|
|
In re Adoption of N.M.Q.P.
| CA2026-01-003 | The probate court's finding that mother's consent is required for the adoption of her daughter is not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record establishes mother had justifiable cause for failing to provide maintenance and support during the one year immediately prior to the filing of the adoption petition. | Hendrickson | Clermont |
4/27/2026
|
4/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1499 |
|
Myers v. Clerk of Courts
| CA2025-08-070 | The trial court did not err in setting aside the certificate of title issued to appellant where appellant failed to demonstrate he obtained ownership of the vehicle by means of an execution sale. Because evidence demonstrated the vehicle was owned by an individual who died in 2006, the trial court properly dismissed the petition upon concluding that the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over ownership and title to the vehicle. | Hendrickson | Warren |
4/27/2026
|
4/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1500 |
|
Noziljon v. Hasan
| CA2025-09-085 | Trial court may refuse post-hearing evidence submitted with objections to magistrate's decision where objecting party fails to show the evidence could not have been produced at hearing with reasonable diligence. Trial court's finding for defendant not against manifest weight of the evidence where plaintiff failed to prove non-receipt of refund that was corroborated by witness testimony and documentary evidence. | M. Powell | Warren |
4/27/2026
|
4/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1501 |
|
In re S.F.
| CA2025-11-112 | The juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody of a child to a local children's services agency was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where the record plainly established that granting the agency's motion rather than the grandmother's competing motion for legal custody was in the child's best interest, given the child's severe behavioral problems and mental health issues, neither of which the record indicated the child's grandmother was willing or able to properly address so as to provide the child with the best chance to become a fully functioning adult. | Piper | Warren |
4/27/2026
|
4/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1502 |
|
In re A.M.D.
| CA2025-08-073 | Trial court did not err in denying Mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus where the trial court's misstatement in its entry that Mother had a pending motion for further disposition did not deprive Mother of an adequate remedy at law or prevent her from filing such a motion, and Mother's lack of notice of the shelter care hearing did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. | Piper | Warren |
4/20/2026
|
4/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1418 |
|
In re A.M.D.
| CA2025-10-090 | Trial court did not err in denying Mother's Motion for Relief From Judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B) where Mother failed to establish sufficient operative facts that she would have a meritorious claim or defense should relief be granted; she has improperly classified arguments under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) that should fall under (B)(1-3) and are accordingly time-barred; Mother's motion was not filed within a reasonable time where she was or should have been aware of the basis for each of her arguments; and several of her arguments are barred by res judicata. | Piper | Warren |
4/20/2026
|
4/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1419 |
|
Hubbard v. Weber
| CA2024-11-085 | The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellants because appellants did not verify their factual assertions in their complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), and therefore, it was error for the trial court to rely on those unverified assertions in granting summary judgment. | Byrne | Clermont |
4/20/2026
|
4/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1416 |
|
Packer v. Packer
| CA2025-04-034 | The domestic relations court did not err by valuing appellant's business at $480,000, where both appellant's and appellee's expert witnesses seemingly agreed that was the value of the business as of December 31, 2021. The court also did not err by ordering appellant to pay spousal support to appellee in the amount of $1,520 per month for 106 months, where the court considered all necessary factors under R.C. 3105.18(C)(1), including the tax consequences of such an award on both parties. | Byrne | Clermont |
4/20/2026
|
4/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1417 |
|
902 Carp Loveland, L.L.C. v. Potts
| CA2025-09-063 | An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the decision was dismissed without prejudice, and when the decision did not "affect" a "substantial right" of the appellant. | Byrne | Clermont |
4/13/2026
|
4/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1313 |
|
In re J.L.S.
| CA2025-11-124 | The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to the Department of Job and Family Services. Mother started case at legal disadvantage because her parental rights to another child were previously terminated. This disadvantage was compounded when Mother legally abandoned the child by leaving the state to seek services for substance abuse. These circumstances, among others, made it in the child's best interest for permanent custody to be granted to the agency. | Siebert | Butler |
4/13/2026
|
4/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1312 |
|
State v. Howard
| CA2025-07-073 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
4/6/2026
|
4/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1232 |
|
Klein Eng., L.L.C. v. Thiemann
| CA2025-08-095 | The trial court's adoption of the magistrate's decision against appellant is affirmed. While the magistrate's delay in issuing its decision may not have been ideal, such delay did not hinder appellant's ability to proactively take and maintain efforts to preserve the evidentiary record via Civ.R. 53(D), and later App.R. 9(C), after the magistrate and the parties realized the first day's proceedings were not recorded. | Siebert | Butler |
4/6/2026
|
4/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1233 |
|
Thomason v. Thomas
| CA2025-07-051 | The trial court's decision to grant a three-year Civil Stalking Protection Order ("CSPO") against appellant was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where there was credible evidence demonstrating each element of appellee's menacing by stalking claim. However, the trial court erred when it issued a CSPO that included impermissibly broad terms, which, in effect, prohibits appellant from posting anything regarding appellee or her family during the pendency of the CSPO. | Hendrickson | Clermont |
4/6/2026
|
4/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1234 |
|
Rees v. Rees
| CA2025-07-019 | The juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in its decision granting grandfather visitation rights with the minor children. | Siebert | Madison |
4/6/2026
|
4/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1235 |
|
State v. Barrow
| CA2025-06-047 | By failing to appear at a scheduled final pretrial hearing and then at trial, thereby requiring his trial to be rescheduled for a later date, appellant waived his right to assert the seedy trial provisions of R.C. 2945.71 through R.C. 2945.73 for the period of time which elapsed from his initial arrest to the date he was subsequently arrested. Appellant's due process rights were not violated by the two-and-one-half month delay between his arrest and indictment as he could not demonstrate he suffered actual prejudice as a result of the delay. The state presented sufficient evidence appellant committed fifth-degree felony theft. The improper admission of evidence that marijuana was found in appellant's vehicle amounted to harmless error where there was overwhelming evidence that appellant committed the theft offense, as evidenced by his admissions to law enforcement, his trial testimony, the security footage of the thefts, and the wire cutters, magnet, and sensors found in his vehicle. | Hendrickson | Warren |
4/6/2026
|
4/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1236 |
|
State v. Evans
| CA2025-07-058; CA2025-08-068 | The kidnapping conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence where codefendant's acts of removing the victim to the inventory room were imputed to defendant as an accomplice, and the victim's subjective belief that he was free to leave did not negate the conviction because the statute was independently satisfied by proof of removal by threat. Trial court failed to merge kidnapping and robbery convictions where movement of victim to inventory room was merely incidental to the robbery, but did not err in declining to merge possession of criminal tools with robbery where the tools served a function distinct from the force that constituted the robbery. Trial court failed to orally advise defendant whether postrelease control is mandatory or discretionary, its duration, and the consequences of violating its conditions, rendering the postrelease-control portion of the sentence contrary to law. Trial court failed to make all required findings at the sentencing hearing before | M. Powell | Warren |
4/6/2026
|
4/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1237 |
|
State ex rel. Yost v. Costine
| CA2025-10-039 | Complaint for a writ of prohibition dismissed. Relator, the Ohio Attorney General, did not demonstrate the Probate Court patently and unambiguously acted outside of its inherent authority when appointing the Attorney General to act as a special prosecutor in proceedings seeking the removal of elected municipal officials accused of misfeasance or malfeasance because the city's director of law and the county prosecutor (the statutorily proscribed prosecutors of such cases) asserted conflicts of interest. | Siebert | Clinton |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1154 |
|
State ex rel. Yost v. Costine
| CA2025-10-039 | Complaint for a writ of prohibition dismissed. Relator, the Ohio Attorney General, did not demonstrate the Probate Court patently and unambiguously acted outside of its inherent authority when appointing the Attorney General to act as a special prosecutor in proceedings seeking the removal of elected municipal officials accused of misfeasance or malfeasance because the city's director of law and the county prosecutor (the statutorily proscribed prosecutors of such cases) asserted conflicts of interest. | Siebert | Clinton |
3/30/2026
|
3/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1099 |
|
State v. Davis
| CA2025-03-025 | Appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where multiple witnesses established that he shot the victim and then ordered his accomplice to shoot the victim a second time. There was no reasonable likelihood that the false testimony of the State's witness could have affected the judgment of the jury where the defense demonstrated the factual error through another witness. The State had provided sufficient evidence of appellant's prior conviction to support finding he is a repeat violent offender ("RVO"). The trial court engaged in unconstitutional fact-finding in imposing an RVO sentence when it made explicit findings under R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)(iv) and (v) which the Ohio Supreme Court has excised from the statute as unconstitutional. Therefore, appellant must be resentenced without these findings. | Piper | Butler |
3/30/2026
|
3/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1096 |
|
State v. Allen
| CA2025-05-043 | Defendant's voluntary guilty plea waived his claim that the State violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers' speedy-trial provisions. Such a violation is non-jurisdictional, and Ohio does not permit conditional guilty pleas reserving pretrial issues for appeal. | M. Powell | Clermont |
3/30/2026
|
3/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1097 |
|
State v. Gregory
| CA2025-09-069, CA2025-09-070 | The trial court did not err in refusing to merge several convictions for voyeurism and illegal use of a minor or impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance because, among other reasons, the former punishes an individual's trespass on a minor victim's reasonable expectation of privacy and is narrow in scope whereas the latter seeks to more generally combat conduct that supports or encourages the exploitation of children. As a result, each crime was of dissimilar import and could not be merged. | Siebert | Clermont |
3/30/2026
|
3/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1098 |
|
State v. Conley
| CA2024-06-073 | Criminal complaint lacked both a numerical ordinance designation and a proper oath, rendering it invalid under Crim.R. 3 and depriving the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction. A separately stapled record of arrest could not cure the deficiencies absent express incorporation language in the complaint. WITH DISSENTING OPINION | M. Powell | Butler |
3/23/2026
|
3/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-975 |
|
Colwell v. Bob & Shawn Ents., L.L.C.
| CA2024-11-131 | Plaintiff, business invitee, appeals decision granting summary judgment in favor of public bar on negligence claim. Plaintiff injured by umbrella after burst of wind on bar patio. Trial court found accident result of an unforeseeable "act of God." Genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the bar breached a duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to secure umbrella. Genuine issues of fact remained as to proximate cause, and whether wind conditions were sole cause of injury ("act of God" defense), or whether the wind, in conjunction with a breach of duty, contributed to Plaintiff's injury. WITH DISSENTING OPINION. | Byrne | Butler |
3/23/2026
|
3/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-976 |
|
In re E.T.J.
| CA2025-08-093; CA2025-08-097 | In a situation where a child has previously been adjudicated dependent and legal custody has been granted to a non-parent, the juvenile court did not commit plain error or otherwise abuse its discretion in denying the parents' motions for visitation. The record demonstrated the court considered the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 3109.051(D) and the totality of the circumstances demonstrated the mother's and father's progress with sobriety and stability was somewhat recent and occurred only while subject to court supervision and sanctions. The juvenile court also did not commit plain error or otherwise abuse its discretion by waiting more than a year to rule on the parents' motions for visitation where the delay did not prejudice the parents and was caused by service issues, attempts at mediation, and continuance requests that were acquiesced to by the parents. | Hendrickson | Butler |
3/23/2026
|
3/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-977 |
|
Kidd v. Wilmington
| CA2025-11-042 | Court of Claims did not err in finding that a public-records requester was abusing the public-record laws based upon the number, frequency, and duplicative nature of his public-records requests to a city and the enforcement actions he had filed, and in dismissing the requester's public-records-access complaints under R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). Court of Claims properly struck requester's objections to the special master's recommendation for dismissal. | M. Powell | Clinton |
3/23/2026
|
3/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-978 |
|
State v. Steckel
| CA2024-03-006 | Defendant appeals convictions for aggravated murder. Autopsy reports admissible under Evid.R. 803(8), public records hearsay exception. Coroners are not "law enforcement personnel" under Evid.R. 803(8). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to provide jurors with accomplice instruction under R.C. 2923.03(D). Trial court did not abuse discretion in providing a consciousness-of-guilt instruction. Defendant failed to establish prosecutorial misconduct and a violation of Evid.R. 410(A) (inadmissibility of plea evidence). Defendant's convictions supported by overwhelming evidence. | Byrne | Madison |
3/23/2026
|
3/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-979 |
|
State v. Flecha
| CA2025-07-064 | Trial court failed to orally advise defendant of consequences of violating postrelease control. Trial court properly notified defendant of possibility of postrelease control during combined plea and sentencing hearing. Trial court not required to make statutory findings when consecutive sentences are jointly recommended by defendant and State. Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review jointly recommended consecutive sentences that are authorized by law. WITH DISSENTING OPINION | M. Powell | Warren |
3/23/2026
|
3/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-980 |
|
In re S.B.
| CA2025-10-040; CA2025-10-041 | The juvenile court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting permanent custody to the Agency. The decision was in the best interests of the child because there was evidence that Mother continuously neglected the child's educational, physical, and mental health needs. Moreover, Father minimally engaged in the case plan and was later removed. Likewise, the juvenile court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting permanent custody to the Agency because the child adamantly expressed her wish to be adopted by her current placement which desired to adopt her. | Byrne | Clinton |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-947 |
|
Zinni v. Scarberry
| CA2025-06-011; CA2025-06-012; CA2025-06-013; CA2025-06-014 | The trial court did not err by imposing four separate contempt sanctions. The contempt sanctions were civil in nature. As a result, neither R.C. 2941.25(A), nor the Double Jeopardy Clause are implicated. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 240-day jail term. The record demonstrates that Father has a long-standing pattern of failing to comply with his support obligations and repeatedly failing to appear for court proceedings. The trial court expressly warned Father that it would impose the 240-day sentence if he failed to comply with the purge conditions set forth in its entry. When Father did not meet those conditions, the court imposed the previously announced sentence. | Siebert | Fayette |
3/16/2026
|
3/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-869 |
|
State v. Zink
| CA2025-04-026; CA2025-06-047 | Convictions affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a detective's lay testimony regarding the frequency of delayed disclosures in child abuse cases because he was trained and experienced in investigating child abuse. In addition, the trial court properly limited questioning on the victim's purported prior and false allegation of sexual assault by her father because such questioning was based on inadmissible extrinsic evidence that, at best, tangentially referred to the issue. Finally, the prosecutor's sarcastic and pointed comments about Zink's counsel and mother during closing arguments were made as parts of larger, permissible arguments and were not prejudicial to the overall fairness of the trial. | Siebert | Clermont |
3/16/2026
|
3/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-868 |
|
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Daugherty
| CA2024-10-065 | Homeowners appeal summary judgment decision granting foreclosure in favor of bank. Homeowners argued summary judgment evidence insufficient to establish bank's right to enforce note and mortgage. Homeowners raised issues with chain-of-title between bank and original lender. Homeowners disputed balance owed. Bank supported motion with affidavit establishing right to enforce note and mortgage. Homeowners lacked standing to challenge assignments of note and mortgage. Homeowners failed to present material facts disputing balance owed on mortgage. | Byrne | Warren |
3/16/2026
|
3/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-870 |
|
State v. Bray
| CA2025-09-081 | Appellant's plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Although appellant argues she suffers from anxiety and other mental health conditions, nothing in the record suggests that she lacked an understanding of the nature of her plea and the proceedings, the rights she was waiving, or the consequences of entering a no contest plea. | Siebert | Warren |
3/16/2026
|
3/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-871 |
|
State v. Burch
| CA2025-08-069 | Defendant's convictions and sentence for, among other crimes, aggravated arson, are affirmed. The trial court was not required to advise defendant regarding the possible merger of offenses for sentencing, and defendant's aggravated arson charges did not merge because the single fire posed a risk to multiple victims. Consecutive sentences were supported by the record despite the defendant's lack of criminal history. Finally, the trial court's amended sentencing order corrected a typographical error and had no effect on issues that were contested at the trial level, meaning it was a permissible nunc pro tunc order despite coming after a notice of appeal. | Siebert | Warren |
3/9/2026
|
3/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-777 |
|
State v. Bingle
| CA2025-07-075; CA2025-07-077 | Trial court did not err in refusing to merge defendant's theft and attempted extortion convictions as allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25 where defendant threatened to kill the victim to establish ongoing coerced surrender of property and then took specific items during the same confrontation. | M. Powell | Butler |
3/9/2026
|
3/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-773 |
|
Am. Express Natl. Bank v. Jenkins
| CA2025-08-083 | Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief on standing grounds where original credit-card issuer demonstrated standing at filing and defendant-debtor's standing challenge constituted an improper collateral attack on the judgment rather than a timely direct appeal. Claim of nonservice of summary-judgment motion was waived where defendant raised the issue for the first time on appeal. Alleged due-process violations at garnishment hearing were not reviewable where no funds were recovered and the order did not affect a substantial right, rendering the issues moot. Challenges to the sufficiency of credit-card issuer's summary-judgment evidence cannot be raised through Civ.R. 60(B) where non-movant failed to timely appeal and failed to respond to the motion with controverting evidence. Trial court properly struck defendant's counterclaims where they were filed for the first time after final summary judgment had been entered and defendant never filed a responsive pleading. Alleged recordkeeping irregularities did not warrant relief where defendant failed to invoke App.R. 9(E) to correct the record and demonstrated no prejudice to substantial rights. Federal statutory claims were forfeited where defendant raised them only in post-judgment filings rather than in a timely responsive pleading, and neutral state procedural rules apply equally to federal claims. | M. Powell | Butler |
3/9/2026
|
3/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-774 |
|
State v. Griffis
| CA2025-08-085 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
3/9/2026
|
3/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-775 |
|
State v. Runyon
| CA2025-03-008 | The trial court did not provide the defendant with the necessary notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) regarding the indefinite nature of his sentence, which resulted in reversible error and the matter was remanded for resentencing on this limited issue. WITH DISSENTING OPINION. | Siebert | Clinton |
3/9/2026
|
3/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-776 |
|
In re D.R.
| CA2025-07-034 | The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found appellant to be an unsuitable parent where there was credible evidence presented that an award of custody to appellant would have been detrimental to the well-being of the children. | Hendrickson | Clinton |
3/2/2026
|
3/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-694 |
|
Morgensen v. Pullin
| CA2025-08-071 | Trial court had jurisdiction to resolve the pending matter. Appellants' multiple, overlapping arguments are without merit. Ohio courts have consistently recognized that the automatic stay applies only to the debtor and does not extend to non-bankrupt co-defendants. Moreover, the automatic stay was no longer in effect when the trial court rendered its decision. | Siebert | Warren |
3/2/2026
|
3/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-695 |
|
In re C.M.
| CA2025-09-086 | Juvenile court did not err in terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody of the parents' autistic child to a children services agency where mother was incarcerated after pleading guilty to child endangering for abusing the child and where father could not provide legally secure permanent placement. WITH CONCURRING OPINION. | M. Powell | Warren |
3/2/2026
|
3/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-696 |
|
Evans v. Gardner
| CA2025-02-020; CA2025-02-021 | Appellant, receiver, brought breach of fiduciary claims on behalf of trade association against directors who rejected no-cost settlement offer in jury trial. Receiver failed to meet burden to demonstrate that directors acted disloyally. Interests of the association and directors were aligned, and not conflicted. Directors had a rational basis to reject the settlement offer. | Byrne | Butler |
3/2/2026
|
3/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-690 |
|
Maanu v. Bobie
| CA2025-05-048 | The trial court did not err by denying the motion for relief from judgment where there were no grounds for relief as set forth in Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(5). | Siebert | Butler |
3/2/2026
|
3/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-691 |
|
Concrete Recovery, L.L.C. v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.
| CA2025-05-042 | The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel claims against defendant. Assuming the allegations of plaintiff's amended complaint and attached exhibits are true (as required when reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim), plaintiff's assertion that defendant "accepted" plaintiff's bid for concrete pouring work and gave plaintiff "formal notice to proceed" with that work despite no contract being in hand set forth an actionable claim for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. | Siebert | Clermont |
3/2/2026
|
3/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-692 |
|
State v. Bullock
| CA2025-05-044 | Conclusory assertions that alternate jurors should not have been seated and that counsel should have moved for mistrial are inadequate. Bare assertion that testimony was incendiary does not support a claim for prosecutorial misconduct or a claim that counsel should have moved for a mistrial. Bare assertion that sentence was excessive insufficient to demonstrate that sentence is contrary to law. | M. Powell | Clermont |
3/2/2026
|
3/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-693 |
|
Roesel v. DQ Dream Properties, L.L.C.
| CA2024-10-121 | Judgment affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The trial court properly determined that a valid lease existed on property purchased by plaintiff. However, summary judgment on the plaintiff's fraud claims was inappropriate where there was a material issue of fact over whether the plaintiff justifiably relied on a defendants' representations that no tenant rights existed on the property when the purchaser knew about a third party's presence on the property. In addition, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees in multiple respects, including not assessing whether tasks described in block-billed entries and the total time expended on all tasks were reasonable. | Siebert | Butler |
2/23/2026
|
2/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-608 |
|
State v. Davis
| CA2025-07-020 | Prisoner's right to a speedy trial under R.C. 2941.401 was not violated where delays occasioned by his discovery motion and his failure to respond to the State's discovery motion, and his unavailability for arraignment brought the case within the requisite 180-day speedy-trial time limit under R.C. 2941.401. | M. Powell | Fayette |
2/23/2026
|
2/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-614 |
|
State v. Jenkins
| CA2025-07-076 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
2/17/2026
|
2/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-512 |
|
In re G.P.
| CA2025-09-102, CA2025-09-103 | The juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody of the minor child to a children services agency was in the child's best interest, was supported by sufficient evidence, and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where neither parent had stable income or housing, the mother had failed to maintain sobriety or complete a substance abuse treatment program, and father had failed to accept responsibility for his role in the child's removal and failed to demonstrate his ability to handle the child's significant behavioral issues. | Hendrickson | Butler |
2/17/2026
|
2/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-513 |
|
State v. Haag
| CA2025-07-052 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Clermont |
2/17/2026
|
2/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-514 |
|
Flippin v. Gray
| CA2025-06-045 | The domestic relations court did not err by adopting a magistrate's decision denying appellant's motion for a domestic violence civil protection order against appellee naming both himself and the parties' non-verbal, autistic son as protected persons where appellant failed to provide the necessary hearing transcript to the domestic relations court as required by Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(d)(iv), thereby limiting both the domestic relations and appellate courts' review to the magistrate's findings set forth in the magistrate's order, which included the magistrate's finding the evidence insufficient to support appellant's allegation that appellee had engaged in an act of domestic violence against their son. | Piper | Warren |
2/17/2026
|
2/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-515 |
|