 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Warren |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2560 |
|
State v. Cansler
| CA2024-10-077 | Defendant's conviction for murder was not against the manifest weight of the evidence despite being proven by mostly circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance when trial counsel allowed for a possible murder weapon with indirect ties to the defendant to be admitted into evidence because doing so was part of a defense strategy/argument that the State was "reaching" to meet its burden of proof. | Siebert | Clermont |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2558 |
|
State v. Acy
| CA2024-11-078; CA2024-11-079 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for separate trials where the evidence concerning each of the six offenses was simple and direct, thereby satisfying the joinder test. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences where the court made the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the findings were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. | Hendrickson | Warren |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2482 |
|
State v. Brown
| CA2024-10-016; CA2024-10-017 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Preble |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2481 |
|
Price v. Price
| CA2024-11-127 | In a divorce proceeding, the manifest weight of the evidence supported the trial court's determination that proceeds from the sale of a North Carolina home that was inherited by Wife constituted Wife's separate property. Husband's dower interest and the inadvertent inclusion of his name on the proceeds check did not convert the funds into marital property. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning the spousal support order where the court considered all the relevant factors in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1), including the age of the parties and their physical conditions, their respective educations, the length of their marriage, their standard of living, their respective income and earning abilities, their retirement benefits, and their division of property. | Hendrickson | Butler |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2479 |
|
State v. Schumacher
| CA2024-05-005 | The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to notify appellant of the exact number of days appellant was entitled to receive at his sentencing hearing as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) where appellant could not establish any resulting prejudice given the trial court's inclusion of the specific number of days of jail-time credit appellant was to receive as part of its sentencing entry. Additionally, the trial court did not completely fail to comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) when it misinformed appellant as to the full extent of his postrelease control obligations upon appellant's release from prison, thereby requiring appellant to demonstrate prejudice, something that appellant did not do as part of his appellate brief. | Piper | Brown |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2478 |
|
State v. Schoby
| CA2024-12-091 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Warren |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2383 |
|
Crown Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. McCabe
| CA2025-01-003 | The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to appellee upon finding appellant owed appellee nearly $17,000 plus interest where appellant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service to support her claim that she had not received appellee's motion for summary judgment. | Piper | Warren |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2384 |
|
Gamble v. Gamble
| CA2024-09-069 | The domestic relations court erred by ordering appellant, as the child's sole residential parent and legal custodian, to pay child support to appellee, the child's non-residential parent, pursuant to the plain language found in R.C. 3119.07(A), thereby requiring the matter be reversed and remanded. The domestic relations court did not err, however, by allowing appellee to make monthly payments towards the amount appellee was ordered to pay appellant as a purge condition rather than mandating appellee make an immediate lump sum payment to appellant. | Piper | Clermont |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2381 |
|
State v. Davis
| CA2024-03-004; CA2024-07-016 | Defendant's convictions for trafficking in drugs (with a major drug offender specification) and for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where recordings of the defendant's phone calls demonstrated he was complicit and advised his fiancé about the quantity and price of methamphetamine sold to a confidential informant. It could be inferred from recorded phone conversations that this was an ongoing enterprise. Although the trial court improperly admitted a lab report into evidence that was not timely provided to Defendant, the Defendant identified no prejudicial errors made at trial. | Siebert | Fayette |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2382 |
|
State v. Wood
| CA2024-02-002; CA2024-02-003 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress video evidence that she was engaged in selling methamphetamine where the confidential informant was invited to the appellant's home for a prearranged transaction, or her motion to suppress evidence discovered during the search of her home because drug paraphernalia was in plain view of the police which provided probable cause to obtain a search warrant. The trial court did not err in denying appellant the use of hybrid counsel, nor did the court deny her the right of self-representation. Trial court did not err in accepting appellant's no contest plea even though her attorney vocally entered it at the hearing; the circumstances demonstrated she understood the plea was being entered and acquiesced. | Byrne | Fayette |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2273 |
|
Hopper v. Landen Auto Mart, L.L.C.
| CA2024-10-070 | The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment to a used car dealership on the plaintiff-purchaser's claim for fraud and claim of unconscionable acts in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.03. The evidence submitted by the parties demonstrated the dealership had no knowledge that the vehicle it sold was missing emission control equipment and demonstrated that the dealership had no intent to mislead the plaintiff. The dealership had the vehicle serviced and inspected prior to sale and neither that inspection nor a later inspection by a company hired by the purchaser revealed the missing equipment. | Hendrickson | Warren |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2275 |
|
State v. Reising
| CA2024-12-092 | Defendant's statement that she was not "actually trafficking" after pleading guilty to aggravated trafficking was not grounds to invalidate her plea and sentence where (1) she and her attorney affirmed on the record she understood the charges against her, (2) she was apprehended with 21 times the bulk amount of methamphetamine, plastic baggies, a digital scale, and over $2,000, and (3) her statement served to mitigate the seriousness of her actions for sentencing purposes. R.C. 2925.03 criminalizes both the sale of methamphetamine and the preparation of it for sale. | Siebert | Warren |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2276 |
|
State v. Vaughn
| CA2024-09-014 | Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence from her urine analysis and from her interview conducted in her hospital room. The state substantially complied with the regulations governing urine collection where the urine was initially collected in a clean bedpan and then immediately transferred to a sealed plastic vial. There was no requirement for a separate witness besides the detective who witnessed her produce the sample and sealed the sample. Appellant was not under custodial interrogation, therefore there was no need to provide Miranda warnings. | Hendrickson | Preble |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2274 |
|
In re J.R.
| CA2024-09-008 | Juvenile court complied with Juv.R. 29(D) in accepting juvenile's admission to rape with serious-youthful-offender disposition where court personally addressed juvenile, explained consequences, used age-appropriate language, and engaged beyond yes-no questions. Court need not explain specific serious-youthful-offender procedural protections. Trial counsel was not ineffective where counsel actively participated in proceedings, obtained evaluations, and made strategic decisions about presenting mitigating youth factors. | Byrne | Brown |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2271 |
|
State v. Bowling
| CA2024-04-061 | Defendant entered plea to sexual battery and challenged voluntariness of his plea. Defendant claimed his plea was involuntary because trial court failed to advise him that each violation of postrelease control could result in nine months prison term per violation, under R.C. 2943.032. Trial court did not comply with R.C. 2943.032. But trial court properly advised defendant of the maximum postrelease control penalty and defendant failed to establish prejudice. Defendant argued court improperly considered unproven facts in sentencing. In a plea bargain, sentencing court may consider underlying facts, including charges dismissed as part of a plea agreement. | Byrne | Butler |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2272 |
|
Lakes v. Lakes
| CA2024-04-052 | Husband appeals decision modifying spousal support. Husband argued court erred by not dismissing objections not stated with particularity. Regardless of lack of compliance with Civ.R. 53, domestic relations court could modify the magistrate's decision. | Byrne | Butler |
6/23/2025
|
6/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2187 |
|
State v. Flack
| CA2024-12-134 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
6/23/2025
|
6/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2188 |
|
State v. Simason
| CA2024-12-142 | The trial court's verdict finding appellant guilty of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim testified appellant pointed a firearm at the victim's face and threatened to shoot the victim if he took another step. | Piper | Butler |
6/23/2025
|
6/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2189 |
|
State v. Williams
| CA2024-05-010 | Defendant appeals conviction for felony possession of marihuana. Defendant failed to establish Brady violation where he claimed state combined non-illegal mature stalks with remainder of marihuana. Court did not err in refusing to give jury instruction on the legal definition of "hemp" where no evidence of hemp presented at trial. Defendant did not prove he was denied a fair trial by alleged prosecutorial misconduct. | Byrne | Fayette |
6/23/2025
|
6/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2190 |
|
State v. Sanchez
| CA2024-07-012 | The trial court did not err and abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 where the motion was filed over a decade after appellant entered his guilty plea to murder and kidnapping, appellant did not file a plea hearing transcript, and res judicata applied to bar most of appellant's claims. | Piper | Clinton |
6/16/2025
|
6/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2101 |
|
State v. Hopkins
| CA2024-07-051 | The time between the dismissal and a subsequent indictment on the same conduct does not count toward the speedy trial deadline. The nolle prosequi was entered in open court and for good cause shown. In addition, the trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress. While in jail on an unrelated charge, appellant made a phone call discussing illegal activity, which was then used in the application for a search warrant. Finally, appellant's convictions for possessing drugs and criminal tools were supported by sufficient evidence. The State presented evidence that appellant was not acting within the lawful scope of his professional capacity as a pharmacist. | Hendrickson | Warren |
6/16/2025
|
6/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2102 |
|
State v. Thompson
| CA2024-10-122 | Appellant's conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D)(1) was supported by sufficient evidence where, rather than a peace officer's unaided visual estimation of the speed of appellant's motor vehicle, appellant's conviction was based on a peace officer's use of both his radar and his speedometer to determine the speed of appellant's motor vehicle. | Piper | Butler |
6/16/2025
|
6/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2099 |
|
State v. Geter
| CA2025-01-007 | Appellant's conviction for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence where the state presented testimony that appellant hampered or impeded the official duties of the arresting officers by ignoring orders to stop and leading the officers on a brief foot chase. | Hendrickson | Butler |
6/16/2025
|
6/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2100 |
|
Kokaliares v. Decker & Assocs. – Architectural Design & Planning Servs., L.L.C.
| CA2024-11-132 | Judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $10,805 for unpaid architectural services against defendant in his personal capacity is affirmed. The defendant's failure to timely answer requests for admissions resulted in defendant admitting as truth that he entered into a contract with plaintiff and was jointly liable under that contract. Nothing in the record demonstrated that defendant disclosed, during negotiations, that he was acting on behalf of a disclosed principal, and defendant did not take affirmative action to pursue the defense that his principal should be joined to the action. | Siebert | Butler |
6/9/2025
|
6/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2038 |
|
State v. Miller
| CA2024-12-139 & CA2024-12-140 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
6/9/2025
|
6/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2039 |
|