|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Craft
| 3-23-44 | Plain error; Evidence; Due Process; Polygraph Examination; Cumulative Error Doctrine; Merger. The trial court did not commit plain error by permitting evidence that defendant-appellant was asked to submit to a polygraph examination. The trial court did not commit plain error by permitting evidence that the defendant-appellant did not voluntarily provide law enforcement with the passcode to unlock his phone. Because the trial court did not commit multiple errors at defendant’s trial, the cumulative-error doctrine does not apply. The trial court did not err by failing to merge defendant-appellant’s convictions for felonious assault and discharging a firearm at or into a habitation. | Miller | Crawford |
6/9/2025
|
6/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2045 |
|
Dunlap v. NeXus RV, L.L.C.
| 1-24-65 | Civ.R. 54(B); Motion to Dismiss; Timely Appeal; App.R. 4. Appellate courts in Ohio have jurisdiction to review final, appealable orders that are issued by a trial court from within their district. Further, for a reviewing court to have jurisdiction to review a final order, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the issuance of the relevant judgment entry pursuant to App.R. 4(A). In certain circumstances, an order that resolves less than all of the claims in an action may be rendered final and appealable if a trial court includes the required language set forth in Civ.R. 54(B). App.R. 4(B)(5) indicates that the requirements defining a timely appeal in App.R. 4(A) apply to orders that are rendered final and appealable through the use of the language set forth in Civ.R. 54(B). | Willamowski | Allen |
6/2/2025
|
6/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1969 |
|
In re S.F.
| 8-24-09 | Protective Supervision, Moot, Expiration of Time. Case must be dismissed as the protective supervision had expired prior to appeal and the record does not show that the case remained active. | Willamowski | Logan |
6/2/2025
|
6/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1970 |
|
State v. Yemsvat
| 8-24-48 | Misdemeanor Sentencing; R.C. 2929.21; R.C. 2929.22(B) Factors. R.C. 2929.21(A) lists the overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing. Appellate courts review misdemeanor sentences under an abuse of discretion standard. A trial court is not required to state its reasons for imposing a misdemeanor sentence. | Willamowski | Logan |
6/2/2025
|
6/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1971 |
|
State v. Melendez
| 9-24-34 | COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL; R.C. 2945.37; R.C. 2945.38(C); INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE. The trial court’s failure to conduct a competency restoration hearing was harmless error because the record lacks sufficient indicia of the defendant-appellant’s incompetency. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to sua sponte order a competency evaluation. The trial court’s failure to dismiss the indictment in this case did not constitute plain error. The defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was no ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss the indictment for violating the one-year period under R.C. 2945.38, challenge his competency, or move for a mistrial or request a curative instruction at his second trial despite his repeated disruptions. | Zimmerman | Marion |
6/2/2025
|
6/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1972 |
|
State v. Harvey
| 9-24-27 | MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE. The defendant-appellant’s tampering with evidence conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Zimmerman | Marion |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1889 |
|
Maynard v. Barkley
| 9-24-41 | Forcible Entry and Detainer; Jury Deposit; Local Rule; Part Performance; Promissory Estoppel; Statute of Frauds. Under the statute of frauds, contracts for the sale of land are to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith. However, an oral land contract can be removed from the statute of frauds under the doctrine of part performance if there are unequivocal acts based upon the agreement; the party has changed its position to its detriment; and it is impractical to return to the parties to the previous status quo. If the acts of the parties can be reasonably explained by another arrangement, the doctrine of part performance is not applicable. The doctrine of promissory estoppel can remove an oral agreement from the statute of frauds if there was a misrepresentation that the statute of fraud's requirements were met or a promise to make a memorandum of the agreement. | Willamowski | Marion |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1890 |
|
State v. Heckler
| 7-24-08 | Judicial Disqualification; Manifest Weight; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). We lack jurisdiction to consider whether a trial judge should be disqualified; however, to the extent that appellant makes due process arguments, they are not supported by the record to demonstrate bias. Convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant did not demonstrate that his consecutive sentences were clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Henry |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1888 |
|
In re Adoption of V.C.
| 5-24-37 | Parental consent to adoption; R.C. 3107.07; R.C. 3107.11; Failure to object to adoption; App.R. 9; Failure of appellant to provide transcript on appeal. The trial court's judgment finding the mother's consent to adoption was not required is affirmed on two bases: (1) the mother-appellant failed to include a transcript of the consent hearing in the record on appeal, and (2) the mother-appellant failed to file a timely objection to the adoption in the trial court, as required by statute. | Waldick | Hancock |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1887 |
|
Baughman v. Baughman
| 11-24-06 | Final Order; R.C. 2505.02. The judgment entry from which Appellants appealed was not a final order, so the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Miller | Paulding |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1891 |
|
In re Baughman Irrevocable Trust
| 11-24-07 | Jurisdictional Priority Rule; Whole-Issue Exception; Civ.R. 12(B)(1) Motion. Appellate Courts apply a de novo standard of review in determining whether a trial court correctly applied the jurisdictional priority rule. The jurisdictional priority rule exists to prevent inconsistent rulings and to promote judicial economy. The jurisdictional priority rules generally applies where the same parties and the same causes of action are present in pending cases filed in two different state courts of concurrent jurisdiction. In such a situation, the first court to have its jurisdiction invoked over the matter has exclusive jurisdiction under the jurisdictional priority rule. However, under the whole issue exception, the causes of action do not need to be the same for the jurisdictional priority rule to apply. The whole issue exception applies where (1) cases are pending in two different courts of concurrent jurisdiction and (2) a ruling from the second action could affect or interfere with the resolution of the issues in the first case. | Willamowski | Paulding |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1892 |
|
Fifth Third Bank v. Martinez
| 13-24-44 | Summary Judgment; Civ.R. 56. Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of bank where defendant produced no evidence whatsoever to support his claims in response to summary judgment. | Waldick | Seneca |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1893 |
|
State v. Gross
| 14-24-34 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant's prison sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Miller | Union |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1894 |
|
Souders v. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.
| 14-24-27 | Civ.R. 60(B); Motion for Relief from Judgment; Abuse of Discretion; Timely Appeal. A Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment is not a substitute for direct appeal. A litigant may not use a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to raise arguments that were available on direct appeal from the judgment. Appellate courts review a trial court's decision on Civ.R. 60(B) motion for an abuse of discretion. Further, a litigant that fails to file a timely notice of appeal fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court. | Willamowski | Union |
5/19/2025
|
5/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1781 |
|
Conrad v. Hamrick
| 10-24-07 | DEFAULT JUDGMENT; CIV.R. 55; CIV.R. 6(B); EXCUSABLE NEGLECT. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff-appellant’s motion for default judgment after granting the defendants-appellees leave to file a late answer because the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case reflect that the defendants-appellees demonstrated excusable neglect. | Zimmerman | Mercer |
5/19/2025
|
5/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1773 |
|
In re C.Z.
| 10-24-04, 10-24-05, 10-24-06 | Permanent Custody; Best Interests; R.C. 2151.4117. Trial court's grant of permanent custody to agency was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Parents did not demonstrate plain error regarding any noncompliance with R.C. 2151.4117. | Waldick | Mercer |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1699 |
|
State v. Pullom
| 13-24-28 | Motion to Suppress Evidence. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence. | Miller | Seneca |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1700 |
|
State v. Pullom
| 13-24-29 | Motion to Suppress Evidence. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence. | Miller | Seneca |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1701 |
|
State v. Combs
| 14-24-31 | Consecutive Sentences; Mandatory Sentences. Trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences when the idoneous findings were made by the trial court. The trial court correctly ordered the convictions for third degree felonies for aggravated trafficking in drugs were mandatory when R.C. 2925.03(C)(1)(c) required them to be mandatory due to Combs having three prior felony drug abuse offenses. | Willamowski | Union |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1702 |
|
State v. Browne
| 6-24-13 | SENTENCING; REAGAN TOKES ACT; R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). Because the trial court failed to provide the mandatory Reagan Tokes notifications as provided under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) at the defendant-appellant’s sentencing hearing, the defendant-appellant’s sentence is contrary to law and not authorized by law. | Zimmerman | Hardin |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1697 |
|
Kern v. Mishler
| 8-24-38 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; DISCOVERY RULE; PUNITIVE DAMAGES; ACTUAL MALICE; JURY INSTRUCTION; ATTORNEY FEES; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. The trial court did not err by granting (partial) summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees as to the plaintiff-appellant’s claims because the plaintiff-appellant’s claims are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court’s punitive damages jury instruction on actual malice was not plain error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its attorney fee award. The jury’s compensatory damages award is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Zimmerman | Logan |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1698 |
|
State v. Hooper
| 1-24-44 | PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF; R.C. 2953.21; SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the defendant-appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing. The trial court properly considered the entirety of the record, including the proffered evidence outside the record related to the defendant-appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and determined that the defendant-appellant failed to present substantive grounds for relief. | Zimmerman | Allen |
5/5/2025
|
5/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1594 |
|
State v. Groh
| 4-24-21 | Gross Sexual Imposition; R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); Indictment; Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c). Defendant-appellant's convictions for gross sexual imposition were supported by sufficient evidence, were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and did not violate the Due Process Clause. The trial court's decision to run the sentences for each conviction consecutively was not contrary to law. | Miller | Defiance |
4/28/2025
|
4/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1497 |
|
State v. Goralczyk
| 3-24-01 | Sufficiency of the Evidence; Manifest Weight; Burglary; Theft; Menacing. The evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction for burglary when there was no evidence of the intent to commit a criminal offense. The conviction for burglary was against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser included offense of trespass in a habitation. Matter reversed and remanded for trial court to vacate the burglary conviction and to find defendant guilty of the lesser included offense and to sentence appropriately. | Willamowski | Crawford |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1408 |
|
State v. Carnes
| 3-24-06 | Evid.R. 404; Ineffective Assistance; Cumulative Error. Trial court did not err by admitting evidence; defendant did not establish any prejudicial error, let alone cumulative error. | Waldick | Crawford |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1409 |
|
State v. Godsey
| 1-24-60 | R.C. 2929.141(A); post-release control. Trial court could not impose remaining prison time from post-release control for a violation of community control; rather, the trial court had to impose the PRC time at sentencing on the new felony. | Waldick | Allen |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1407 |
|
State v. Williams
| 8-24-44 | Jail-time Credit; Res Judicata. Appellant did not demonstrate any miscalculation of jail-time credit. Further, his categorical arguments are barred by res judicata. | Waldick | Logan |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1411 |
|
In re Z.W.
| 5-24-18, 5-24-19, 5-24-20, 5-24-21 | Permanent custody; In camera interview; Manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's permanent custody decisions were supported by clear and convincing evidence. | Waldick | Hancock |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1410 |
|
State v. Durst
| 13-24-32 | Res Judicata. Defendant's arguments barred by res judicata. | Waldick | Seneca |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1412 |
|
State v. Parsons
| 9-24-16 | Sexual Battery; R.C. 2907.03(A)(5); Fines; R.C. 2953.08(G). Defendant-appellant's conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's imposition of a $10,000 fine, in addition to a prison term, did not violate defendant-appellant's constitutional rights. | Miller | Marion |
4/14/2025
|
4/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1324 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 1-24-29 | Evid.R. 404(B); Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts; Aggravated Funding of Drug Trafficking; R.C. 2925.05(A). Text messages did not constitute evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act and, therefore, fell outside the scope of Evid.R. 404(B), so the trial court did not deny defendant-appellant a fair trial by not barring admission of the text messages based on Evid.R. 404(B). There was insufficient evidence to sustain defendant-appellant's conviction for aggravated funding of drug trafficking and, therefore, that conviction must be vacated. | Miller | Allen |
4/14/2025
|
4/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1321 |
|
State v. Stephens
| 5-24-31 | Felony sentencing review; R.C. 2953.08; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. The prison sentence imposed by the trial court was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Hancock |
4/14/2025
|
4/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1322 |
|
In re K.F.
| 5-24-29 | SERIOUS YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; BLENDED SENTENCE; DELINQUENCY ADMISSION; JUV.R. 29; R.C. 2152.13(D)(3); ADULT PORTION OF SERIOUS YOUTHFUL OFFENDER’S SENTENCE; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); CONSECUTIVE INDEFINITE SENTENCES; R.C. 2929.144. The adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s delinquency admissions were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because, based on the totality of the circumstances, the juvenile court substantially complied with the requirements of Juv.R. 29(D)(2). The juvenile court erred by imposing consecutive sentences because it did not make any of the three statutorily required findings before imposing consecutive sentences, either at the sentencing hearing or within the sentencing entry. The adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s sentence is also contrary to law because the trial court imposed consecutive indefinite sentences in contravention of R.C. 2929.144. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1216 |
|
State v. Carter
| 5-24-35 | Sentencing; Contrary to Law; Information at Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08. At sentencing, a trial court is to examine the character and history of the defendant. The information presented to a trial court at sentencing need not be limited to evidence that relates to the offenses that yielded convictions. A trial court may consider pending charges as these are required to be included in the presentence investigation report. | Willamowski | Hancock |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1217 |
|
State v. McLaurin
| 1-24-28 | INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; R.C. 2901.05; R.C. 2901.09; SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM; CASTLE DOCTRINE. In the absence of any evidence of an unlawful entry on the part of the victim, the defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the castle doctrine. | Zimmerman | Allen |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1213 |
|
State v. Storer
| 2-24-07; 2-24-08 | Consecutive Sentences, R.C. 2929.11, R.C. 2929.12, R.C. 2929.14. Trial court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and also the required statutory factors. Appellate courts lack the authority to review the conclusions the trial court reaches. Record supported trial court's findings regarding consecutive sentences. | Willamowski | Auglaize |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1214 |
|
State v. Risner
| 6-24-08, 6-24-09 | R.C. 2941.51(D); Court-Appointed-Counsel Fees; Civil Assessment; Future Ability to Pay; Abuse of Discretion; State v. Taylor, 2020-Ohio-6786. A trial court may not order a defendant to pay court-appointed-counsel fees as a part of his or her sentence. Rather, a trial court may issue a civil assessment for court-appointed-counsel fees. A trial court may, pursuant to R.C. 2941.51(D), assess some or all of the court-appointed-counsel fees incurred during a defendant's representation. A trial court may assess court-appointed-counsel fees if the defendant is found to have a present or future ability to pay these costs. Appellate courts review the imposition of court-appointed-counsel fees as a civil assessment under an abuse of discretion standard. | Willamowski | Hardin |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1218 |
|
Adams v. DiSabato
| 14-23-45 | CIV.R. 42(B); EVID.R. 408; ABUSE OF PROCESS; CIV.R. 59(A); HARMLESS ERROR; CIV.R. 61; DEFAMATION; R.C. 2311.21; CIVIL CONSPIRACY; PLAIN ERROR. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff-appellant’s request to bifurcate the claims and conduct separate trials. The trial court properly considered the convenience of the parties, judicial economy, and the need to preserve the defendant-appellee’s right to a jury trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting an amended operating agreement. The document was relevant to address the issue of the defendant-appellee’s ownership interest in the company. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a letter from counsel of the plaintiff-appellant regarding settlement negotiations because the letter was not offered for the purpose of establishing liability or the value of any claim discussed therein. The letter was offered for another purpose, i.e., to show the plaintiff-appellant’s abuse of process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff-appellant’s motion for a new trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence related to the plaintiff-appellant’s reputation before and after publication of the alleged defamatory statements. Even if the trial court did abuse its discretion by admitting such evidence, any error is harmless since the plaintiff-appellant failed to demonstrate the admission affected his material rights. The plaintiff-appellant’s potential claims for defamation against deceased appellee abated by his death and any claim for civil conspiracy also fails since the plaintiff-appellant did not prevail at trial. The plaintiff-appellant waived all but plain error since he did not object to the trial court’s instruction on punitive damages and attorney fees, nor did he object to the corresponding verdict form. The trial court did not err by determining the amount of attorney fees to be paid by plaintiff-appellant. | Zimmerman | Union |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1219 |
|
In re Estate of Francis
| 5-24-25 | Attorney Fees, Probate Estate, Non-probate Assets. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in following the local rule that prohibits consideration of non-probate assets when determining the appropriate attorney fees for a probate estate. | Willamowski | Hancock |
4/4/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1215 |
|
State v. Matthews
| 3-24-18 | Judicial Release; Abuse of Discretion. On appeal, a trial court's decision to revoke judicial release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is a decision that arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. | Willamowski | Crawford |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1144 |
|
State v. Walker
| 2-24-5 | SPEEDY-TRIAL STATUTE; R.C. 2945.71; TOLLING EVENT; R.C. 2945.72(D). The defendant-appellant’s speedy-trial rights were not violated because, as of the change-of-plea hearing, a total of 260 days ran against the State. The defendant-appellant’s conduct in leaving the State of Ohio and/or hiding his location from the State, while knowing of an impending felony charge and related misdemeanor charge, constitutes a delay occasioned by neglect or improper act as contemplated by R.C. 2945.72(D). | Zimmerman | Auglaize |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1143 |
|
In re J.L.
| 1-24-23, 1-24-24, 1-24-25, 1-24-26, 1-24-27 | PERMANENT CUSTODY; REASONABLE EFFORTS; R.C. 2151.419(A)(2)(e); LEGAL CUSTODY. The trial court did not err by awarding permanent custody of Jas.M. and Jax.M. to the agency because the agency was not required to demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to reunify the family since mother-appellant had her parental rights involuntarily terminated as provide for in R.C. 2415.419(A)(2)(e). It was not plain error for the trial court o grant legal custody of S.L., J.L., and N.L. to legal custodians. | Zimmerman | Allen |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1142 |
|
State v. Smith
| 7-24-05 | Mootness of Appeal. This appeal is moot because defendant-appellant voluntarily completed the jail term without seeking a stay from the trial court, the jail term was imposed for a non-felony offense, and there was no evidence from which an inference could be drawn that defendant-appellant will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights because of the challenged judgment apart from the already-served sentence. | Miller | Henry |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1145 |
|
State v. Houtz
| 6-24-05, 6-24-06 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; Crim.R. 11; Substitution of Counsel. Defendant-appellant's prison sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Defendant-appellant did not demonstrate that his plea was anything other than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant's request for new counsel. | Miller | Hardin |
3/24/2025
|
3/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1008 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 9-23-82 | Speedy Trial; R.C. 2945.71; R.C. 2945.72; R.C. 2945.73; Indictment; Crim.R. 7(D); Motion to Amend Indictment; Trafficking in Cocaine; Trafficking in Heroin; Trafficking in a Fentanyl-Related Compound; Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight; Merger. Defendant-appellant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. The trial court did not err by granting the plaintiff-appellee’s motion to amend the indictment. Defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-drugs convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by failing to merge defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-cocaine, trafficking-in-heroin, and trafficking-in-a-fentanyl-related-compound offenses for sentencing. | Miller | Marion |
3/24/2025
|
3/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1009 |
|
State v. Bigler
| 9-24-29 | Maximum Sentences, Consideration of Sentencing Factors. Trial court did not err in sentencing defendant to a maximum sentence. Defendant challenges the conclusions reached when the trial court considered the statutory sentencing factors. Such consideration is not subject to appellate review pursuant to State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729. | Willamowski | Marion |
3/17/2025
|
3/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-887 |
|
Petersen v. Nonnenman
| 7-24-09 | Divorce; Division of marital assets and debt; Spousal support. The trial court did not err in the division of debts and assets ordered in the parties' divorce, nor did the trial court err in denying wife's request for spousal support. | Waldick | Henry |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-794 |
|
State v. Webb
| 8-24-30 | CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court made the appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings necessary to impose a consecutive sentence and the record supports the trial court’s findings. | Zimmerman | Logan |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-793 |
|
State v. Mohler
| 8-24-35 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant's prison sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Miller | Logan |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-792 |
|
Bradshaw v. N. Union
| 14-24-37 | Summary Judgment; Open and Obvious; Attendant Circumstances. Trial court properly granted summary judgment where extended step was open and obvious. | Waldick | Union |
3/10/2025
|
3/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-788 |
|