Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 152 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Al-Jahmi v. Ohio Athletic Comm. 20AP-321Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, case remanded. In a case where a boxer died from injuries sustained while competing in a boxing match, the trial court did not err by granting the Ohio Athletic Commission’s (“OAC”) motion for summary judgment in part, as express and primary assumption of risk barred appellant’s negligence claims pertaining to the bout, and discretionary immunity barred appellant’s negligence and recklessness claims asserting the OAC failed to enact or rescind various rules and requirements. The trial court erred by granting the OAC’s motion for summary judgment in part, on the facts of this case, as discretionary immunity did not bar appellant’s claim that the OAC negligently licensed certain officials, and because the evidence demonstrated genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the OAC acted recklessly by appointing the referee and whether the referee and/or ringside physician acted recklessly at the bout. As genuine issues of material fact pertaining to recklessness were present in the case, the trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment.DorrianFranklin 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2296
State v. Berk 21AP-121Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions for relief from judgment as barred by doctrine of res judicata.JamisonFranklin 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2297
Dublin v. Starr 21AP-173Appellant’s conviction of assault upon his 16-year-old daughter was not against the manifest weight of the evidence in light of appellant’s claim of self-defense and reasonable parental discipline where the trial court, as trier of fact, disbelieved appellant’s testimony that his daughter initiated the physical contact by punching him in the face, and disbelieved his claim that he grabbed her by the hair and threw her to the ground only to prevent her from continuing to strike him. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 43(A)(2) and did not violate appellant’s right to be present at a critical stage in the proceedings when it conducted an arraignment on misdemeanor charges and heard testimony relevant to a civil protection order via video teleconference, as appellant was represented by counsel and there was no indication in the record that appellant or his counsel objected to the proceedings. Trial court did not err when it joined misdemeanor charges involving separate victims in two separate cases because the charged offenses were of the same or similar character and the evidence relevant to each of the offenses was simple and distinct. Judgment affirmed.JamisonFranklin 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2298
State ex rel. Hemphill v. Ohio State Emp. Relations Bd. 21AP-469Mandamus denied. SERB did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed ULP charge as untimely when the ULP charge was not filed until after the 90-day limitations period had expired. SERB did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed ULP charge for lack of probable cause when the information submitted to SERB indicated that the union had withdrawn the grievance and no longer sought arbitration.KlattFranklin 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2299
In re Name Change of C.L.F. 21AP-619Despite an earlier, short-lived agreement between the parents to change a child's surname from his mother's to his father's, the probate court did not abuse its discretion in granting a (contested) name change application only to the extent of adding the father's surname to the child's as part of a hyphenated last name. The probabt court properly looked to the best interest of the child. Judgment affirmed.NelsonFranklin 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2300
Asamoah v. GM Fin. 21AP-641A party contesting an order to compel arbitration has 30 days within which to appeal. And here, the trial court did not err in compelling arbitration pursuant to contract and staying court proceedings.NelsonFranklin 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2301
State v. Lopez 21AP-690Trial court’s imposition of a period of post-release control of “up to two years” as part of his sentence for importuning, a felony sex offense as defined in R.C. 2967.28(A)(3) and which requires a mandatory five-year period of post-release control pursuant to R.C. 2967.28(B)(1), was clearly and convincingly contrary to law.KlattFranklin 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2302
State v. Lyons 21AP-156 & 21AP-157Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea where appellant failed to challenge certain res judicata holdings, did not show the trial abused its discretion in considering the nearly two-year span between the plea hearing and filing of the motion to be undue delay, and did not otherwise demonstrate a manifest injustice due to actual innocence or ineffective assistance of counsel affecting the plea. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 6/28/2022 6/28/2022 2022-Ohio-2224
Starling v. Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities 21AP-345The Court of Claims erred when it entered Judgment in favor of the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities, (“ODDD”), on appellant’s negligence and wrongful death claims because the manifest weight of the evidence, which included a videotape of the incident, established ODDD breached the standard of care when one of its therapeutic program workers injured decedent by making a second attempt to physically subdue decedent with a “bear hug” technique, under circumstances where decedent’s behavior did not pose an imminent threat of harm to himself or others, but merely resulted in property damage, and where the first attempt at the same technique was unsuccessful. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for the Court of Claims to enter judgment for appellant on the issue of liability, and to conduct further proceedings to determine damages.JamisonFranklin 6/28/2022 6/28/2022 2022-Ohio-2225
State ex rel. Rojas v. Page 21AP-506Relator is not entitled to a writ of procedendo ordering respondent, Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Jaiza Page, to issue a ruling on relator's October 27, 2017, successive petition to vacate judgment of conviction. Procedendo will not compel the performance of an act that has already been performed, and respondent Page issued an entry on February 14, 2022 denying relator's October 27, 2017, successive petition to vacate judgment of conviction. Motion to dismiss granted, action dismissed, and the requested writ of procedendo is denied.Beatty BluntFranklin 6/28/2022 6/28/2022 2022-Ohio-2226
Gore v. Mohamod 21AP-526The trial court properly denied plaintiff's motion to convert into a summary judgment motion a defense motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as based on a statute of limitations issue evident from the face of the complaint. The trial court also did not err in granting defense judgments on statute of limitations grounds. Judgment affirmed.NelsonFranklin 6/28/2022 6/28/2022 2022-Ohio-2227
Brenson v. Dean 21AP-584Trial court committed reversible error when it granted appellee’s Civ.R. 12(B) motion to dismiss appellant’s malpractice complaint based on political subdivision immunity without allowing appellant the time permitted under Civ.R. 15(A) to amend his complaint to invoke on of the exceptions to immunity in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). Judgment reversed.JamisonFranklin 6/28/2022 6/28/2022 2022-Ohio-2228
State ex rel. Cleveland Metro. School Dist. v. Indus. Comm. 20AP-139Commission did not abuse its discretion when it granted TTD. Because there was conflicting medical evidence before the Commission, the Commission was only required to state the evidence on which it relied and to briefly explain why the claimant was not entitled to TTD compensation. Commission was not required to explain why it rejected the conflicting medical evidence. Objection overruled; writ denied.JamisonFranklin 6/23/2022 6/23/2022 2022-Ohio-2150
Smith v. McDiarmid 21AP-199Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment on breach of contract claim because vehicle service contract expressly excluded modified vehicles and it was undisputed that vehicle was modified. Trial court erred by concluding as a matter of law that used car dealers were not agents of vehicle service contract administrator based on apparent authority when there were genuine issues of material fact about used car dealers' role in process of selling vehicle service contract. Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment on misrepresentation and Consumer Sales Practices Act against entity named as insurer of vehicle service contract but erred by granting summary judgment on those claims against vehicle service contract administrator because trial court failed to consider whether vehicle service contract administrator could be liable for dealers' acts or misrepresentations based on agency relationship.SadlerFranklin 6/23/2022 6/23/2022 2022-Ohio-2151
Barrett v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 21AP-532The record contains competent, credible evidence to support the Commission's determination that Barrett voluntarily resigned his employment without just cause. Therefore, the Commission's decision denying Barrett's claim for unemployment benefits is not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the trial court did not err in affirming the denial of the claim. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 6/23/2022 6/23/2022 2022-Ohio-2152
State v. Gravely 22AP-17 & 22AP-18Claims that trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without judicial fact-finding and by imposing four-year prison term on major drug offender specification were barred by res judicata because appellant did not raise them on direct appeal or in prior postconviction motion. Because the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the charges and personal jurisdiction over the appellant, the alleged errors rendered the sentences voidable, not void, and were subject to res judicata. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 6/23/2022 6/23/2022 2022-Ohio-2153
Gross v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture 22AP-46Trial court erred in dismissing appellant's appeal pursuant to R.C. 119.12(D) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for failing to attach a copy of the order appealed from. Judgment reversed.DorrianFranklin 6/23/2022 6/23/2022 2022-Ohio-2154
Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 22AP-61Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err by granting ODRC's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, as appellant failed to file his complaint within the applicable statute of limitations period.DorrianFranklin 6/23/2022 6/23/2022 2022-Ohio-2155
Roach v. Vapor Station Columbus, Inc. 21AP-511Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), as claims for bodily injury were barred by two-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.10(A) and doctrine of equitable tolling was inapplicable.KlattFranklin 6/21/2022 6/21/2022 2022-Ohio-2106
In re Name Change of E.S. 21AP-527 & 21AP-528The trial court did not err in granting appellee's requests to change the names of her children to include both parents' surnames in hyphenated form. Judgment affirmed.Luper SchusterFranklin 6/21/2022 6/21/2022 2022-Ohio-2107
State v. Vinson 19AP-574Judgment affirmed and appellant's two assignments of error are overruled. The jury's verdict convicting appellant of multiple counts of murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, nor was the state's evidence legally insufficient to prove the charges. The overwhelming quantity of evidence produced by the state included eyewitness testimony of the shootings as well as the appellant's own admissions, and the jury rejected appellant's testimony claiming that he acted in self-defense. Further, it was not plain error for the trial court to not provide a jury instruction on transferred intent self-defense. Because the jury did not accept appellant's theory of self-defense to justify his action when it convicted appellant of attempted murder for shooting the intended victim, it would not have "transferred" this asserted justification as an element of the murder charge against the actual victim.MentelFranklin 6/16/2022 6/16/2022 2022-Ohio-2031
State ex rel. Sanderlin v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. 21AP-210Relator's request for a writ of mandamus denied as there was no error in magistrate's determination there was some evidence before STRS board to support a finding relator was no longer permanently disabled from her teaching position, and therefore board did not abuse its discretion in terminating her disability benefits.McGrathFranklin 6/16/2022 6/16/2022 2022-Ohio-2032
State v. Jordan 21AP-421 & 21AP-422The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint substitute counsel for appellant as there was not a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship of such magnitude as to jeopardize his right to effective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s alleged requests for new counsel would best be characterized as vague, general criticisms. When appellant did provide some specific grievance the trial court dutifully inquired into the issue. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to continue the trial in order for him to proceed pro se as his right to self-representation was never properly invoked. The trial court did not abuse its discretion accepting that appellant's plea was made in an intelligent, knowing, and voluntary manner. Judgment affirmed.MentelFranklin 6/16/2022 6/16/2022 2022-Ohio-2033
Skaggs v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 21AP-465Court of Claims did not err in overruling appellant's objections to magistrate's decision and entering judgment in favor of ODRC based on determination that appellant's claims were barred under the applicable statutes of limitations.McGrathFranklin 6/16/2022 6/16/2022 2022-Ohio-2034
Dineen v. Pelfrey 21AP-547In a civil suit, a trial court order directing the plaintiff to disclose information claimed to be protected by the physician-patient privilege, including information concerning his diagnosis and treatment by medical professionals and authorizations for release of medical records, constituted a final, appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). Considering the narrow injury remaining at issue in the case and the extensive scope of the defendant's discovery requests, the trial court erred by ordering broad, unprotected access to the plaintiff's medical information without regard to whether the requested information is causally or historically related to the injuries presented in the civil action as required by R.C. 2318.02(B)(3)(a). Judgment reversed, cause remanded.SadlerFranklin 6/16/2022 6/16/2022 2022-Ohio-2035
Nigh Law Group, L.L.C. v. Pond Medical Ctr., Inc. 21-558 & 21-559Appeal filed on behalf of corporation by non-attorney officer of corporation dismissed. Trial court did not err by denying motions to join, which were effectively motions for permissive intervention, because would-be intervenor sought to assert claims that would increase complexity and risk of confusion of the issues in the case. Trial court did not err by striking filings made on behalf of corporation by non-attorney officer of corporation because a corporation may not be represented in court by a non-attorney corporate officer.SadlerFranklin 6/16/2022 6/16/2022 2022-Ohio-2036
In re Name Change of A.P.W. 21AP-431The trial court properly considered the best interest of the minor child in determining a name change application, and did not abuse its discretion in retaining the child’s first name (against one parent’s wishes) while agreeing to a hyphenated last name.NelsonFranklin 6/14/2022 6/14/2022 2022-Ohio-2017
Cardinal Health 108, L.L.C. v. Columbia Asthma & Allergy Clinic, L.L.C. 21AP-460Defendant seeking to overcome a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not simply rest on denials in their unsworn answer. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on contract and guarantee claims where the only evidence of record reflected that plaintiff-appellee had provided products for which defendants did not pay despite the guarantee. And the court of appeals does not tend to consider arguments from a reply brief that are not in support of an assignment or error and that were not made in appellants’ opening brief. Judgment affirmed.NelsonFranklin 6/14/2022 6/14/2022 2022-Ohio-2018
State v. Briggs 21AP-144, 21AP-274 & 21AP-275Because the record fails to establish that three temporally and factually unrelated offenses committed by defendant were part of an ongoing course of conduct, we cannot conclude that the trial court's finding that "these offenses constitute an ongoing course of conduct, because the Court believes that no single sentence could satisfy that course of conduct, the danger that conduct poses to the community and in order to ensure the safety of the community" constituted the finding required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) that "consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct."KlattFranklin 6/9/2022 6/9/2022 2022-Ohio-1950
C.W. v. J.S. 21AP-284Trial court afforded a domestic violation civil protection order respondent a "full hearing" within the meaning of R.C. 3113.31.KlattFranklin 6/9/2022 6/9/2022 2022-Ohio-1951
Dugas v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 21AP-491Because the Supreme Court of Ohio had dismissed appellant’s habeas corpus action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the trial court properly ruled that this later false imprisonment action was barred by res judicata. That bar moots appellant’s argument that the Adult Parole Authority’s policy of “tolling” periods of post-release control while offenders are incarcerated out-of-state on convictions that arose before post-release control commenced is contrary to statute. Judgment affirmed; motions denied.NelsonFranklin 6/7/2022 6/7/2022 2022-Ohio-1923
Alpha Insulation & Water Proofing, Inc. v. Hamilton 21AP-541Trial court did not err by granting motion to dismiss a claim for declaratory judgment because a severance agreement expressly stated that it was the only agreement between the parties relating to any matter whatsoever. Accordingly, the trial court could not consider evidence of earlier agreements between the parties and the former employer could not establish any set of facts on which it could recover on a claim for declaratory judgment that the former employee remained bound by restrictive covenants contained in those earlier agreements.SadlerFranklin 6/7/2022 6/7/2022 2022-Ohio-1924
State ex rel. McNew v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 20AP-404Magistrate's decision recommending partial writ of mandamus ordering release of a particular record and award of statutory damages and costs adopted. Magistrate did not err by concluding respondent failed to assert the trade secret exemption to the Public Records Act before the magistrate. Magistrate did not err by not conducting an in camera review of the document because respondent did not assert the trade secret exception before the magistrate and did not request an in camera review of the document.SadlerFranklin 6/2/2022 6/2/2022 2022-Ohio-1859
Ricker v. Mercedes-Benz of Georgetown 21AP-43Judgement reversed. The trial court erred by finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant, as nonresident defendant was transacting business in Ohio for purposes of Ohio's long-arm statute and complimentary Civil Rule, and Ohio's exercise of jurisdiction over nonresident defendant would comport with due process.DorrianFranklin 6/2/2022 6/2/2022 2022-Ohio-1860
In re A.S. 21AP-249 & 21AP-259On the facts of the case, in permanent custody proceeding, the juvenile court plainly erred, pursuant to R.C. 2151.281(D) and (I), the applicable rules of superintendence and local juvenile rules, in not requiring the guardian ad litem to faithfully discharge his duties and, upon the guardian ad litem's failure to discharge his duties, in not discharging the guardian ad litem and appointing another guardian ad litem. Juvenile court's order granting FCCS permanent custody of the child and terminating appellants' parental rights is reversed. The case is remanded to the juvenile court with instructions.DorrianFranklin 6/2/2022 6/2/2022 2022-Ohio-1861
Moore v. Moore 21AP-276An intermediate court lacks authority to disqualify a trial judge or to void a judgment based on a claimed conflict of interest (here involving a judicial law clerk who had been counsel for one of the parties). The divorce decree here sufficiently allocated the relevant property. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in establishing a de facto termination date for the marriage, but should have used the same date consistently. The trial court's allocation of a salary bonus earned over time that extended beyond the marriage was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court also did not err in refusing to allocate as the wife's separate property money that had been placed into a custodial account for the benefit of the couple's minor child. The trial court did not err in concluding that statutory formula required a child support award of $37,710 per month for the young girl. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part;cause remanded.NelsonFranklin 6/2/2022 6/2/2022 2022-Ohio-1862
WCPO-TV v. Ohio Dept. of Health 21AP-277The trial court did not err in ordering the Ohio Department of Health to provide public records responsive to a request for the number of deaths at a particular long-term care facility in 2020 and the date of those deaths. Moreover, the trial court did not err in finding the Ohio Department of Health violated R.C. 149.43(B)(2) by failing to inform the requester of the manner in which it maintains its records so the requester could revise its public records request.KlattFranklin 6/2/2022 6/2/2022 2022-Ohio-1864
Scott v. Buckeye Physical Medicine & Rehab-Gahanna, L.L.C. 21AP-317The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to extend again the date by which the medical malpractice plaintiffs were to identify their medical expert (without whom plaintiffs could not withstand summary judgment). Judgment affirmed.NelsonFranklin 6/2/2022 6/2/2022 2022-Ohio-1866
Cogley v. Ohio Unemp. Rev. Comm. 21AP-334The trial court did not err in dismissing administrative appeal. Appellant failed to file his appeal from the final decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission within thirty days as required by R.C. 4141.282(A).JamisonFranklin 6/2/2022 6/2/2022 2022-Ohio-1867
Asamoah v. SYGMA Network, Inc. 21AP-405The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff default judgment or in granting a defendant an extension of time to file its answer. Moreover, the trial court did not violate plaintiff's due process rights when it prematurely granted a motion permitting an opposing counsel to appear pro hac vice.KlattFranklin 6/2/2022 6/2/2022 2022-Ohio-1868
Marshall v. Snider-Blake Business Serv., Inc. 21AP-700The trial court did not err in entering judgment in favor of Snider-Blake on Marshall's claims of breach of contract and willful nonpayment.Luper SchusterFranklin 6/2/2022 6/2/2022 2022-Ohio-1869
State ex rel. Matheny v. Indus. Comm. 19AP-871The magistrate correctly determined that the commission did not abuse its discretion when calculating the claimant’s average weekly wage. Accordingly, the objection to the magistrate’s decision was overruled, the magistrates decision was adopted, and the requested writ of mandamus was denied.JamisonFranklin 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1824
Isreal v. Franklin Cty. Commrs. 21AP-131Appellant’s merit brief does not set forth an argument containing his contentions with respect to the assignments of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, as required by App.R. 16(A)(7). Nor does appellant’s merit brief provide citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies in support of the claimed error as also required by App.R. 16(A)(7). Because appellant’s merit brief completely fails to comply with App.R. 16(A)(7), appellant has not presented this court with a legal argument in support of his claim that the rial court erred and abused its discretion in denying his Civ.R. 60(B) motion, and we must overrule appellant’s assignments of error. Judgment affirmed.JamisonFranklin 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1825
Oshoba-Williams v. Oshoba-Williams 21AP-517Appellant's failure to object to the magistrate's decision at the trial court level and failure to argue plain error at the appellate level forfeited all arguments against the trial court's judgment adopting the magistrate's decision. Appellant additionally did not meet his burden of demonstrating error on appeal where he did not provide a transcript of the hearing before the magistrate or any legal authority in support of his assignment of error as required by appellate rule. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1826
Byrd v. Ohio Inspector Gen. 21AP-578The trial court did not err in granting appellees' motion to dismiss; did not err in not granting appellant default judgment; and did not err in presiding over the case. Judgment affirmed.Per CuriamFranklin 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1827
Coppo v. Fixari Family Dental Practice, L.L.C. 21AP-593Trial court did not err in finding Supreme Court of Ohio's decision applied retroactively and in granting summary judgment because savings statute did not act as exception to statute of repose's bar on appellant's claims.DorrianFranklin 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1828
Schafer v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 22AP-27Court of Claims did not err in granting ODNR's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss complaint on the basis of the immunity provisions of R.C. 1533.181.McGrathFranklin 5/31/2022 5/31/2022 2022-Ohio-1829
State v. Moore 20AP-209Appellant's convictions for two counts of aggravated murder, four counts of kidnapping, three counts of felonious assault, and one count of aggravated burglary were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant did not demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel as he failed to show that his counsel performed deficiently. Trial court did not err by allowing the state to refresh victim witness' recollection as to statement he made the police over two years prior describing the appellant. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 5/24/2022 5/24/2022 2022-Ohio-1732
State v. Johnson 21AP-222In a case involving a challenge to the scope of an inventory search of an impounded automobile following the lawful arrest of the driver, where police officers conducted the inventory search in compliance with the police department's reasonable standardized policy, and because they limited that search to "reasonable accessible areas" as set forth in that policy, the officers did not exceed the scope of a lawful inventory search. We reach this conclusion even if the officers may also have had an investigative motive when they conducted the inventory search. Consequently, the trial court erred when it suppressed the evidence discovered in the inventory search and the subsequent investigative search.KlattFranklin 5/24/2022 5/24/2022 2022-Ohio-1733
State v. Walker 20AP-95Judgment affirmed. There was insufficient evidence bad faith in the record to support appellant's assertion of a due process violation based on the alleged destruction of evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence supported his conviction.MentelFranklin 5/19/2022 5/19/2022 2022-Ohio-1684