|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Ohio House Republican Alliance v. Stephens
| 24AP-393 | The present appeal is a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). We hold the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion for preliminary injunction because the political question doctrine foreclosed judicial intervention in this dispute. Courts are not hall monitors duty-bound to intervene in every political squabble. The trial court’s order granting appellees’ motion for preliminary injunction is vacated and the cause is dismissed. | Leland | Franklin |
9/5/2024
|
9/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3416 |
|
Ames v. Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.
| 24AP-143 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Columbus City School District Board of Education because the board’s use of a consent agenda to authorize the payment of the district’s annual membership dues to the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding did not violate R.C. 121.22, the Open Meetings Act. | Jamison | Franklin |
9/5/2024
|
9/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3411 |
|
Woodbury Garden Homes v. Davis
| 23AP-693 | Appellant fails to demonstrate the trial court committed plain error in entering judgment in favor of appellee in this forcible entry and retainer action for nonpayment of rent. Judgment affirmed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
9/5/2024
|
9/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3414 |
|
State ex rel. Crabtree v. Hoying
| 24AP-45 | The magistrate properly found there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the parole board hearing officer’s finding that relator committed a violation of Rule 4 of the terms of his post-release control. The magistrate further properly found that because the post-release control violation was supported by sufficient evidence, relator failed to establish a clear legal right to the requested relief or that respondent was under a clear legal duty to provide such relief. Writ of mandamus denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/5/2024
|
9/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3415 |
|
Abouharga v. Elghadban
| 23AP-532 | The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for relief from a final judgment and decree of divorce because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding defendant’s motion. Civ.R. 60(B) does not apply to a motion for relief from judgment in which the movant claims failure of service of process, which affects the trial court’s jurisdiction. Because defendant claimed he was not served with process, the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion based on a failure to comply with the requirements of Civ.R. 60(B) and by not determining whether defendant had been properly served. | Boggs | Franklin |
9/5/2024
|
9/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3413 |
|
Greenlawn Cos. v. Canty
| 23AP-385 | Trial court failed to comply with R.C. 1923.09(B) by entering judgment in favor of a plaintiff who is a mobile home park operator without including in the judgment entry authority for the plaintiff to permit, in accordance with R.C. 1923.12, 1923.13(B) and 1923.14(B), the removal from the mobile home park and potential sale, destruction or transfer of ownership of the defendant’s mobile home. | Dorrian | Franklin |
9/5/2024
|
9/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3412 |
|
State ex rel. Holbrook v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-422 | The magistrate properly found there was some evidence in the record supporting respondent’s order terminating permanent total disability (“PTD”) compensation as of August 19, 2016. Further, the magistrate properly found there was some evidence in the record supporting respondent’s order finding an overpayment of PTD compensation from July 28, 2008, to the present based on a finding of fraud. Writ of mandamus denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/3/2024
|
9/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3375 |
|
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Williams
| 23AP-652 | On remand after appeal reversing trial court’s grant of summary judgment, the trial court erred in revisiting its previous conclusions regarding default judgment and the conditions precedent element of the foreclosure action because those portions of its earlier entry were not challenged on appeal. The trial court’s conclusion that the Bank failed to prove the amount owed on the mortgage by a preponderance of the evidence is supported by some competent, credible evidence in the record. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
9/3/2024
|
9/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3377 |
|
State v. Elliott
| 2AP-532 | Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no strong probability that the newly discovered evidence would change the outcome, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. The trial court did not err in: (1) excluding from evidence the co-defendant’s polygraph results, (2) excluding from evidence the statements the co-defendant made during the pre-test interviews, and (3) refusing to allow the polygraph examiner to testify. Also, the trial court did not violate defendant’s confrontation right when it prevented his counsel from cross-examining the co-defendant using the polygraph evidence. No violation of due process occurred when: (1) the prosecutor commented on the victim’s disabilities and social challenges during the opening statement, or (2) the trial court admitted testimony of the victim’s mother regarding the same topics. The trial court did not err in admitting other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B). Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Considering the totality of the circumstances, defendant’s complaints regarding his court-appointed counsel did not trigger the trial court’s duty to conduct further inquiry into those complaints. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/3/2024
|
9/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3376 |
|
State v. D.P.L.
| 23AP-649 | RESTITUTION - VALID FINAL JUDGMENT - SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION: Because the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to substantively reconsider and modify its valid final judgment after it was entered in 2016, defendant’s community control was successfully terminated in 2017, and defendant’s record of conviction was sealed in 2021, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s 2023 motions seeking to modify the restitution amount imposed, pursuant to plea agreement, at his 2016 sentencing without a hearing or in entering a judgment announcing its lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
8/29/2024
|
8/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3314 |
|
Barnett v. Johnson
| 23AP-538 | Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of insurance company on claims for uninsured motorist coverage. The plaintiff did not breach the subrogation provisions of her insurance policy because the policy did not require her to file suit against a tortfeasor in order to pursue a claim for uninsured motorist coverage. The insurance company was on notice of its potential subrogation rights and failed to take action to protect those rights. | Dorrian | Franklin |
8/27/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3254 |
|
In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor
| 24AP-127 | In this case, appellant sought the appointment of a new special prosecutor after the Columbus city attorney already complied with his request to appoint a special prosecutor. However, R.C. 2935.09 and 2935.10 do not grant appellant the right as a private citizen affiant to determine who the special prosecutor is or otherwise direct the course of a potential criminal investigation. Finally, given R.C. 2941.63 is inapplicable because there was no pending criminal case in the common pleas court, the trial court did not err in denying appellant's request to appoint a special prosecutor under that statute. The judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
8/27/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3258 |
|
Homestead Am., Ltd. v. Brown
| 23AP-377 & 23AP-382 | Judgment Reversed. The trial court erred by failing to grant appellants’ motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiffs submitted an unsuccessful bid to purchase multi-family residential property and sued the sellers’ real estate agent for fraud. Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial regarding the profits and fees they claimed they would have earned if they had purchased the property but did not present any evidence of their out-of-pocket losses resulting from the fraud. The jury returned a $3,540,739 verdict in favor of plaintiffs on their fraud claim. However, Ohio case law, the Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, and numerous out-of-state decisions demonstrated that when a defendant is liable to a plaintiff for fraud, but there is no contractual agreement between the parties, the plaintiff is limited to recovering their out-of-pocket losses. Accordingly, because the plaintiffs never had a consummated contract to purchase the property, they were limited to recovering their out-of-pocket losses resulting from the fraud. Because plaintiffs failed to present any evidence to establish their out-of-pocket damages, plaintiffs failed to establish the injury element of their fraud claim. | Edelstein | Franklin |
8/27/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3253 |
|
State v. Snowden
| 23AP-699 | The trial court erred in granting appellee’s request for judicial release pursuant to R.C. 2929.20. Appellee was not eligible for that release because his prison term was mandatory. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
8/27/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3255 |
|
State ex rel. Dews v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Bur. of Sentence Computation
| 24AP-212 | The magistrate did not err in concluding that relator failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the exact same legal arguments raised in relator’s mandamus complaint have already been rejected by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Moore, 154 Ohio St.3d 94, 2018-Ohio-3237. Motion to dismiss granted; action dismissed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
8/27/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3259 |
|
My Friend's Place in Unity v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs.
| 24AP-47 | The administrative searches of the Class II residential facilities were not constitutionally unreasonable searches and seizures. Further, the trial court did not err in affirming the order of the Department revoking appellants’ licenses to operate Class II residential facilities as the order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
8/27/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3257 |
|
State ex rel. Whirlpool Corp. v. Rice
| 22AP-361 | Relator Whirlpool seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order finding Whirlpool committed a violation of a specific safety requirement that proximately caused respondent Rice's injury. We adopt the magistrate's findings of fact but not all conclusions of law. We find no abuse of discretion in the commission's interpretation of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-05(C)(3) in its order finding Whirlpool committed a VSSR. We sustained the objections in part, overruled them in part, and rendered the others moot. Writ of mandamus denied. | Leland | Franklin |
8/27/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3252 |
|
State ex rel. Jones v. Adult Parole Auth.
| 22AP-74 | Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, we adopt it as our own, and grant relator a limited writ of mandamus ordering the parole board to hold a hearing, pursuant to R.C. 2967.132. | Jamison | Franklin |
8/27/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3251 |
|
Knight & Day Childcare Too v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
| 23AP-577 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. The trial court did not err in finding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction as appellant did not perfect its appeal under R.C. 119.12(A). | Per Curiam | Franklin |
8/22/2024
|
8/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3199 |
|
Madyda v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety
| 24AP-53 | R.C. 4507.23 – R.C. 4507.50 – UNJUST ENRICHMENT: Because deputy registrars were statutorily permitted to collect a $1.50 lamination fee from the class members even after the Department of Public Safety transferred the production of identification credentials from the deputy registrars to a private company, the court of claims did not err in concluding no constitutional violation occurred and granting judgment in the department’s favor on the certified class’s unjust enrichment claim. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
8/22/2024
|
8/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3201 |
|
Imperial Aviation Servs., L.L.C. v. Ohio State Univ.
| 23AP-751 | The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee. Appellant’s breach of contract and invasion of privacy claims failed as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
8/22/2024
|
8/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3200 |
|
Kevin O’Brien & Assocs. Co., LPA v. PLS Fin. Solutions of Ohio
| 23AP-77 | Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded. In an action filed by a law firm seeking unpaid court costs in collections cases allegedly advanced under a contingency fee agreement when representing a payday lender, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the lender because genuine issues of material fact existed as to the terms of the parties’ agreement. In addition, the trial court improperly weighed the evidence and made credibility when ruling on the summary judgment motion. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the lender on the firm’s the tortious interference with contract claim because the lender had unrebutted evidence that its representative had the authority to terminate the parties’ attorney-client relationship. | Mentel | Franklin |
8/20/2024
|
8/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3170 |
|
State ex rel. Randstad N. Am., Inc. v. Bullard
| 22AP-688 | WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – SCHEDULED-LOSS BENEFITS – R.C. 4123.57(B) – PARTIAL AMPUTATION – FUNCTIONAL LOSS OF USE: Because an injured worker’s loss of use of an amputated body part is an inherently permanent condition and there was some evidence in the record to support the commission’s finding that the considerable amputations of the injured worker’s left foot have functionally resulted in the worker’s total loss of use of his foot, for all practical intents and purposes, the commission did not abuse its discretion in awarding injured worker scheduled-loss compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B). Objections to magistrate’s decision sustained in part and overruled in part. | Edelstein | Franklin |
8/20/2024
|
8/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3169 |
|
McKinley v. Hall
| 23AP-367 | In an appeal of a divorce decree and judgment, the appellant failed to demonstrate the trial court erred in determining a mistrial was not warranted, in classifying and allocating of marital and separate assets and debts, in finding the appellant committed misconduct, and in making certain determinations concerning exhibits. Judgment affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
8/15/2024
|
8/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3100 |
|
In re E.W. v. Natl. Youth Advocate Program
| 23AP-684 | No objections have been filed to the magistrate’s decision and we find no error in the magistrate’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate’s decision, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein, as our own and conclude that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate she is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. | Boggs | Franklin |
8/15/2024
|
8/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3101 |
|
State ex rel. Brown v. Lynch
| 23AP-356 | Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, we adopt the decision as our own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, and grant respondent’s motion to dismiss relator’s petition for a writ of procedendo. | Jamison | Franklin |
8/15/2024
|
8/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3099 |
|
Internatl. Union of Heat & Frost Insulators, Local 50 v. Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Indus. Compliance, Bur. of Wage & Hour Administration
| 23AP-721 | PREVAILING WAGE COMPLAINT – R.C. 4115.16(A) APPEAL – SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION: In union’s R.C. 4115.16(A) appeal from the decision of the Ohio Department of Commerce, Division of Industrial Compliance, Bureau of Wage and Hour Administration dismissing its prevailing wage complaint alleging violations by subcontractor involved in a public dormitory construction project in Greene County, Ohio, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter because R.C. 4115.16(A) only confers jurisdiction “to the court of common pleas of the county where the violation is alleged to have occurred.” Since the parties agreed the subcontractor’s alleged violations did not occur in Franklin County, the judgment entered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is void. Judgment vacated; cause dismissed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
8/13/2024
|
8/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3078 |
|
Aetna Resources, L.L.C. v. Clark
| 23AP-670 & 23AP-671 | Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of law firm in malpractice complaint because appellant failed to establish that the law firm breached the standard of care. Appellant also failed to establish that the plaintiff in an interpleader complaint breached a contract by filing the interpleader complaint or breached a fiduciary duty to appellant. Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of law firm in interpleader complaint because the court failed to evaluate the services performed by the law firm prior to termination and the reasonable value of those services. | Dorrian | Franklin |
8/8/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3003 |
|
State ex rel. White v. Aveni
| 21AP-258 | On remand from the Supreme Court of Ohio to consider relator’s claim in procedendo requesting that the trial court rule on a pending motion. The matter is moot because the trial court ruled on the motion in question. Complaint dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
8/6/2024
|
8/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2976 |
|
State ex rel. Allen v. Miller
| 24AP-56 | The magistrate did not err in concluding that relator’s noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) warrants sua sponte dismissal of this action. Action dismissed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
8/6/2024
|
8/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2978 |
|
State ex rel. Davenport v. Tyack
| 23AP-596 | Relator failed to comply with all the filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25. Strick compliance is required. Relator’s objections are overruled, and we dismiss relator’s complaint for a writ of mandamus. | Jamison | Franklin |
8/6/2024
|
8/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2977 |
|
Chapman v. O'Shaughnessy
| 24AP-43 | Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim against county clerk of courts acting in her official capacity on grounds of sovereign immunity. Trial court properly granted summary judgment to surety company providing bond for county clerk of courts because bond was canceled prior to any alleged wrongdoing by the county clerk of courts. Trial court properly granted car dealership's motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's complaint and properly denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment against car dealership. | Dorrian | Franklin |
8/1/2024
|
8/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2926 |
|
State v. Foster
| 21AP-314, 22AP-589, 23AP-141 | Defendant-appellant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not clearly lose its way in weighing the credibility of the witness testimony and resolving conflicts in the evidence to conclude that the defendant was the assailant in this case. The trial court did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses by allowing, with the agreement of both the defendant and the state, a single witness to testify via videoconference. Any error in that regard was invited error and did not constitute grounds for reversal. The trial court did, however, err in denying the defendant’s timely first petition for postconviction relief based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. The defendant submitted evidence of his attorney’s admitted struggles with her mental and physical health, which she conceded negatively affected her ability to practice law while she was representing defendant, of counsel’s demonstrated neglect of other clients’ cases, and allegations of specific deficiencies in this case, all of which raised a triable issue of fact whether counsel’s representation of the defendant was deficient and whether that deficiency resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Defendant’s appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of his untimely second petition for postconviction relief is dismissed because the defendant did not assign as error the trial court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction over that petition. | Boggs | Franklin |
8/1/2024
|
8/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2924 |
|
Bruner Holdings, L.L.C. v. Sleeper
| 23AP-618, 23AP-619, 23AP-620, 23AP-621, 23AP-622, & 23AP-623 | The trial court did not err in determining appellees asserted a meritorious defense in support of their Civ.R. 60(B) motion and motion to vacate, but the trial court erred in ruling on the validity of the asserted meritorious defense. The trial court additionally erred in determining it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the cognovit action. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
8/1/2024
|
8/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2925 |
|
State v. Morgan
| 23AP-242 | Appellant's conviction for aggravated menacing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; however, trial court erred in ordering forfeiture of weapon as part of sentence. | Leland | Franklin |
7/30/2024
|
7/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2875 |
|
State ex rel. Hillman v. McIntosh
| 23AP-508 | Writ of procedendo denied and action is dismissed. Appellant has not established he is entitled to a writ of procedendo. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2821 |
|
Ezeh v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 23AP-648 | Court of Claims did not err by dismissing claim for unlawful kidnapping, because the claim was subject to a one-year statute of limitations and the complaint was filed more than one year after the offense dates alleged in the complaint. Court also did not err by dismissing complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to the extent it sought to assert a constitutional claim. | Dorrian | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2823 |
|
Adkins v. MedCentral Health Sys. Mansfield Hosp.
| 23AP-603 | Judgment reversed. A probate court’s finding of incompetency does not conclusively establish that the incompetent individual was of unsound mind for purposes of R.C. 2305.16. Viewing the summary judgment evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the injured party had continually been of unsound mind since the claims accrued. Therefore, because R.C. 2305.16 potentially tolled the applicable statutes of limitations and repose, the trial court erred by granting appellees’ motions for summary judgment. | Leland | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2822 |
|
Fikes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-115 | R.C. 2743.10 precludes this court from exercising jurisdiction over the merits of appellant’s argument that his case should not have been transferred to the court of claims administrative docket. Appeal dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2826 |
|
State ex rel. Canales v. Kron
| 23AP-738 | The magistrate properly concluded that relator failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 because relator failed to file a cashier’s statement with the information required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate’s decision as our own. Motion to dismiss granted; writ of mandamus denied; complaint dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2825 |
|
State v. Favours
| 23AP-130 & 23AP-131 | The trial court did not err and did not run afoul of the holding in State v. Jones, 171 Ohio St.3d 496, 2022-Ohio-4485, by ordering defendant to serve the sentence in his 2019 case consecutively to his sentence in his 2018 case for violation of his community control. The trial court also did not err by imposing a three-year sentence on the firearm specification to which defendant pled guilty or by adding that sentence to both the minimum and maximum terms of his indefinite sentence for involuntary manslaughter when it stated his aggregate sentence. The trial court’s imposition of an indefinite sentence for involuntary manslaughter did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights. The trial court did, however, err in its calculation and application of jail-time credit to defendant’s sentences in his 2018 and 2019 cases and by ordering the sentences in his 2018 and 2019 cases to run consecutively to his already terminated 2017 case. First, the court erroneously subtracted from defendant’s days of jail-time credit 730 days, which the court claimed to have credited to defendant’s 2017 case. But in the 2017 case, the trial court did not revoke defendant’s community control and did not impose a reserved prison sentence before discharging defendant from community control, and neither the state nor the defendant appealed the termination of the 2017 case. Because the trial court never imposed a prison term in the 2017 case, there was no prison sentence to reduce with application of jail-time credit. The trial court committed a clerical error because its judgment entry set out a different sentence for the offense of involuntary manslaughter than it had announced during the sentencing hearing. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2819 |
|
State ex rel. Smalley v. Lauth
| 23AP-700 | Magistrate’s decision sustaining respondent’s motion to dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and dismissing petition is adopted and petition dismissed, where petitioner filed no objections and petitioner could not demonstrate that he had a clear legal right to relief. Respondent ODRC’s alleged violation of its internal policy did not create a legal duty enforceable in mandamus. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2824 |
|
State v. Lyons
| 23AP-194 | The trial court erred in waiving the mandatory fine required to be imposed by R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d)(iii), R.C. 2929.18(B)(3), and R.C. 2929.19(C)(2), and further erred in failing to note the mandatory term of incarceration in its sentencing entry. Judgment vacated; cause remanded with instructions. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/25/2024
|
7/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2820 |
|
State ex rel. David v. Indus. Comm.
| 22AP-380 | In this action in mandamus concerning claimant’s eligibility for temporary total disability compensation, the SHO’s clear legal error of its misapplication of the AutoZone decision and in ignoring R.C. 4123.56(F), which was enacted in 2020 specifically to “supersede judicial decisions applying the voluntary abandonment doctrine,” taints the SHO’s entire ruling. Such a clear legal error can only be rectified by remanding the matter to the commission for the proper analysis. Objections of relator overruled; limited writ of mandamus granted; and matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/23/2024
|
7/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2790 |
|
State v. Welch
| 23AP-462 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant’s motion is barred by res judicata. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/18/2024
|
7/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2722 |
|
State v. Jackson
| 23AP-388 | Appellant’s convictions for murder and tampering with evidence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Luper Schuster | Franklin |
7/18/2024
|
7/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2721 |
|
Palmieri v. Palmieri
| 21AP-146 | In this divorce action, the trial court erred in failing to equally and/or equitably divide the parties’ marital debt as it relates to the division of assets and liabilities of the parties and failed to allocate the Chase credit card debt. The trial court further erred in failing to make adequate findings and conclusion or indicate any consideration of the factors contained in R. C. § 3105.171(F) as it relates to the allocation of marital debt. In addition, the trial court erred in allocating all personal property located in pods and storage units to Sharon contrary to the parties’ in-court stipulation, and further erred in finding that the parties waived valuation of all personal property; that the parties waived their rights to written findings of fact; and that the parties agreed that the distribution of personal property, while if not precisely equal, is in fact equitable and in accord with their agreed stipulation in contravention of the parties’ joint waiver related to the personal property in Wife’s possession and control. Further, the trial court erred in finding that all retirement accounts had accumulated during the marriage. The evidence showed that the Lucent Technologies pension contained both marital and separate property, and thus should be divided utilizing a coverture fraction. Finally, the trial court did not err in failing to establish a de facto termination date of marriage of September 30, 2020 for purposes of property division. Cross-appellant’s fifth assignment of error is overruled; his first, second, third, fourth and sixth assignments of error are sustained; the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, for further proceedings consistent with the decision. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/18/2024
|
7/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2720 |
|
Academy Ridge v. Gahanna
| 23AP-440 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellants do not have taxpayer standing under R.C. 733.59. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/16/2024
|
7/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2699 |
|
Griffin v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 23AP-646 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of ODRC when an inmate is unable to demonstrate that ODRC had notice of the dangerous defect or condition. The judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio is affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
7/11/2024
|
7/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2626 |
|
State ex rel. King v. Hoying
| 23AP-708 | The magistrate’s decision contained no error of law or other defect on its face, and we adopt it as our own. Relator’s petition fails to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C), and dismissal is proper. Relator’s request for a writ of mandamus is denied, and pending motions are moot. | Jamison | Franklin |
7/11/2024
|
7/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2627 |
|