| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
In re J.U.
| 114400 | Companionship; visitation; custody; adoption; grandparents; mother; juvenile; best interest; Juv.R. 40(D); R.C. 3109.12; R.C. 2505.02; de novo; abuse of discretion; sexual offenses; stay; Lorain; therapy. A parent’s fundamental interest in the care, custody, and control of a child is a substantial right; therefore, an order resolving a statutorily created companionship claim under R.C. 3109.12 is a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 when it fully disposes of the grandparents’ request and the parent’s objections. A juvenile court satisfies Juv.R. 40(D)(4)’s independent review requirement when, after timely objections, it conducts its own evaluation of the record and modifies a magistrate’s decision to narrow companionship time, incorporating Troxel’s “special weight” for a fit parent’s wishes. In the absence of an abuse of discretion, a trial court does not err by granting limited, structured virtual companionship to grandparents when the record demonstrates the trial court balanced the best interest of the child and the parent’s wishes under R.C. 3109. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-34 |
|
Fulkroad v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.
| 114570; 115257 | Workers’ compensation; default judgment; sanction; case-management conference; abuse of discretion; failure to appear. The trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte entering default judgment for the plaintiff when defense counsel failed to appear for the initial case-management conference. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-35 |
|
McCoy v. Avon Place Skilled Nursing & Rehab. Ctr.
| 114779 | Nursing home malpractice; admitted liability; jury instructions; jury interrogatories; punitive damages; R.C. 2315.21; invited error; plain error; wavier; judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”); de novo; ratification; corporate entity; scope of employment; actual malice; damages cap; noneconomic damages; R.C. 2315.18; $250,000; separate incident; nursing home resident’s bill of rights (“NHRBR”); abuse of discretion; attorney fees; reconstructed hours; expenses; lodestar; prejudgment interest; R.C. 1343.04; good-faith settlement. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in denying defendants’ JNOV motion as to punitive damages in Plaintiffs’ nursing home malpractice case. In the instant case, there is no dispute that Defendants drafted the jury instructions that it complains of on appeal. The trial court adopted the jury instructions verbatim, and the Defendants’ did not object at trial. Because defendants invited this error by providing the court with jury instructions and never objected to the instructions, it may not now seek to use the instruction to its advantage on appeal. In addition, Defendants’ failure to object to the interrogatory constituted waiver of any error on appeal. Furthermore, trial court did not apply the wrong standard for punitive damages against a corporate entity as Defendants contend. Defendants failed to raise ratification in its JNOV motion and, therefore, waived the issue on appeal, but for plain error. We do not find plain error because Plaintiffs established ratification at trial. Plaintiffs adduced evidence demonstrating that the nurse’s job responsibilities included decedent’s trach care and the Defendants ratified the nurse’s conduct when Defendants failed to terminate or discipline the nurse. The evidence at trial also demonstrated actual malice. The Defendants’ staff nurse ignored the Plaintiff’s cries for help. A reasonable person could conclude that the staff’s conduct amounted to a conscious disregard for the decedent’s rights, health, and safety, which had great probability of causing substantial harm. The trial court did not err in permitting the Estate to recover $250,000 in noneconomic damages for decedent’s pain and suffering as a result of the failures in care on August 1, 2020. The trial court was also correct in permitting the Estate to recover $250,000 in noneconomic damages for the decedent’s NHRBR claim, which related to a separate incident on July 23, 2020. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees and expenses. The trial court was in the best position to determine if Plaintiffs’ reconstructed fee request was accurate. The beginning point for determining the award of attorney fees is the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the number of hours worked, a calculation that is sometimes referred to as lodestar. Here, the trial court considered the factors such as the fee customarily charged in the locality, the injuries and damages involved in the case, the results obtained, the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel was not paid during the litigation and that they advanced litigation expenses, as well as the fact that the fee was contingent. The court found that a multiplier of 2.65 was an appropriate modification to the lodestar. Lastly, the trial court did not err in awarding pre-judgment interest because the evidence indicates that Defendants made no effort to consider the risk of an adverse verdict at trial and did not negotiate in good faith. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-36 |
|
State v. Morris
| 114927 | Guilty plea; motion to withdraw; Crim.R. 32.1; res judicata; manifest injustice; newly discovered evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. Because the exhibits appellant attached to his motion to withdraw his guilty plea are not newly discovered, res judicata bars his claims. Furthermore, appellant fails to demonstrate that a manifest injustice has occurred, particularly because he was aware of these exhibits before his guilty plea and trial counsel was not ineffective. This is not the case where “an extraordinary and fundamental flaw in the plea proceeding” occurred. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-37 |
|
Selzer v. Union Home Mtge. Corp.
| 114959 | Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; evidence; age discrimination; direct evidence; discriminatory intent; prima facie case. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for employer where employee presented direct evidence of discriminatory intent in his age-discrimination suit. This evidence created a genuine issue of material fact. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-38 |
|
Taye v. Cuyahoga Hills Juvenile Corr. Facility
| 115004 | Motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; workers’ compensation claim; R.C. 4123.01(C)(5); preexisting condition; substantially aggravated; clear and unambiguous statute; and objective pre-injury medical evidence. The trial court erred when it granted an employer’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff-appellant worker provided, pursuant to R.C. 4123.01(C)(5), objective clinical findings, objective test results, and subjective complaints to support his claim that his work incident caused a substantial aggravation of preexisting conditions. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
1/8/2026
|
1/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-39 |