|
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
State v. Flantoill
| C-240120 | RESISITING ARREST – MOTION TO DIMISS – INDICTMENT – COMPLAINT – PLAIN ERROR: The trial court plainly erred when it dismissed the charge of resisting arrest pursuant to a pretrial motion to dismiss because it looked beyond the face of the complaint and began weighing each side’s evidence. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
11/1/2024
|
11/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5224 |
Ho v. Evans
| C-240063 | R.C. 2323.52 – VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR OR CONDUCT: The common pleas court erred by granting defendant’s R.C.2323.52 motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigator where there was no clear and convincing evidence presented that plaintiff habitually, persistently, and without reasonable grounds engaged in vexatious conduct. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/30/2024
|
10/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5184 |
In re A.C.
| C-240417 | LEGAL CUSTODY – PERMANENT CUSTODY – INDEPENDENT REVIEW: The juvenile court erred when it inappropriately applied appellate standards of review when reviewing objections to the magistrate’s decision to award permanent custody of the two children to Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services ("HCJFS"), terminating the grandmother’s legal custodianship, which required an independent review of the record. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/30/2024
|
10/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5185 |
State v. Collins
| C-240011 | THEFT – R.C. 2913.02 – POWER OF ATTORNEY – UNIFORM POWER OF ATTORNEY ACT – VICTIMS RIGHTS – MARSY’S LAW – RESTITUTION – R.C. 2929.18 – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE: Where the State introduced evidence that defendant had spent her principal’s funds under his power of attorney but had left his nursing-home bills unpaid, and where the State offered no evidence that particular expenditures went beyond the scope authorized in the power of attorney, the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to convict defendant for the theft of the full amount of the unpaid nursing- home bills under R.C. 2913.02(A)(2). Where the State introduced evidence that defendant, under her principal’s power of attorney, withdrew her principal’s funds to gamble, while nevertheless failing to pay her principal’s nursing-home bills, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant for the theft of the funds spent gambling under R.C. 2913.02(A)(2), and her conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Where a victim of theft owes money to a nursing home, which he can no longer pay because of the theft, the nursing home is not a “victim” of that theft entitled to restitution under R.C. 2929.18 and Marsy’s Law, because the nursing home was only indirectly injured by the theft. Where a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel is predicated on counsel’s failure to introduce certain evidence at trial, that claim will nearly always fail on direct appeal, where the reviewing court may not consider evidence outside the record, and is better suited for a postconviction proceeding. Where a hearsay statement explained the motive for otherwise undisputed expenditures, but where the expenditures themselves were sufficient to prove theft, trial counsel’s failure to object to the hearsay statement did not prejudice defendant. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/25/2024
|
10/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5112 |
Weckel v. Cole + Russell Architects, Inc.
| C-210425, C-230535, C-230543 | BREACH OF CONTRACT — RES JUDICATA — ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION — JURISDICTION — LIMITED REMAND —PREJUDGMENT INTEREST — R.C. 1343.03(A) — ABUSE OF DISCRETION — ATTORNEY FEES — BAD FAITH: The trial court did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his breach-of-contract and declaratory-judgment actions and denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment where defendant failed to establish either of its affirmative defenses of res judicata or anticipatory repudiation. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s and plaintiff’s respective Civ.R. 60(B) motions on limited remand from the court of appeals, where the scope of the remand was limited to plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and prejudgment interest. The trial court did not err in awarding plaintiff prejudgment interest on his breach-of-contract claim from the date that it determined plaintiff’s claim became ripe where, although the trial court’s choice of accrual date was years later than it may have been, choosing the later date was not an abuse of discretion because plaintiff asked for that date; however, the trial court abused its discretion in setting the prejudgment interest rate at the applicable rate on the date that plaintiff’s first lawsuit ended because the trial court did not base the rate determination on the plain language of the parties’ contract. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees where the trial court’s finding that defendant did not litigate in bad faith was supported by the record. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/25/2024
|
10/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5111 |
Ma v. Cincinnati Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr.
| C-240166 | EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT – BURDEN OF PROOF – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – JUST CAUSE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE: The trial court did not err when it instructed the jury to consider “any other evidence” that the jury found formed the basis of the employment contract or when it did not instruct the jury that defendant-employer had the burden of proving “just cause,” as it has not been definitively deemed an affirmative defense in Ohio. The trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant-employer was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and it did not err when it permitted references to the government of the People’s Republic of China and plaintiff-employee’s ethnicity, as it related to damages and his claim that he was the only individual fired for funding shortcomings. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5079 |
State v. Jackson
| C-240066 | CRIM.R. 33(B) — UNAVOIDABLE PREVENTION: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a Crim.R. 33(A)(1) motion for a new trial where defendant could not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds upon which he now relies to support his new-trial motion. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5077 |
State v. Thompson
| C-240211 | EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the officer testified that only a small part of the gun butt was visible in defendant’s pocket, he could not determine it was a gun until he looked down at the pocket, and the trial court found the testimony to be credible. | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5082 |
State v. Dixon
| C-240074 | THEFT — R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE: Defendant’s conviction for theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) was not against the weight or sufficiency of the evidence where the State presented evidence that defendant spoke with the manager of a hardware store about an audio cable, the manger handed the cable to defendant, the manager later heard the sound of packaging opening, defendant checked out without purchasing the cable, the manger found packaging of a cable opened with the cable missing, and the store only had one of the specific cables in stock. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5078 |
State v. Johnson
| C-230641, C-240112 | POSTCONVICTION — DNA TESTING — OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s application for postconviction DNA testing where the court stated its reasons for denying the application in its entry and where DNA testing of the evidence, even if it excluded defendant as a contributor, would not be outcome determinative as defendant’s conviction for murder was primarily based on reliable eyewitness testimony. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5074 |
In re K.C.
| C-240207 | DUE PROCESS – RESTITUTION HEARING: The trial court erred, in violation of juvenile’s due process rights, by denying a restitution hearing when juvenile sought a hearing to challenge the restitution amount requested by the victim. | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5081 |
State v. Ward
| C-230498, C-240157 | EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – NOTICE OF ALIBI: Defendant’s convictions for failure to comply, reckless operation, and driving under suspension were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where one officer testified that he identified defendant based on video and photos of defendant, one officer testified he got a good look at defendant, both provided in-court identifications, and the trial court found the officers’ testimony to be credible. Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a notice of alibi where the record fails to establish that counsel knew of defendant’s alleged alibi defense. | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5073 |
State v. Keese
| C-240020 | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – PROBABLE CAUSE – REASONABLE SUSPICION – SEARCH WARRANT – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – STANDING – SENTENCING – ALLIED OFFENSES – R.C. 2925.03: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from his person where there was reasonable suspicion to stop him, permitting the officers to conduct a protective sweep of defendant’s person where a firearm, narcotics, and drug paraphernalia were recovered. The trial court erred in finding that defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the residence of his girlfriend where the record shows that defendant was an overnight guest and had an expectation of privacy. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment where the affidavit in support of the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The trial court erred by imposing separate sentences for two counts that were allied offenses that should have been merged at sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2925.03. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5075 |
State v. Williams
| C-240064, C-240037 | PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT – IMPROPER VOUCHING – PLAIN ERROR – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE: The prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of the State’s witnesses during closing argument by commenting that the witnesses were truthful, but defendant was limited to a plain-error review where no objection was raised to the comments, and the error was not reversible where defendant failed to establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the prosecutor’s comments. Where both the victim and an independent witness testified that defendant ordered his dog to attack the victim, and the victim testified that defendant hit her, defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/23/2024
|
10/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5076 |
In re C.C
| C-240373 | PERMANENT CUSTODY – JUV.R. 40 – MAGISTRATE’S DECISION –PLAIN ERROR - MANIFEST WEIGHT: The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody of father’s child to a children services agency where father failed to object to the magistrate’s decision, there was no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, and the factual findings in the magistrate’s decision supported the trial court’s judgment. Father’s claim that the trial court’s judgment granting permanent custody of his child to a children services agency was against the manifest weight of the evidence was meritless where father failed to object to the magistrate’s decision, the juvenile court’s judgment adopting the magistrate’s decision can only be reviewed for plain error, and a claim that a judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence can never rise to the level of plain error. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/18/2024
|
10/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5013 |
In re C.C.
| C-240365 | PARENTAL TERMINATION – MAGISTRATE – OBJECTIONS – JUV.R. 40 - INDEPENDENT REVIEW: The juvenile court failed to independently review the record following mother’s objections to the magistrate’s decision terminating her parental rights where the juvenile court’s judgment repeatedly referred to an appellate standard of review and held that the magistrate had not abused his discretion. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/18/2024
|
10/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5012 |
State v. Hinsch
| C-240032 | ATTEMPT — SEXUAL IMPOSITION — SEXUAL CONTACT —KNOWLEDGE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: The State’s evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of attempted sexual imposition because a rational trier of fact could find that the victim’s testimony and a recorded phone call proved that defendant made a substantial step towards touching the victim’s erogenous zone when he moved his hand up the victim’s leg and over her buttocks through her clothes; that defendant touched the victim to sexually arouse or gratify himself because defendant moaned as he touched the victim; and that defendant knew this sexual contact was offensive to the victim, defendant’s former stepdaughter, who viewed him as a father figure and froze when he touched her leg. Defendant’s conviction for attempted sexual imposition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim’s testimony established that defendant attempted to touch the victim’s erogenous zone to sexually arouse or gratify himself despite him knowing that this would offend the victim, and the victim’s testimony was corroborated by a recorded phone call played at trial. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4984 |
State v. Wilson
| C-230653 | MISTRIAL – CONSENT – EVIDENCE – DOUBLE JEOPARDY: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges against her on double-jeopardy grounds after sua sponte granting a mistrial in defendant’s first trial where defendant failed to oppose the declaration of a mistrial and instead consented. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4983 |
State v. Conley
| C-240223 | GUILTY PLEA – CRIM.R. 32.1 – PRESENTENCE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA: The trial court erred in denying defendant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the record shows that the trial court did not consider all of the appropriate factors at the hearing on his motion, and the defendant was not given an adequate opportunity to present his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4985 |
In re C.W.
| C-240383 | CONTINUANCE – OJBECTIONS – PLAIN ERROR – R.C. 2151.414 – PERMANENT CUSTODY: No plain error resulted from the trial court’s denial of a continuance that mother requested because she was incarcerated where mother’s counsel participated in the hearing in mother’s absence, mother was not prevented from utilizing an alternate vehicle to present her testimony, one continuance had already been granted because of mother’s incarceration, the hearing had been in progress for approximately seven months, and the child was in need of a permanent placement. The trial court’s determination that a grant of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was in the child’s best interest was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where mother had been unable to consistently visit with the child or participate in services due to her repeated incarceration, the child had been in agency custody for approximately 21 months at the time that the motion for permanent custody was filed, and the child was in need of a legally secure permanent placement that could not be obtained absent a grant of permanent custody. | Crouse | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4987 |
Lucas v. Ohio State Dental Bd.
| C-240272 | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL — REVIEW OF SANCTION — DENTAL LICENSE SUSPENSION — CAUSATION — ABUSE OF DISCRETION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the Ohio State Dental Board’s order suspending appellant-dentist’s dental license and increasing the sanction recommended by the hearing examiner even though one of the agency’s reasons for increasing the penalty based on the outcome of the dental surgery could only be interpreted as referring to the death of the appellant’s patient and there was no evidence in the record establishing a causal connection between the patient’s death and appellant’s violation of the standard of care, because appellant failed to challenge the agency’s separate and independent basis for increasing the sanction and was therefore unable to demonstrate error as courts must defer to an agency’s sanction provided that sanction is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4986 |
First Fin. Bank v. Tailored Fund Cap, L.L.C.
| C-230626 | R.C. 1309.332(B) — CONVERSION — UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE — UCC 9-332 – DEPOSIT ACCOUNT: Absent collusion between the transferee and the account holder, R.C. 1309.332(B) bars recovery for conversion by a party holding a first-priority security interest in accounts receivable from a transferee who takes these funds from a deposit account. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/16/2024
|
10/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4982 |
State v. Wallace
| C-220509, C-220510 | WAIVER – COMPETENCY – RIGHT TO COUNSEL – SELF-REPRESENTATION – CRIM.R. 44: The trial court erred by failing to engage in the necessary colloquy pursuant to Crim.R. 44 to determine whether defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, where the necessity of the colloquy was heightened by concerns surrounding defendant’s competency to stand trial. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/9/2024
|
10/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4886 |
In re L.D.
| C-240401 | PARENTAL TERMINATION – PERMANENT CUSTODY: In father’s appeal from the juvenile court’s decision terminating his parental rights and awarding permanent custody of his children to a children’s services agency, the juvenile court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: the children had been in the custody of the agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and father had a history of drug-related crimes and father abandoned the children. | Winkler | Hamilton |
10/9/2024
|
10/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4888 |
In re J.S.
| C-240116 | LEGAL CUSTODY — R.C. 2151.415(D)(3) — R.C. 2151.415(A)(3) — BEST INTEREST: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal custody to maternal grandparents under R.C. 2151.415(D)(3) and (A)(3) where the juvenile court appropriately considered the best-interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and the juvenile court’s best-interest findings were supported by competent and credible evidence in the record, and the juvenile court’s decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. [But see DISSENT: The practice of removing children from a parent-victim of domestic violence raises substantive due-process and policy concerns, and the juvenile court abused its discretion in awarding legal custody to maternal grandparents absent a sufficient finding that removing the children from a parent-victim was in their best interest.] | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/9/2024
|
10/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4887 |
State v. Griffin
| C-240039 | FELONIOUS ASSAULT – SELF-DEFENSE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – POST-RELEASE CONTROL – SENTENCING: Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the State disproved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not at fault for starting the affray. The trial court erred when it failed to advise defendant of the required post-release control notifications at sentencing. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/4/2024
|
10/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4806 |
Cincinnati ex rel. Miller v. Cincinnati
| C-230683 | R.C. 733.59 — TAXPAYER STANDING — PUBLIC RIGHT: Relator lacked standing as a taxpayer to challenge respondent city’s ordinance that excused density and setback requirements under the zoning code for a property owned by nonprofit intervenor-respondent, because a taxpayer has standing under R.C. 733.59 when the lawsuit seeks to vindicate a public right and relator failed to identify a public right that he sought to vindicate with his claims. | Bock | Hamilton |
10/4/2024
|
10/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4805 |
State v. Dod
| C-240197 | SENTENCING – JURISDICTION – COMMUNITY CONTROL: The trial court erred when it imposed a prison sentence subsequent to a community control violation, where the trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter its own final sentence and did not comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) when it failed to give defendant the statutorily required warnings. | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/4/2024
|
10/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4807 |
State v. Cook
| C-240241, C-240243 | DRUGS—EVIDENCE—SUFFICENCY—WEIGHT—CRIM.R. 11–SENTENCING–R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)–R.C. 2921.331(D): Defendant’s conviction for possession of heroin was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where body-worn camera footage showed and an officer testified that defendant was seated next to drugs in plain view, had numerous cell phones around his person, and had a large amount of cash on his person. Defendant’s guilty plea violated Crim.R. 11(C) and was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made because the trial court failed to advise defendant that a guilty plea to a failure to comply charge carries a mandatory consecutive sentence under R.C. 2921.331(D). The trial court erred when it failed to advise defendant at sentencing of the mandatory Regan Tokes Law advisements, pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i)-(v). | Kinsley | Hamilton |
10/2/2024
|
10/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4771 |
State v. Jackson
| C-230660, C-230661 | SEARCH AND SEIZURE – WEAPONS : The trial court did not err by suppressing evidence of firearms where officers did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop Defendants’ vehicle and to effectuate a felony arrest because Defendants did not obstruct official business by driving away from officers without being commanded to stop and because the circumstances otherwise did not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. [See CONCURRENCE: The inevitable discovery doctrine may have rendered the warrantless search of guns found in plain view in the backseat of a car reasonable under the Fourth Amendment had the State preserved it for appellate review.] [But See DISSENT: The police had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that justified an investigative stop where the officers had been informed earlier in the day that shots had been fired on the same street as the stop and that tensions were rising between groups of juveniles, it was in a high-crime area, it was rainy and dark when the officers approached the car with tinted windows preventing them from seeing inside, and defendants made furtive movements before fleeing the scene.] | Bergeron | Hamilton |
10/2/2024
|
10/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4770 |
S&T Bank, Inc. v. Advance Merchant Servs.
| C-230448 | CIV.R. 12(B)(2) — PERSONAL JURISDICTION — CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM — CIVIL CONSPIRACY — FRAUD — INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT: The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff bank’s claims for fraud and civil conspiracy against certain defendant merchant cash advance entities where the complaint alleges that certain defendant merchant cash advance entities had actual knowledge of the financial insolvency of the borrower and actual knowledge that the borrower was unlawfully kiting funds from certain banks including plaintiff bank to repay debts, including repayment of the financing provided by the merchant cash advance entities, yet continued to advance substantial sums of money to the borrower only with shorter repayment periods and higher daily withdraw requirements. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff bank’s claim for interference with a security agreement where, regardless of whether all the other elements of the claim are met, the complaint failed to adequately alleged resulting damages. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff bank’s claims against certain defendant merchant cash advance entities for lack of personal jurisdiction where the complaint failed to allege any facts indicating that these entities transacted business in Ohio or caused tortious injury in Ohio, or that these entities were merely alter egos of other defendant merchant cash advance entities. | Zayas | Hamilton |
10/1/2024
|
10/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4757 |
State ex rel. Parikh v. Berkowitz
| C-240187 | ORIGINAL WRITS – MANDAMUS –PROHIBITION – R.C. 1901.31 – Sup.R.44-47:The municipal court judges had a clear legal right to order the clerk to rescind a policy that disabled remote online access to certain categories of case documents. The clerk had a clear legal duty to follow the administrative order instructing him to rescind the policy and restore case access. The municipal court judges lacked an adequate remedy at law because neither holding the clerk in contempt nor a declaratory judgment could compel the clerk to restore access. The clerk was not entitled to a writ of prohibition because the municipal court judges acted within their authority to prevent the clerk from usurping a judicial power, namely the power to balance if an individual’s privacy interests outweigh the public’s right to access court records. The clerk acted beyond the scope of his office in issuing a policy disabling remote online access to certain cases and disobeying his court’s order to rescind the policy and restore access. | Piper | Hamilton |
9/27/2024
|
9/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4686 |
State v. Rodriguez
| C-240065 | SENTENCING – R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) – POSTRELEASE-CONTROL NOTIFICATIONS: The trial court did not err by imposing a prison term for defendant’s felonious-assault conviction where the record reflects that the court considered the sentencing factors and found that the presumption of prison was not rebutted. The trial court erred by failing to advise defendant of the postrelease-control notifications under R.C. 2919.19(B)(2)(c). | Zayas | Hamilton |
9/25/2024
|
9/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4653 |
State v. Potter
| C-230424 | JURISDICTION – MOOT – COMPETENCY: Defendant’s appeal was moot where, during a community- control-revocation hearing, the trial court dismissed the charges after finding defendant incompetent without a substantial probability defendant would become competent within one year. | Zayas | Hamilton |
9/25/2024
|
9/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4652 |
State v. White
| C-240093 | JURISDICTION – MOOT – STAY OF SENTENCE – ABANDONMENT OF ANIMALS – R.C. 959.01 – SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE: Where the trial court elected to exercise its discretion not to impose a monetary or community-control sentence on appellant’s conviction for abandoning animals, an appeal from that conviction was not moot where appellant requested, and the trial court denied, a stay of sentence pending appeal. Appellant’s convictions for abandoning animals in violation of R.C. 959.01 were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence established that appellant intentionally abdicated her responsibility towards the animals and did not intend to care for them herself, and where, at the time of their recovery, the animals had not been cared for in four days and one was found in a locked crate in a room filled with inches of cold water. | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/25/2024
|
9/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4654 |
State v. Ware
| C-240097 | HAVING A WEAPON WHILE UNDER A DISABILITY – R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) – SECOND AMENDMENT – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL: The trial court did not err by concluding that defendant’s juvenile adjudication created a disability under R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) where defendant was adjudicated for an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense involving a drug of abuse. The trial court’s judgment regarding the constitutionality of the weapons-under-a-disability statute is vacated and the cause is remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, __ U.S. __, 144 S.Ct. 1889 (2024). | Zayas | Hamilton |
9/25/2024
|
9/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4655 |
In re C.A.
| C-240335 | PERMANENT CUSTODY – BEST INTEREST: The trial court did not err in granting permanent custody of three of mother’s children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Service, where all the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) were met, requiring a finding that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest, where mother had failed to remedy the conditions that had initially caused the children to be placed outside the home, she had problems with cognitive functioning and out-of-control behaviors, and she lacked the ability to meet the children’s special needs. | Winkler | Hamilton |
9/20/2024
|
9/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4600 |
Health Carousel Travel Network, L.L.C. v. Alecto Healthcare Servs. Wheeling, L.L.C.
| C-230537 | SUCCESOR LIABILITY; DE FACTO MERGER; BUSINESS CONTINUATION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The trial court did not err in granting defendant corporation’s motion for summary judgment and finding that plaintiff creditor corporation failed to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant’s purchase of a prior debtor corporation was a de facto merger or a mere business continuation. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
9/20/2024
|
9/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4599 |
Tauchert v. Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
| C-230566 | CIV.R. 56 — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — WRONGFUL DEATH — DUTY — CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE — LANDOWNER: In this wrongful-death action, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant property owner where, when considering either the rural or urban standard of care for a landowner with trees abutting a public highway, issues of material fact remained as to the condition of the tree that fell onto the roadway and caused the accident that ultimately led to the decedent’s death. [See CONCURRENCE: The Supreme Court of Ohio should abandon the categorical urban-rural distinction holding urban landowners to a higher liability standard than rural landowners regarding tree-related hazards on their property that may affect passersby on roads abutting their property.] [But see DISSENT: Because Rumpke does not have a general duty to inspect the thousands of trees on its property, and Rumpke did not have actual or constructive notice of the defective condition of the particular tree prior to its fall onto decedent's vehicle, Rumpke cannot be held liable for the decedent's death as a matter of law.] | Zayas | Hamilton |
9/18/2024
|
9/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4551 |
State v. Hart
| C-240086 | APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – SENTENCING – R.C. 2929.11 – R.C. 2929.12: The trial court’s imposition of the maximum sentence of 18 months in prison for aggravated assault was not contrary to law where the trial court’s remarks and findings indicated that it had considered the purposes of felony sentencing and multiple statutory sentencing factors, and the sentence was within the permissible statutory range for a fourth-degree felony. | Bock | Hamilton |
9/18/2024
|
9/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4552 |
In re L.S.H.
| C-240310 | PARENTAL TERMINATION — PERMANENT CUSTODY — COUNSEL — MOTION TO WITHDRAW: The juvenile court properly granted permanent custody of the child to the agency where clear and convincing evidence supported its findings that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent and that a grant of permanent custody to the agency was in the best interest of the child. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s counsel’s motion to withdraw where: (1) the motion was made shortly before the dispositional hearing; (2) father was provided an opportunity to secure new counsel but chose not to do so; (3) father did not request additional time to secure a new attorney; (4) it was unclear whether father was competent to agree to the motion to withdraw; and (5) father’s current counsel, who had represented father for eight months prior, was familiar with the case. | Winkler | Hamilton |
9/18/2024
|
9/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4553 |
Voorhees v. Anderson Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
| C-240095 | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL – ZONING – APPELLATE REVIEW — FACIAL CHALLENGE: In an administrative appeal, the trial court did not err when it dismissed the counts in plaintiff landowner’s complaint requesting a declaratory judgment that a zoning ordinance was unconstitutional on its face because long-standing precedent prohibits parties from raising these claims in an administrative appeal. The trial court did not err as a matter of law when it affirmed the decision of the board of zoning appeals: its decision was not unsupported by the preponderance of the evidence where evidence presented at defendant zoning board’s hearing supported the defendant zoning board’s decision; its decision to affirm defendant zoning board’s interpretation of the zoning regulation was proper where the zoning regulation unambiguously states that plaintiff landowner’s corner lot has two front yards and the zoning regulation restricts the construction of six-foot tall fences in plaintiff landowner’s front yard; and plaintiff landowner failed to show that the application of the zoning regulations to his property violated his constitutional rights. | Bock | Hamilton |
9/11/2024
|
9/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4459 |
Best Fin. Solutions, L.L.C. v. Tifton Custom Parking, L.L.C.
| C-230518 | CIVIL FRAUD — PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL — EVIDENCE —MANIFEST WEIGHT: The trial court did not err in entering final judgment against defendant following the jury’s fraud verdict where the prior trial court’s order granting a new trial was void because it was issued during the pendency of an appeal. The civil fraud verdict was not against the weight of the evidence where evidence established that defendant misrepresented the ownership of assets pledged as collateral to secure investments from plaintiff and the jury was otherwise free to find defendant not credible. | Bock | Hamilton |
9/11/2024
|
9/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4458 |
In re T.E.
| C-240144 | PROBATE – GUARDIANSHIP – INCOMPETENCY – R.C. 2111.01 – R.C. 2111.02: Where petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence of incompetency, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s application for a guardianship over the allegedly incompetent person and denying petitioner’s motion to have the alleged incompetent be made available for a medical examination. | Crouse | Hamilton |
9/6/2024
|
9/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3410 |
State v. Daniels
| C-240085 | MOTION TO SUPPRESS – TRAFFIC STOP: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered from defendant’s vehicle following a traffic stop, because police officers had probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion to conduct defendant’s traffic stop: the police officer testified unequivocally that defendant had failed to use a signal when moving from the right lane to the left lane in violation of Cincinnati Mun.Code 506-80, and the rear and side windows of defendant’s vehicle were heavily tinted. | Winkler | Hamilton |
9/4/2024
|
9/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3392 |
In re D.B.
| C-240076, C-240077, C-240078 | JUVENILE – DELINQUENCY – FELONIOUS ASSAULT – IDENTITY – DISCHARGE OF A FIREMARM – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY: The juvenile court’s adjudications of defendant juvenile as delinquent of two counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and one count of discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) were based on insufficient evidence because the State failed to present evidence that established the identity of the juvenile as the shooter. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
9/4/2024
|
9/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3391 |
State v. Green
| C-230551 | BRADY VIOLATION – MATERIALITY – PREJUDICE – ASSAULT – NEW TRIAL: Defendant stated a meritorious Brady claim because the State failed to disclose a recorded statement of the sole eyewitness in which the witness disclosed bias against defendant and a motive to fabricate the allegations. Defendant’s conviction for assault was based on sufficient evidence where a witness testified defendant, an employee at a group home, slapped a client who was functionally impaired in the face, causing the client to hunch down as if in pain. | Kinsley | Hamilton |
8/28/2024
|
8/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3260 |
State v. Gilliam
| C-240153 | SENTENCING – R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) – REAGAN TOKES NOTIFICATIONS: The trial court did not err by imposing a mandatory prison term for defendant’s felonious-assault conviction because R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) requires a prison term for the offense when the offender had a firearm on his person or under his control while committing the offense, and defendant pled guilty to having a firearm while committing the felonious assault. The trial court erred by failing to advise defendant of certain Reagan Tokes Law notifications under R.C. 2919.19(B)(2)(c). | Zayas | Hamilton |
8/28/2024
|
8/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3264 |
State v. Marshall
| C-230664 | DNA TESTING: The trial court abused its discretion by failing to explain why it denied defendant’s application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71 et seq. | Winkler | Hamilton |
8/28/2024
|
8/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3262 |
Hill v. Schildmeyer
| C-230570 | PROCEDURE/RULES – CIV.R. 12(C) – JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS – JUDICIAL NOTICE – IMMUNITY – R.C. 2744.03 – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: The trial court did not err when it struck video evidence defendant police officer had attached to his reply in support of his motion for judgment on the pleadings because the videos were not part of the pleadings; further, the trial court properly declined defendant’s invitation to take judicial notice of the video evidence where the contents of the videos were not “adjudicative facts” and thus, not an appropriate matter for which a court may take judicial notice. The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings where plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the malice exception to government-employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), because plaintiff alleged his arrest and criminal charges by defendant police officer were racially motivated. | Bock | Hamilton |
8/28/2024
|
8/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3261 |
|