|
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
Redrock Fin. v. Holland
| 113496 | Final appealable order; consolidated cases; civil procedure; dismissed. Appeal dismissed for want of a final appealable order. The consolidated cases remain partially unresolved. Pursuant to Ohio case law, this court does not yet have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s appeal. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-450 |
Figgie v. Figgie
| 113752, 113753 | Summary judgment; fraud; statute of limitations; time barred; R.C. 2305.09(C); R.C. 1707.43(B); sale of stock; estate; unjust enrichment; civil conspiracy; constructive trust. Judgment affirmed. Plaintiffs’ fraud claim that their grandfather allegedly schemed to create the illusion of a solicited offer to buy stock under the false premise that their father’s trust was insolvent and in dire need of liquidity to pay taxes and expenses, and subject to potential third-party buyers for the sole purpose of redeeming shares at below fair market value, was barred by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.09(C) for actions alleging fraud and the five-year statute of limitations for the sale of securities under R.C. 1707.43(B). Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they did not discover the fraud until 2018, as they alleged, because plaintiffs were parties in a 2001 counterclaim filed by the executor of their father’s trust, where the executor sought a court order to sell the shares of defendant-company’s stock held by the trust and a September 2001 letter from plaintiffs’ attorney to the trustee stating that plaintiffs had no objection to the redemption of the shares of the stock held in the trust pursuant to the terms of the share pursuant agreement. Furthermore, the trust began receiving distributions in 2001 for the purchase of the Clark-Reliance Corporation ("CRC") stock redemption, which continued annually until the year 2010. Additionally, plaintiffs had access to all trust statements, documents, and correspondence as early as 2009, and one of the plaintiffs was appointed as his sister’s guardian in 2006, which granted him the right to full access to documents detailing the assets of the trust on her behalf. Based upon the foregoing, plaintiffs could have discovered, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, any alleged fraud by defendant thereby barring their claim for fraud. Because plaintiffs failed to establish their fraud claim, plaintiffs’ civil-conspiracy claim fails as a derivative claim that cannot be maintained without fraud. Likewise, the unjust-enrichment claim fails because plaintiffs failed to establish that the transaction was fraudulent, and plaintiffs’ constructive-trust claim fails because they failed to establish the elements of fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-451 |
Mills v. Mills
| 113819 | Divorce; spousal support; modification; change in circumstances; retirement; magistrate’s decision; abuse of discretion; contempt; attorney fees; R.C. 3105.18. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it modified Husband’s spousal-support obligation to $1,800 per month. Husband voluntarily retired at the age of 66 years old due to his declining health. This constitutes a substantial change in circumstances that makes the existing award of $4,000 per month unreasonable, given his estimated post-retirement income reduced to $0 from approximately $260,000. The court considered all the R.C. 3105.18 factors and made findings for each, ultimately explaining how they impacted the decision to modify Husband’s spousal-support obligation, including the fact that Husband voluntarily elected to not receive any retirement benefits because current wife pays all his expenses. Husband was in contempt of court for deciding to stop paying spousal support and is $60,026.13 in arrears. The court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Wife’s motion for attorney fees but awarded Wife $3,000 in fees associated with the contempt finding. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-452 |
Dove v. Lakewood
| 113905 | Summary judgment; race discrimination; failure to promote; McDonnell Douglas’s burden-shifting framework; prima facie case; legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an employer’s action; pretext. Plaintiff claims he has superior qualifications for the subject position than the Caucasian candidate. Our review of the record indicates plaintiff has presented evidence of his experience and qualifications to establish a prima facie case of failure to promote. Because the City of Lakewood produced evidence demonstrating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision, the burden shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that Lakewood’s reason is pretext for discrimination. For relative qualifications to establish triable issues of fact as to pretext, plaintiff must show either (1) plaintiff was a plainly superior candidate, such that no reasonable employer would have chosen the latter applicant over the former, or (2) plaintiff was as qualified, if not better qualified than the successful applicant, and the record contains other probative evidence of discrimination. Having reviewed the record, we cannot conclude plaintiff has created triable issues of fact as to pretext and therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-453 |
Nationstar Mtge., L.L.C. v. Jessie
| 113932 | Motion to enforce settlement agreement; issue of contract law; breach of settlement agreement; performance by nonbreaching party. Appellants cannot demonstrate the elements of breach of a settlement agreement because they themselves did not perform under the agreement. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to enforce settlement agreement. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-454 |
State v. Humphries
| 113935 | Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw guilty plea; felony sentencing; postrelease control notification; the Reagan Tokes Law notification. Defendant’s convictions of felonies including aggravated robbery, felonious assault and having weapons while under disability, with various specifications, are affirmed following his guilty plea. His plea was not coerced by the trial court. The court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, even though it was made immediately prior to the court imposing a prison sentence, because the defendant did not articulate a reasonable legitimate basis for withdrawing his plea. Defendant’s 12–15-year indefinite prison sentence is reversed because the court failed to properly advise the defendant of the mandatory statutory notifications at his sentencing hearing under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) (regarding postrelease control) and R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) (regarding the Reagan Tokes Law). Defendant’s sentence is reversed and this case is remanded for the limited purpose of holding a resentencing hearing. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-455 |
State v. Webb
| 113941 | Patient abuse; plain error; Crim.R. 52(B); sufficiency; knowingly; physical harm. Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of patient abuse. Defendant asserted on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support two elements of patient abuse: Mens rea of knowingly and whether the victim suffered physical harm as a result. Defendant’s conviction is based on sufficient evidence where the State introduced evidence of video surveillance of the incident, training defendant had received, and testimony concerning improper restraint techniques utilized by the defendant. Further, since defendant’s defense at trial was that the evidence was insufficient to support the elements for patient abuse, he was precluded from raising a self-defense claim. As such, no plain error occurred when the jury was not instructed as to self-defense. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-456 |
State v. Parker
| 113945 | Presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea; motion to continue sentencing; Crim.R. 32.1. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s presentence oral motions to withdraw his guilty plea and for a continuance of the sentencing hearing. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-457 |
State v. Stover
| 113947 | Felony sentencing; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2953.08(F); endangering children. Appellant appeals her conviction arguing the court’s proportionality finding for the consecutive sentences in this case was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree. The record was overflowing with evidence to support that the consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct and the danger she posed to the public and her children. Judgment affirmed. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-458 |
State v. Hawkins
| 113996 | Crim.R. 43(A); Global Positioning System ("GPS") monitoring; sentence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court informed the defendant of the length of time he would be subject to both community control and GPS monitoring in open court and on the record during the sentencing hearing. Therefore, the imposition of GPS monitoring in the sentencing entries was not contrary to law. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-459 |
Gilles v. Castelli
| 114055 | Pro se; App.R. 9; transcript; presume validity of lower court’s proceedings. Where appellant failed to provide the court of appeals with a transcript or appropriate substitute as permitted under App.R. 9(C) or (D), this court had no alternative but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings and affirm its decision. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-460 |
State v. Williams
| 114210 | Community-control sanctions violation; medical marijuana; res judicata; revocation of community control. - Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in finding appellant in violation of his community-control sanctions after testing positive for marijuana after the trial court did not allow appellant permission to use medical marijuana and appellant was warned several times that a positive test is a probation violation. Williams was not criminalized or convicted for testing positive for marijuana; he was found in violation of his community-control sanctions. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-461 |
In re T.S.
| 114294, 114301 | Permanent custody; manifest weight of the evidence; R.C. 2151.414(E); best interest of the child. The trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody to Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS") is not against the weight of the evidence under R.C. 2151.414(E) and is in the best interests of the children. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-462 |
WVJP 2021-4, LP v. Loef, Ltd.
| 114366 | Final appealable order; motion to appoint a receiver; R.C. 2505.02; R.C. 2735.01. The denial of plaintiff-appellant’s motion to appoint a receiver amounted to an abuse of discretion where the mortgagor consented to the appointment of a receiver in the mortgage documents, the mortgagee met the statutory requirements to appoint a receiver, and the mortgagor did not oppose the motion for appointment. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
2/13/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-463 |
Hunter v. Troutman
| 113524 | Divorce; abuse of discretion; financial misconduct; R.C. 3105.171(E); credibility; hidden or nondisclosed income; sale of personal residence; purchase of residence by spouse; attorney’s fees; Dom.Rel.LocR. 21; plain error; admission of exhibits; time restrictions on cross-examination; marital property; manifest weight of the evidence; distributive award; spousal support; and R.C. 3105.18. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found plaintiff-appellant’s hidden income constituted financial misconduct. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the immediate sale of a personal residence when the house to be sold was encumbered with a mortgage, home equity line of credit, and foreclosure proceedings and both parties had alternate residences. Where two homes situated next door to each other were owned by the defendant-appellee, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the sale of one home rather than awarding it to plaintiff-appellant which would have resulted in her continued residence side-by-side with her ex-husband, his girlfriend, and their child. The trial court committed plain error by admitting into evidence an exhibit that was not presented at trial. The trial court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney’s fees based upon an exhibit that was not part of the court record. Where defendant-appellee did not identify the evidence he was prevented from introducing due to the court’s time limitations on cross-examination, defendant-appellee did not establish the trial court’s time limitations amounted to an abuse of discretion. The trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence established real estate holdings, vehicles, and businesses were not marital property subject to division. Subject to R.C. 3105.171(E)(4), defendant-appellee was entitled to a greater division of marital property or a distributive award but not both awards. Consideration of the R.C. 3105.18(C) factors supported the trial court’s denial of defendant-appellee’s motion for spousal support. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-366 |
Pitrone v. Pitrone
| 113835 | Modification of spousal award; substantial change in financial circumstances; investment income; sale of business; abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining appellee’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. The trial court is the ultimate finder of fact. The magistrate’s decision did not turn on a credibility determination and, therefore, the trial court was able to conduct an independent review of the issues. The trial court’s finding that monies from the sale of appellee’s business, which happened over two years after the parties’ divorce, was investment income excluded from being subject to spousal support calculation, was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellee’s income after his retirement constituted a substantial change in his financial circumstances and thus warranted a modification of his spousal support obligation. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-367 |
Cleveland Hts. v. Whitlow
| 113837 | Dog bite; failure to control; explanation of circumstances; allied offenses; sentencing; community-control sanctions; waiver; constitutional errors; no-contest pleas. - Appellant Keondra Whitlow’s convictions are affirmed. Appellant waived her right to recitation or an explanation of circumstances. Whitlow’s attempts to dispute the legality of her sentence, including her community-control sanctions, are without merit. Whitlow waived her right to contest the sufficiency of the evidence, including whether the subject dog was vicious, when she pled no contest. Whitlow’s various other assignments of error are overruled pursuant to the waiver doctrine and for failure to raise the errors for the first time in the trial court. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-368 |
State v. Jackson
| 113841 | Allied offenses of similar import; merger; ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court appropriately refused to merge offenses where the conduct established that the crimes were committed separately and with separate animus. Trial court appropriately considered the required factors to impose maximum consecutive sentences. The maximum sentences were within the statutory range and were therefore not contrary to law. Additionally, the trial court made the appropriate findings to impose consecutive sentences. Appellant failed to establish he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to request a competency evaluation based on a probate court finding of guardianship. The standard for competency to stand trial is different from competency determinations in probate court. Where there is no evidence in the record that the appellant was incapable of understanding the proceedings or that he could not assist in his defense, counsel did not err in failing to request a competency hearing. Appellant failed to establish he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his new lawyer represented him at a plea hearing without having obtained all of the discovery. Nevertheless, after a guilty plea appellant waived any claim of ineffective assistance unless he established that his counsel’s errors rendered his plea infirm. Appellant failed to meet that requirement. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-369 |
State v. Houston
| 113873 | Jail-time credit; separate and unrelated cases. - Trial court erred in awarding jail-time credit to defendant for separate and unrelated cases even though the trial court ordered the defendant to serve those sentences concurrently. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-370 |
State v. Ogletree
| 113913 | Sufficiency of the evidence; felonious assault; serious physical harm; deadly weapon; scissors; manifest weight of the evidence; credibility. The victim’s testimony that the offender often carried a knife or screwdriver in his pocket; the offender stabbed her in the face with either scissors or an object pulled from his pocket; the interaction resulted in an injury that required stitches; the offender made several comments that the victim interpreted as threats upon her life; and the responding police officer’s testimony that she observed the victim with a severe injury requiring stitches served as sufficient evidence to show the offender used a deadly weapon to cause serious physical harm and support the offender’s felonious-assault convictions. After weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences and considering the credibility of the witnesses, we find the defendant’s convictions of felonious assault were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-371 |
State v. Iverson
| 113920 | Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08(D)(3); aggravated murder; life without parole; R.C. 2929.03(A)(1); cruel and unusual punishment. Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for three counts of aggravated murder is within the statutory range and not reviewable on appeal pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3). Further, appellant’s constitutional claims of cruel and unusual punishment lack merit. Life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder of three individuals is not disproportionate nor excessive. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-372 |
State v. Bulger
| 113966 | Postconviction; DNA testing; outcome determinative. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected Bulger’s application for postconviction DNA testing on the basis that exclusion results would not be outcome determinative. In the context of the evidence presented at trial and upon its consideration, we cannot say that there is a strong probability that no reasonable factfinder would have found the defendant guilty of the offenses had exclusion results been presented at trial. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-373 |
In re R.O.
| 113999 & 114000 | Agreed judgment entry; objections; magistrate’s decision; transcript; audio recording. - Appellant did not get leave of court to submit the audio recording in lieu of a written transcript. Because no transcript was submitted to the trial court with appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in summarily overruling the objections. The magistrate and the trial court properly adopted the agreed judgment entry without appellant’s signature because the entry conformed with the parties’ in-court, on-the-record, agreement of the terms of the parenting plan. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-374 |
In re N.J.V.
| 114035 | Modifications of shared-parenting plans and decrees; R.C. 3109.04; modification in the designation of the residential parent for school purposes; changes in circumstances; best interest of child. The trial court erred in finding that mother’s motion to change a designation of the residential parent for school purposes is governed by R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a), which requires a demonstration of a change in circumstances. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed, however, because it denied mother’s motion on an alternative ground that the modification would not serve the child’s best interest, and our review indicates the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its best-interest finding. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-375 |
In re I.L.J.
| 114079 | Guardian ad litem ("GAL") fees; appellate court costs; App.R. 24; Cuyahoga C.P., Juv.Div., Loc.R. 15(D)(4). The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the GAL’s motion for fees and declined to award father appellate court costs. The appellate court has exclusive jurisdiction to award appellate court costs. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-376 |
Margiman v. Dowdell
| 114202 | Motion to vacate default judgment; rebuttable presumption; perfected service; Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1)(a); Civ.R. 4.6(D). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate default judgment. Appellant’s unsigned affidavit had no evidentiary value; thus, appellant had no evidence to rebut the presumption that service had been perfected. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-377 |
Hayes v. Mingo Properties, L.L.P.
| 113795 | Civ.R. 12(B)(6); limited liability partnership; R.C. 1776.36; pierce; fraud; Civ.R. 9. - Trial court did not err in granting partners' Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss because the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim against the individual partners for obligations incurred by the limited liability partnership. The complaint also did not plead fraud with particularity pursuant to Civ.R. 9. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
2/6/2025
|
2/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-378 |
Favorite v. Cleveland Clinic Found.
| 113642 & 113821 | Civ.R. 60(B); meritorious claim; excusable neglect. Reversed and remanded. After the plaintiff’s counsel made a calendaring mistake, his brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was filed one business day late and prior to the trial court’s granting of summary judgment. The trial court did not consider the facts or arguments set forth in Favorite’s untimely brief when it granted summary judgment, noting that the defendant’s motion was “unopposed.” After reviewing the record in this matter, we find that the plaintiff established all three requirements to be entitled to relief from judgment and the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Under this set of facts, the trial court should have considered the plaintiff’s untimely brief in opposition and determined whether summary judgment was appropriate based on the arguments presented by both parties. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-269 |
State v. Barhams
| 113689 | Murder charges; juvenile delinquent; discretionary transfer; bindover, R.C. 2152.12(B), (D) and (E); plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered; violation of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); postrelease control sanctions; probable cause waived; abuse of discretion; amenability hearing; the Reagan Tokes Law. Juvenile delinquent pled guilty to murder charges. On appeal juvenile argues that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, because the trial court did not fully comply with Crim.R.11 (C)(2)(a) regarding the mandatory postrelease control sanctions he was pleading guilty too. The record indicates however, that the trial court did fully discuss the sanctions and made the juvenile aware that he was going to subject to mandatory postrelease control, the duration of the sanctions and what would happen if he violated them. As such we find no error here and his first assignment of error is properly overruled. For his second assignment of error the juvenile then argues the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system. Our review of the record demonstrates that the trial court did properly consider the factors for and against transfer before finding the juvenile was not amenable and ordering the transfer. The court did not abuse its discretion and juvenile’s assignment of error is properly overruled. For his third assignment of error juvenile alleges his sentence pursuant to Reagan Tokes is unconstitutional violating the juvenile’s constitutional right to trial by a jury and his right to due process. Juvenile also argues the law violates the separation of powers clause. Based on this court’s precedent this assignment of error is overruled. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-270 |
Michael v. Miller
| 113706 | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; tortious interference with a contract; fraud; collusion; conspiracy; motion to strike; motion to disqualify; abuse of discretion. The trial court properly entered summary judgment for all defendants where there were no genuine issues of material fact and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking a motion to disqualify counsel from the record. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-271 |
Roefer v. Riley
| 113742 | Concealment of estate assets; R.C. 2109.50; objections to the magistrate’s decision; timeliness of filing; plain error; partial transcript; failure to comply with App.R. 12 and 16. Sisters filed claims/cross-claims against each other for concealment of their mother’s estate assets in probate court. The court found in favor of each sister in part. One sister filed an untimely objection to the magistrate’s decision, therefore we review for plain error. We affirm in part and reverse in part. The evidence in the record supports the court’s findings on all but one of the concealment of “estate assets.” One of the sisters paid off the balance of her mother’s car and took her mother to have title of the car transferred to this sister. The probate court found that this was a concealment of estate assets. The evidence in the record does not support the finding that this car was an estate asset due to the timing of the title transfer. The record also does not support the probate court’s finding regarding the value of the car because there was no evidence in the partial transcript that was part of the record on appeal about the value of the car. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-272 |
State v. Howard
| 113783 | Not guilty by reason of insanity plea; ineffective assistance of counsel; failure to file written plea; plain error; Crim.R. 11; R.C. 2943.03; manifest weight of the evidence; affirmative defense; preponderance of the evidence; R.C. 2901.01; conflicting expert witness testimony; credibility; sentencing; Reagan Tokes Law; indefinite sentence; mandatory sentence; attempted aggravated murder of a peace officer; R.C. 2903.01(E)(2); R.C. 2923.02; required statutory advisements; R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). Appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a written plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, and the court did not commit plain error by considering his not guilty by reason of insanity defense. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the court properly imposed an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law. However, the court failed to provide the required statutory advisements regarding the indefinite sentence, and the matter is remanded for stating the proper notifications. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-273 |
State v. Brown
| 113818 | Motion for leave; motion for new trial; exculpatory evidence; newly discovered evidence; unavoidably prevented; public records request. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant leave to move for a new trial or denying his petition for postconviction relief because appellant failed to demonstrate that (1) he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence he relied on it support of his motion; (2) how the supporting documentation qualified as Brady material; and (3) the State suppressed the evidence supporting his motion. Appellant failed to demonstrate that he complied with R.C. 149.43 in his attempt to obtain public records to support his “unavoidably prevented” burden. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-274 |
Paganini v. Cataract Eye Ctr. of Cleveland
| 113867 & 114019 | Jury interrogatories; inconsistent; waiver; reconcilable; noneconomic damages; unconstitutional; as applied; due course of law. Trial court properly denied appellants’ motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict ("JNOV") or for a new trial because they failed to object to alleged inconsistency between special jury interrogatories and the general verdict and because the inconsistency was easily reconcilable. Trial court’s finding that cap on noneconomic damages provided in R.C. 2323.42(A)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to appellee was proper because the cap on damages arbitrarily and unreasonably deprived appellee of his due-course-of-law rights guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-275 |
Reld & G Ent., Inc. v. Eldanaf
| 113881 | Close corporation; shareholder derivative action; Civ.R. 23.1; standing. Affirmed. The trial court correctly granted defendant’s partial summary judgment upon all claims asserted by plaintiff in her individual capacity because the plaintiff’s claims, based on a minority shareholder asserting claims against another minority shareholder, must be asserted in compliance with Civ.R. 23.1, which includes the requirement to verify the complaint and allege with particularity the efforts made to obtain the desired relief stymied by the controlling shareholders. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-276 |
State v. Weiss
| 113962 | Restitution; motion to modify; R.C. 2929.18; restitution to third parties; evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to modify restitution. At the time restitution was imposed, the relevant statute permitted restitution to third parties such as insurance companies. Ohio Supreme Court precedent indicates that courts must look to the version of the restitution statute as it existed at the time of a defendant’s sentencing, i.e., whether the person or entity was statutorily eligible for restitution at the time of sentencing. In addition, restitution is not merely to benefit the victim, but is an integral part of an offender’s sentence for both punishment and retribution. Defendant did not provide evidence that he had satisfied his restitution obligations. Finally, defendant failed to offer any evidence that the victim had been compensated in whole or in part by an insurance carrier or other third party. Representations by counsel do not constitute evidence. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-277 |
Ardery v. Hyundai of Bedford
| 114119 | Arbitration; stay of proceedings; contract. Trial court did not err when it granted appellee’s motion to stay proceedings pending submission to arbitration, where it found that the parties had agreed to the arbitration agreement and that the subject of the claim was covered under that agreement. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-278 |
State v. Von Harris
| 113618 | Entrapment; affirmative defense; jury instruction; predisposition; cell phone records; cell phone site location information (“CSLI”); plain error; Crim.R. 30; subpoena; effective assistance of counsel; Strickland test; sufficiency of the evidence; bribery, R.C. 2921.02(A); R.C. 2921.02(B); forgery; R.C. 2913.31(A)(1); R.C. 2913.31(A)(2); insurance fraud; R.C. 2913.47(B)(2); manifest weight of the evidence. The State introduced sufficient evidence at trial to support the convictions of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. Weighing all of the evidence, we cannot say this is one of the rare cases in which the trier of fact lost its way and, thus, the bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment where the evidence demonstrated the defendant’s predisposition to commit the charged offenses. Because the defendant held no privacy right in his mobile phone records, the trial court did not commit plain error when it admitted the records at trial. Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed where he was unable to show his counsel’s performance was deficient or that the alleged deficient performance prejudiced him so as to deprive him of a fair trial. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
1/30/2025
|
1/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-279 |
State v. St. Anthony Church
| 113501 | Community control; res judicata; Crim.R. 36; Cleveland Cod.Ord. 367.12(a). Judgment affirmed. St. Anthony Church (“SAC”) is a fictitious name and there is no legal distinction between Albert Thrower and SAC. Accordingly, Thrower was a party to the underlying proceedings. SAC’s arguments challenging the blanket effect of the housing court’s community-control order established in judgments prior to the appealed community-control violation and nunc pro tunc entries are barred by res judicata. Moreover, the housing court’s nunc pro tunc entry complied with Crim.R. 36. Finally, the housing court did not err in finding that SAC violated community control for its failure to comply with Cleveland Cod.Ord. 367.12(a), amongst other reasons. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-164 |
El-Hitti v. Americare Kidney Inst., L.L.C.
| 113650 | Motion to bifurcate; compensatory and punitive damages; breach of fiduciary claim; unfair-competition claim. The trial court did not err when it denied the appellants’ motion to bifurcate the compensatory and punitive damages portions of the breach-of-fiduciary claims. The trial court did not err when it denied the appellants’ motion to bifurcate the compensatory and punitive damages portions of the unfair-competition claims and decided to hold one hearing. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-165 |
State v. Carson
| 113852 | Manifest weight; sufficiency; self-defense. State met its burden of production refuting appellant’s claim of self-defense where the evidence established that appellant instigated the situation that led to the assaults. Appellant’s conviction for attempted felonious assault was supported by sufficient evidence where the record established that he knowingly hit the victim and the harm she sustained was reasonably foreseeable. Appellant’s convictions for assault and attempted felonious assault were supported by the weight of the evidence where it was undisputed that appellant hit both victims and that the second victim lost consciousness after being hit. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-166 |
In re N.H.
| 113883 | Mandatory bindover; R.C. 2512.10; R.C. 2512.12. Juvenile court erred when it denied the State’s request for mandatory bindover where the State established probable cause that appellee was 16 years old at the time of the offenses, had committed aggravated robbery, and did so with a firearm on or about his person and used the firearm in the commission of the offense. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-167 |
State v. Jones
| 113927 | Manifest weight; self-defense. Judgment affirmed. The State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was at fault in creating the affray and did not have reasonable grounds to believe or an honest belief that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm. Therefore, appellant did not act in self-defense. Accordingly, appellant’s convictions for felony-murder, felonious assault, and discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-168 |
Madras v. Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar
| 113989 | Slip and fall; premises liability; open and obvious; unnatural accumulation; black ice; summary judgment; actual or constructive notice. The judgment of the trial court, granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Apple Ohio LLC, is affirmed. The undisputed facts in the record indicate that the icy patch that plaintiff-appellant Madaras slipped on was an open-and-obvious condition that did not constitute an unnatural accumulation. Moreover, the record does not indicate that the patch of ice was “substantially more dangerous” than Madaras should have reasonably anticipated, and even so, Applebee’s did not have actual or constructive notice of such condition. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-169 |
Univ. School v. M.F.
| 114060 | Contract; impossibility; summary judgment; record. University School was entitled to summary judgment on the debt owed under the enrollment contracts. The record showed there was a valid contract, M.F. breached the contract, and M.F. did not show any genuine issues of material fact remained where the record did not support M.F.’s defense of impossibility where she did not show an unforeseen event occurred prior to the date she had to cancel the contracts. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-170 |
In re I.D.
| 114065, 114066, 114067, 114068 | Allocation of parental rights and responsibilities; guardian ad litem report. - Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in allocating parental rights and responsibilities; the court considered all relevant factors in determining the best interest of the children for parenting time with each parent. For everyone’s best interests, a guardian ad litem should submit their written report in accordance with the rules of court. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-171 |
State v. Majid
| 114134 & 114136 | Irregular motion; petition for postconviction relief; untimely; void; voidable; limited remand; appellate court mandate; res judicata. Judgments affirmed. The trial court properly treated the defendant’s motion, made years after his direct appeal, as a petition for postconviction relief. The petition was untimely and not subject to the timeliness exception under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). The trial court’s resentencing judgment was not void. Further, because the trial court had jurisdiction over the case and the defendant, any potential sentencing error. would be deemed voidable, and a challenge to a voidable sentence via a postconviction petition is impermissible. The trial court complied with the appellate court’s mandate for the limited remand. The mandate was not for a de novo resentencing hearing; rather, it was for the limited purpose of resentencing the defendant as to each of the firearm specifications. The defendant’s assignments of error alleging various trial errors have no relation to the judgments appealed from and in any event are barred under the doctrine of res judicata. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-172 |
Imani Home Health Care, L.L.C. v. Visionary Group, L.L.C.
| 114198 | Motion to vacate; default judgment; service; void; abuse of discretion. - Because service of process was never completed on defendant, the default judgment granted against the defendant was void, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to vacate the void judgment. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-173 |
In re K.F.
| 114250 | Motion to continue; Juv.R. 23; Juv.R. 35; motion for continuance made on day of hearing; abuse of discretion; good cause; child-support obligation; failure to appear; waive right to present evidence; imputation of income; voluntarily unemployed or underemployed; R.C. 3119.01; evidence need not be presented for each factor; upward deviation; R.C. 3119.23; special and unusual needs of child. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s oral motion for continuance on the day of the hearing or in basing its ruling solely on Mother’s testimony when Father failed to appear and present evidence. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion by imputing income to Father because it found that he was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed or by upwardly deviating from the child support worksheet based upon the cost of certain speech-therapy needs of the child. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
1/23/2025
|
1/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-174 |
In re E.B.
| 114265 | Permanent custody; case plan; failure to remedy; 12 out of 22 months; substance abuse; mental health; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; best interest. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to continue. Appellant requested the trial court to continue the permanent custody hearing because the guardian ad litem’s report was untimely filed. Because the guardian ad litem was available for cross-examination and the report did not raise any new or surprising information, appellant was unable to show that she was prejudiced by the denial. The trial court did not err when it granted permanent custody of the child to Cuyahoga County Division of Child and Family Services ("CCDCFS"); its decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The child had been in custody for more that 12 out of 22 months and a grant of permanent custody was in the best interest of the child. Appellant completed portions of her case plan, which included housing, employment, mental health, substance abuse, and anger management but did not benefit from some of the services she received. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
1/16/2025
|
1/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-101 |
|