|
|
State v. McGee
| 25AP-625 | Appellant filed a motion for resentencing averring that several Constitutional rights were violated when he received consecutive sentences for firearm specifications and that the Supreme Court of Ohio case of State v. Beatty prohibited the consecutive sentences. Appellant’s motion for resentencing is treated as a postconviction petition and is untimely, filed almost two years after the completion of his direct appeal. Appellant’s argument fails on Double Jeopardy as firearm specifications are not offenses but enhancements and, as such, are not subject to merger. Supreme Court of Ohio case State v. Beatty is distinguishable from appellant’s case because it addressed felonies committed as part of the same act or transaction and addresses statutory interpretation—not constitutional rights. Although citing case law, appellant failed to allege how equal protection was violated in his case. Appellant failed to show that trial counsel was ineffective or that such failure demonstrated prejudice. The doctrine of res judicata bars all arguments through a motion for resentencing as each of these arguments could have been made or were made in appellant’s direct appeal. Judgement affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/21/2026
|
5/21/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1851 |
|
State v. Hipps
| 25AP-476 | Conviction and sentence affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for mistrial because of hearsay evidence, because appellant failed to show that a fair trial was no longer possible. To the extent appellant argued the evidence was improper character evidence, that argument was not raised before the trial court and therefore was not considered on appeal. Jury’s verdicts were not based on insufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/21/2026
|
5/21/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1850 |
|
Johnson v. Fifth Third Bancorp
| 25AP-924 | The trial court did not err in determining the accrual date of appellant’s claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress and concluding both claims are grounded in the same allegations, thus subjecting the claims to a one-year statute of limitations. Because appellant filed his complaint more than one year after the accrual date, the trial court correctly determined the claims are time-barred and must be dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Additionally, the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was an adjudication on the merits, and the trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1831 |
|
Eble v. Mingo
| 25AP-905 | ORIGINAL WRITS – MANDAMUS – PROHIBITION: In original action seeking a writ prohibiting the environmental court judge from overseeing his probation in his environmental case or, in the alternative, ordering the environmental court judge to handle his probation differently, petitioner has not shown he is entitled to either a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition. Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate’s decision and grant the environmental court judge’s motion to dismiss. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1829 |
|
State ex rel. Walker v. Bolin
| 25AP-133 | Relator failed to file an objection to the magistrate’s recommendation to deny his writ of mandamus. The magistrate found that relator failed to establish that respondent had a clear legal duty to alter the calculation of his prison term or the date of his first hearing before the parole board. Finding no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, it is adopted in full and the relator’s complaint is denied. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1822 |
|
State v. Clinton
| 25AP-909 | CRIM.R. 33(B) — UNAVOIDABLY PREVENTED — NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence without a hearing where defendant failed to explain why evidence from an independent, competing gunshot residue expert could had not been discovered prior to, at the time of, or 120 days after the verdict was rendered and defendant had received the state's gunshot residue expert evidence prior to trial. Thus defendant failed to demonstrate he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds upon which he now relies to support his new-trial motion. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1830 |
|
State v. Pippins
| 25AP-865; 25AP-866; 25AP-867 | Trial court did not err by denying untimely petition for postconviction relief without a hearing. Trial court lacked jurisdiction over the petition because it was not timely filed and petitioner failed to demonstrate that he met the statutory criteria for an exception to the timeliness requirement. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the petition, it was not required to hold a hearing on the petition. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1827 |
|
Underwood v. McGee
| 25AP-691 | The court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal because the decision and entry from which it is taken was not a final, appealable order. The decision and entry neither affected appellants' substantial rights, nor did it contain the language required by Civ.R. 54(B). Appeal dismissed. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1825 |
|
State ex rel. Tanyhill v. Indus. Comm.
| 25AP-187 | On objections to magistrate's decision denying relator's petition for a writ of mandamus ordering respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate denial of scheduled-loss compensation for partial loss of vision and to issue a new order awarding said compensation. The Industrial Commission did not err by refusing to rely on relator's proffered expert report, there is some evidence in the record supporting its decision to deny scheduled-loss compensation, and even if the independent expert opinion that was relied on by the Industrial Commission is excluded, the relator has failed to identify any evidence establishing his entitlement to scheduled-loss benefits. The magistrate correctly concluded that the relator has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the requested benefits or that the Industrial Commission had a clear legal duty to provide such benefits. Objections overruled and writ denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1823 |
|
Gordon v. Brown
| 25AP-870 | On petition for writ of mandamus. Relator's petition does not comply with case-captioning requirements set forth in R.C. 2731.04, and case dismissed without prejudice. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1828 |
|
State ex rel. Wright v. State
| 25AP-994 | Relator filed no objections to the magistrate’s decision recommending dismissal of relator’s complaint in mandamus for failure to file an affidavit disclosing civil litigation activity against governmental parties, as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). Review of the magistrate’s decision reveals no error of law or other evident defect and is adopted. The respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, relator’s motion to supplement the record is denied, and the complaint for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1832 |
|
In re B.W.
| 25AP-619 | Petition for post conviction relief denied. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying B.W.’s petition without a hearing, as there do not appear to be substantive grounds for relief nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in judging the credibility of B.W.’s affidavits. | Boggs | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1824 |
|
Jefferson Capital Sys., L.L.C. v. Darko
| 25AP-775 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellee sufficiently proved ownership of the account and the balance of the account, and the court did not deprive appellant of due process by ruling on the motion for summary judgment rather than proceeding to trial. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1826 |
|
Eric Petroleum Corp. v. Vendel
| 24AP-272 and 24AP-275 | Motion for reconsideration granted in part because it identified an obvious error in the underlying decision; namely, the decision erroneously stated that the notice of appeal filed before the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission alleged that appellee’s option to participate was at issue in the Columbiana County litigation. Nevertheless, the outcome of the underlying decision remained unaltered. Appellee lacked standing to appeal to the Commission because it failed to demonstrate that the unitization order it appealed adversely affected its option to participate. Motion for reconsideration denied to the extent that appellee argued standing is not jurisdictional in administrative appeals. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1821 |
|
State v. Gordon
| 24AP-196 | Appellant failed to demonstrate his entitlement to an exception that would allow the trial court to consider his untimely postconviction relief petition, therefore the trial court did not possess jurisdiction to entertain the petition and did not err in dismissing appellant’s petition without a hearing. Moreover, assuming the trial court possessed jurisdiction, appellant’s arguments are barred by res judicata. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/19/2026
|
5/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1820 |
|
State v. S.A.A.
| 25AP-967 | The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief because the petition was untimely, and no exception set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A) applied. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
5/14/2026
|
5/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1782 |
|
Moran Foods, L.L.C. v. Sunshine Stores, L.L.C.
| 25AP-617 | In this action for confirmation of an arbitration award, the trial court did not err by dismissing the counterclaims filed by appellants, whose only recourse to challenge the arbitration award was as provided in R.C. Chapter 2711. Civ.R. 13(A) does not apply to proceedings to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award. A counterclaim for damages is neither authorized by statute nor required by Civ.R. 13(A) in this context. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion to vacate the arbitration award or by granting appellee’s application to confirm the arbitration award. Appellants did not demonstrate that the arbitration award was the result of corruption, fraud, or undue means, did not identify misconduct by the arbitrators, and did not establish the arbitrators issued an award that conflicted with the express terms of the parties’ agreements or that cannot be rationally derived from the terms of the agreements. Nor did appellants demonstrate a basis under R.C. 2711.11 to warrant modification of the arbitration award. Finally, with appellants having agreed to the filing of dispositive motions in the arbitration proceedings and having not objected to the arbitration panel’s decision for lack of an oral, evidentiary hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the arbitration panel did not exceed its authority by deciding this matter on a motion for summary judgment. | Boggs | Franklin |
5/14/2026
|
5/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1781 |
|
Moran Foods, L.L.C. v. Sunshine Stores, L.L.C.
| 25AP-205 & 25AP-680 | In case No. 25AP-205, the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a receiver to manage the assets of appellant Sunshine Stores, L.L.C., without first considering the effect of the Uniform Commercial Code sale, in which appellee Moran Foods, LLC, purchased the bulk of Sunshine Stores’ assets, over which the receivership had been requested. Case No. 25AP-680, which challenged the subsequent actions of the receiver, is reversed based on the determination in case No. 25-AP-205 that the appointment of the receiver itself was erroneous. | Boggs | Franklin |
5/14/2026
|
5/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1780 |
|
Wilkes v. Williams
| 25AP-743 | JURISDICTION – DAMAGES: R.C. 1901.17 limits a municipal court’s jurisdiction to those civil matters involving amounts in controversy of $15,000 or less. The municipal court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over, and properly dismissed, tenant’s action against landlords seeking damages in an amount that exceeded the monetary limit established by R.C. 1901.17. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/12/2026
|
5/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1727 |
|
Hartman v. State Med. Bd.
| 25AP-159 | On administrative appeal from the agency’s permanent revocation of appellant’s medical license. The trial court did not err in affirming the agency’s decision based on appellant’s failure to follow rules governing office-based surgical procedures, his sexual misconduct, and his deviation from the minimal standards of care, in violation of Adm.Codes 4731-25-05 and 4731-26-02, and R.C. 4731.22(B)(6) and (20). Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
5/12/2026
|
5/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1726 |
|
Hasan v. Franklin Cty. Medicaid Dept.
| 25AP-763 | The trial court did not err by granting the appellees’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions to dismiss. Appellant’s sole cause of action in his complaint alleges that the appellees violated Section 21(A) of the Ohio Constitution. However, appellant failed to allege a federal, state, or local law or rule that compelled him, either directly or indirectly, to participate in Medicaid or any other healthcare system. Moreover, appellant also failed to provide any allegation or information that he was subject to levied penalties or fines if he did not participate in the healthcare system. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/12/2026
|
5/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1728 |
|
State v. Thompson
| 24AP-92, 24AP-104 | Conviction for complicity to failure to comply with an order of a police officer was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the evidence presented at trial established that appellant verbally encouraged and incited driver to flee location of traffic stop. Trial court did not err by denying motion to dismiss indictment for having weapons under disability because R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), as applied to appellant, was consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulations and did not violate the Second Amendment. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/12/2026
|
5/12/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1725 |
|
Villavicencio v. Mingo
| 25AP-891 | On review of magistrate’s decision recommending dismissal of relator’s mandamus action due to improper captioning and the failure to show the existence of a clear legal right or clear legal duty. Having found no error with the magistrate’s decision, we adopt it in full. | Dingus | Franklin |
5/7/2026
|
5/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1665 |
|
State v. Davic
| 24AP-755 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when overruling appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1 because he did not demonstrate the manifest injustice required to overcome the res judicata bar on postsentence plea withdrawal. Appellant’s arguments are all subject to res judicata, as they rely entirely on the trial court record available during the direct appeal. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/7/2026
|
5/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1662 |
|
Hood v. Hood
| 25AP-904 | On appeal from a trial court’s order adopting a magistrate’s decision that granted appellee’s motion to terminate shared parenting plan, and which designated appellee as the sole legal custodian and residential parent of the parties’ minor child. Appellant failed to file objections to the decision prior to filing an appeal as required under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i). Further, appellant failed to order transcripts of the two hearings underlying the decision as required under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) and App.R. 9(B)(1). Appellant forfeited his arguments on appeal and did not otherwise establish plain error. Judgment affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
5/7/2026
|
5/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1666 |
|
State v. Hayes
| 25AP-709 | Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief and argues that the trial court erred by relying on the doctrine of res judicata to deny his petition, that his due process rights were violated, and the trial court failed to file separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. On review, defendant's postconviction petition was summary in nature, did not specify the nature of his claims, and did not attach or point to any specific evidence outside the record to support his claims. Moreover, defendant's petition asserted only claims that were known and presented during his trial proceedings without objection. Accordingly, defendant's assignments of error are overruled and the trial court's judgment denying his petition is affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/7/2026
|
5/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1663 |
|
State ex rel. Woodard v. Anderson
| 25AP-792 | Appellant seeks a writ of mandamus to order the parole board to hold a hearing to reconsider the evidence and find him not guilty of parole violations. The court adopts the magistrate’s decision denying writ of mandamus as there is no clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide such relief, and there remains an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Writ of mandamus denied. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/7/2026
|
5/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1664 |
|
State v. Brown
| 24AP-699 | Alleged defect in municipal court complaint did not render judgment of conviction and sentence invalid, because appellant was tried and convicted on the charge contained in a grand jury indictment filed in the common pleas court, not on the charge contained in the municipal court complaint. Appellant’s statutory right to a speedy trial was not violated, because although more than 270 days passed between his arrest and trial, fewer than 270 days were attributable to the state due to tolling and waiver. Appellant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated because although the length of delay was presumptively prejudicial, consideration of the balancing factors weighed against finding a constitutional violation. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/5/2026
|
5/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1622 |
|
State ex rel. Wright v. Franklin Cty. Mun. Court
| 25AP-935 | The magistrate correctly found relator has failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A). Specifically, relator did not file in conjunction with his petition a properly executed affidavit attesting to his prior civil filings. Further, even if the affidavit attesting to his prior civil filings had been properly executed, it failed to list any civil actions or appeals that relator filed in the previous five years in state or federal court. Accordingly, this court grants the motion to dismiss filed by respondent and dismisses relator’s action. Writ of mandamus denied; complaint dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/5/2026
|
5/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1626 |
|
Sattelmyer v. Covidien, L.L.C.
| 25AP-319 | PRODUCT LIABILITY – CIV.R. 12(B)(6) – NOTICE PLEADING – CIV.R. 8: Because plaintiff pled sufficient facts to support her manufacturing-defect and design-defect claims under the Ohio Product Liability Act, R.C. 2307.71 et seq., the trial court erred by applying the heightened federal pleading standard and granting defendant-manufacturers’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's product liability claims. However, because plaintiff failed to articulate facts that would provide defendants with adequate notice of her nonconformance with representations and inadequate warning or instructions claims, the trial court did not err in dismissing these claims under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/5/2026
|
5/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1623 |
|
State v. Abukar
| 25AP-354 | Appeal dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. The sentencing entry does not identify the offense by name or statute and therefore does not constitute a single entry or one document that satisfies the requirements of Crim.R.32(C) as it is missing the fact of conviction. Therefore, appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/5/2026
|
5/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1624 |
|
Toledo v. State
| 25AP-872 | The trial court did not err in determining R.C. 5703.38 removed its subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Toledo’s claims related to the state’s enforcement of the spending setoff provisions of R.C. 5747.502. However, though the trial court correctly determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter, the trial court erroneously entered judgment “on the merits” rather than dismissing the action. Thus, we modify the trial court’s decision and judgment entry to reflect the matter is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/5/2026
|
5/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1625 |
|
State ex rel. Preston v. Inst. Inspector Lloyd
| 25AP-663 | Relator failed to file in conjunction with his complaint for mandamus the written affirmation required by R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted. Respondent’s motion to strike relator’s brief denied as moot. No objections filed by either party. Magistrate’s decision adopted. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1572 |
|
Bushong v. Bushong
| 25AP-669 | Trial court did not err in proceeding to final judgment because it retained jurisdiction absent the filing of a judgment entry of dismissal. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal as to the July 21, 2025 judgment, but failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to the June 24, 2025 judgment. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction to review the June 24, 2025 judgment. We affirm the July 21, 2025 judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations. | Leland | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1573 |
|
Huntington Natl. Bank v. He
| 25AP-203 | Both parties moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment was issued in favor of Appellee. Appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that a genuine issue of material fact existed and did not meet her reciprocal burden on summary judgement. Affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1568 |
|
State ex rel. Barnette v. Chambers-Smith
| 25AP-398 | MANDAMUS — SENTENCE COMPUTATION – R.C. 2929.191: On petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) to modify its computation of relator’s aggregate prison sentence of life without parole, the magistrate properly found that, contrary to relator’s argument otherwise, the 2020 decision of the Seventh District Court of Appeals reversing and vacating the trial court’s 2019 sua sponte imposition of post-release control for kidnapping convictions through an improperly termed “resentencing” hearing had no impact on the trial court’s 2011 judgment imposing two sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for two counts of aggravated murder, which was affirmed on direct appeal in 2014. As such, relator failed to establish, as a matter of law, a clear legal right to the requested relief or that respondent was under a clear legal duty to provide it. Writ denied. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1571 |
|
Newman v. Greater Columbus Arts Council
| 25AP-238 | On appeal from the Court of Claims’ decision that partially granted and partially denied the appellant’s public records request for records possessed by appellees Film Columbus and/or its parent organization, the Greater Columbus Arts Council. The Court of Claims held that (1) many of the requested records did not exist, (2) some of the records were financial records related to contracts with public offices subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.431, (3) the remainder of the records were not financial records, and (4) appellees did not have to disclose the remaining records under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, because the appellees were not functionally equivalent to public offices pursuant to the factors articulated in State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 2006-Ohio-4854. The Court of Claims properly distinguished appellees’ financial records from its other records. The court erred by failing to properly articulate its assessment of the Oriana House factors, leaving the appellate court unable to evaluate the validity of the court’s conclusion that appellees were not subject to the general provisions of the Public Records Act. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1569 |
|
State v. Lindsey
| 23AP-588 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lindsey’s first, second, third, and fourth grounds for postconviction relief. The trial court did not err by denying Lindsey’s seventh ground for postconviction relief without a hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1567 |
|
Wooden v. Marysville Animal Care Ctr.
| 25AP-379 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision. Trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s finding that the contract was vague and that the parties orally modified the contract which was reflected in their course of conduct. The magistrate did not err in excluding evidence as violative of the parol evidence rule. Appellant’s allegation that the trial court was improperly motivated by bias and sympathy was not supported by evidence to rebut the presumption of the regularity of the proceedings. The trial court’s decision does not indicate that the concept of pretext was a motivating factor in its determination nor did the trial court or magistrate err in finding certain testimony not credible as it is within the scope of the trier of fact to believe or disbelieve testimony. Trial court did not err in not addressing appellant’s counterclaim for damages and the trial court found that appellant materially breached the agreement. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1570 |
|
Bear River Dispensaries, L.L.C. v. Canepa
| 25AP-760 | R.C. 3780.10(B) required applicants to possess a license to operate a medical marijuana dispensary at the time of application in order to be eligible for a 10(B) license. Because appellant did not meet this condition, the trial court did not err in granting the Division’s motion for summary judgment. Assignment of error overruled; judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1574 |
|
Bahorek v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
| 25AP-164 | In R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a), the General Assembly implemented conditions that limit property owners from challenging the undervaluation of another’s property for tax purposes. In effect, those conditions shift the property tax burden from commercial property owners to ordinary Ohioans. Application of the R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) conditions blatantly treats properties differently by exposing some to a value correction while allowing others to remain undervalued. Thus, because R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) systematically and intentionally departs from the uniform valuation of real property, we hold it violates the uniform rule and is unconstitutional under Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution. | Leland | Franklin |
4/28/2026
|
4/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1523 |
|
Bahorek v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
| 25AP-10 to 25AP-64; 25AP-66 to 25AP-72; 25AP-76 to 25AP-81; 25AP-101 to 25AP-105; 25AP-107 to 25AP-126 | In R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a), the General Assembly implemented conditions that limit property owners from challenging the undervaluation of another’s property for tax purposes. In effect, those conditions shift the property tax burden from commercial property owners to ordinary Ohioans. Application of the R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) conditions blatantly treats properties differently by exposing some to a value correction while allowing others to remain undervalued. Thus, because R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) systematically and intentionally departs from the uniform valuation of real property, we hold it violates the uniform rule and is unconstitutional under Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution. | Leland | Franklin |
4/28/2026
|
4/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1526 |
|
Bahorek v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
| 25AP-165 | In R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a), the General Assembly implemented conditions that limit property owners from challenging the undervaluation of another’s property for tax purposes. In effect, those conditions shift the property tax burden from commercial property owners to ordinary Ohioans. Application of the R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) conditions blatantly treats properties differently by exposing some to a value correction while allowing others to remain undervalued. Thus, because R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) systematically and intentionally departs from the uniform valuation of real property, we hold it violates the uniform rule and is unconstitutional under Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution. | Leland | Franklin |
4/28/2026
|
4/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1524 |
|
Medley v. BMI Fed. Credit Union
| 25AP-632 | On pro se plaintiff's appeal from decision awarding attorney fees to defendant following decision granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's claims, awarding attorney fees, and remanding case to trial before magistrate on correct amount of attorney fee award. Plaintiff's assignments of error do not challenge the amount of attorney fees awarded but focus on the underlying judgment. Plaintiff's assignments of error lack legal merit and are overruled--record clearly established that plaintiff's claims for relief were unsupportable, that defendant was entitled to summary judgment, and that plaintiff owed the deficiency on auto loan amount to the defendant. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/28/2026
|
4/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1525 |
|
State v. Magan
| 25AP-306 | BENCH TRIAL — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — REJECTION OF PLEA OFFER — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: The testimony of defendant's live-in partner and her sister, along with photographic evidence of victim's injuries, was sufficient for the trial court to find defendant guilty of domestic violence assault and assault following a bench trial. Further, domestic violence conviction was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the record showed defendant knocked the victim to the ground and pinned her down by pressing his knee into her arm, thus causing “physical harm” as defined in R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). Although defendant presented a different account of events, the trial court judge was in the best position to evaluate discrepancies in witness testimony and determine witness credibility. As to the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim regarding defendant’s decision to reject the state’s plea offer, defendant failed to show his trial counsel inadequately advised him of the offer or that he was unaware of the potential consequences associated with rejecting it. Further, defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea offer prior to trial but for trial counsel’s conduct. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/23/2026
|
4/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1466 |
|
Robinson v. Judge Page
| 25AP-827 | A criminal defendant’s consent to the proceedings is irrelevant to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court of common pleas to hear felony cases. Because relator’s complaint failed to allege the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under any viable legal theory, we dismiss his complaint seeking a writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/23/2026
|
4/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1468 |
|
State ex rel. Justice v. State
| 25AP-801 | MANDAMUS - DISMISSAL - R.C. 2969.25 - R.C. 2731.04: The magistrate did not err in finding relator’s noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C) warranted dismissal of this action. Additionally, relator failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04 because relator did not bring the instant petition in the name of the state on the relation of relator. Motion to dismiss granted; action dismissed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/23/2026
|
4/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1467 |
|
Jackson v. Tyler
| 25AP-662 | Appellant’s failure to object to the magistrate’s decision waived all but plain error on review and prevented both the trial court and this court from reviewing a transcript of the magistrate’s hearing. We find no plain error and presume the regularity of the below proceedings. Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
4/21/2026
|
4/21/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1435 |
|
Wilson v. Montgomery
| 25AP-318 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee’s motion to intervene without an attached pleading as his motion clearly stated his purpose for intervening and the basis for his claims. The trial court’s order for genetic testing was not void as R.C. 3119.962 provides an alternative mechanism to rescind paternity acknowledgment through genetic testing without the time restrictions contained in R.C. 3111.28. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/21/2026
|
4/21/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1434 |
|
In re D.W.R.
| 24AP-31 | The appellant was denied due process because appellee’s key witness was permitted to testify against appellant even though he was incompetent under Evid.R. 601(B). Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/21/2026
|
4/21/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1433 |
|