|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State ex rel. Forward Air Corp. v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-223 | The magistrate did not err in finding some evidence supported the Industrial Commission of Ohio’s temporary total disability compensation order. Objections overruled; writ denied. | Dingus | Franklin |
12/23/2025
|
12/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5737 |
|
Momentum Freight Logistics Corp. v. Benie Logistics, Inc.
| 24AP-263 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly found the purchaser, Benie, breached the parties’ Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) by failing to provide the seller, Momentum, with both the $69,269.00 and the $257,999.32 Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC") policy holder dividend payments. Evidence from the BWC demonstrated that both payments were dividend reimbursements calculated based on the premiums an employer paid in 2019. Because both payments were a “premium dividend reimbursement” for the 2019 policy period, the APA obligated Benie to provide both payments to Momentum in a timely fashion. The trial court did not err by finding that Momentum could pierce the corporate veil of Benie. Competent and credible evidence demonstrated the owners of Benie, Elizabeth and Russell Dawson, operated Benie as their alter ego, used their control over Benie to commit a fraudulent transfer and civil theft, and that Momentum suffered damages as a result of the Dawsons’ control and wrongful conduct of Benie. The economic loss rule did not bar Momentum’s claim for civil theft but did bar Momentum’s claims for fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy, because the damages resulting from the fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy were the same as the damages resulting from the breach of contract. However, because the trial court did not award any damages attributable to the fraudulent transfer or civil conspiracy claims, there was no aspect of the trial court’s judgment to reverse. | Mentel | Franklin |
12/23/2025
|
12/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5738 |
|
State v. Kendrick
| 24AP-461, 24AP-463 | Trial court’s imposition of maximum sentence for aggravated murder conviction affirmed as the sentence was within the statutory range, and the court considered the principles and purposes of R.C. 2911.11 as well as the factors under R.C. 2929.12; further, the court considered appellant’s expression of remorse, and appellant failed to demonstrate the sentence was contrary to law. | Leland | Franklin |
12/23/2025
|
12/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5739 |
|
Sajja v. Atluru
| 24AP-614 | The trial court abused its discretion in this divorce case by not including in its decision any indication that it considered the factors enumerated in R.C. 3105.171(F) in relation to determining whether its division of the marital estate was equitable. Otherwise, the trial court did not err. It did not apply inconsistent valuation dates to the parties’ assets, but valued those assets as of the de facto termination date based on the only evidence available to it. It did not err by failing to consider tax effects when valuing wife’s deferred compensation account, when it did not order wife to withdraw funds from the account and there was no evidence upon which to calculate the tax effects. The trial court’s finding that husband did not engage in financial misconduct was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by designating husband the residential parent of the parties’ child for school-placement purposes; it considered the factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (F)(2) in conjunction with all the evidence presented at trial, made specific findings of fact, and weighed the evidence in making its determination. The trial court did not err in holding wife in contempt when she acknowledged at trial that her move out of state with the parties’ child violated the temporary restraining order. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by not allocating two vehicles, one of which was not purchased until after the de facto termination date and one of which was separate premarital property with respect to which there no basis for determining that any portion constituted marital property. Husband’s motion for attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 3105.73(B) is denied, because R.C. 3105.73(B) does not apply to direct appeals from a divorce decree, and wife’s motion to strike portions of husband’s appellate brief is denied. | Boggs | Franklin |
12/23/2025
|
12/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5740 |
|
Duran Lopez v. Lopez Huerta
| 25AP-275 | Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Trial court abused its discretion in omitting a valuation of a business in a divorce proceeding. We remand to the trial court to determine the business’s valuation in order to make an equitable division of marital assets. We overrule appellant’s assignments of error arguing trial court erred in its equitable division of marital assets, financial disclosures, child support, and spousal support, as these issues could have been raised at the trial court’s final hearing. We also overrule appellant’s assignment of error that argues she was not properly served notice of the final hearing. | Boggs | Franklin |
12/23/2025
|
12/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5741 |
|
State v. Smith
| 25AP-276 | On appeal from trial court’s denial of a motion for resentencing, which was filed ten years after the original sentencing decision was affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant argued that his original sentence did not comply with the rules for firearm-specification sentencing as recently interpreted in State v. Beatty, 2024-Ohio-5684. Appellant’s claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
12/23/2025
|
12/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5742 |
|
Simpson v. Simpson
| 25AP-432 | Defendant-appellant Corey L. Simpson failed to establish the trial court abused its discretion or otherwise erred in denying his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a final judgment and granting attorney fees to plaintiff-appellee Tiffani A. Simpson. First, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error are overruled; second assignment of error rendered moot; judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations is affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
12/23/2025
|
12/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5743 |
|
State v. Kesman
| 23AP-184; 23AP-713 | On appeal from convictions for endangering children and the denial of a motion for new trial. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the trial court did not lose its way in resolving conflicts in the evidence and believing the victims’ accounts. The fact that two of the victims were in contact with each other prior to trial was not material to appellant’s guilt. The claims of one victim’s bias and fabrication in 2022 was undermined by that victim’s consistent allegations in 2020. Appellee’s failure to disclose the victims’ contact and one victim’s alleged cause for bias did not cause reversible error under Brady or Giglio. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial based on new evidence that two of the victims attempted to coordinate their trial testimony; additional testimony from the same source indicated that the victims’ testimony was truthful notwithstanding the coordination. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
12/18/2025
|
12/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5642 |
|
State v. Kesman
| 23AP-185; 23AP-716 | On appeal from convictions for endangering children and the denial of a motion for new trial. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the trial court did not lose its way in resolving conflicts in the evidence and believing the victims’ accounts. The fact that two of the victims were in contact with each other prior to trial was not material to appellant’s guilt. The claims of one victim’s bias and fabrication in 2022 was undermined by that victim’s consistent allegations in 2020. Appellee’s failure to disclose the victims’ contact and one victim’s alleged cause for bias did not cause reversible error under Brady or Giglio. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial based on new evidence that two of the victims attempted to coordinate their trial testimony; additional testimony from the same source indicated that the victims’ testimony was truthful notwithstanding the coordination. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
12/18/2025
|
12/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5643 |
|
State ex rel. Back v. State Teachers Retirement Bd.
| 24AP-138 | On petition for mandamus, challenging decision of respondent State Teacher Retirement System's decisions to cancel petitioner's scheduled appeal hearing and summarily terminate her disability benefits. R.C. 3307.48(D) authorizes board to define activities that constitute a "teaching service" and thereby render claimants ineligible to receive disability benefits. Respondent's decision that presenting a short workshop about entrepreneurship to high school students qualified as a "teaching service" was within its statutory and administrative discretion, and petitioner has not shown that respondents failed to perform a legal duty or that she has a clear legal right to the reinstatement of either her appeal hearing or her benefits. Writ denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
12/18/2025
|
12/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5644 |
|
State v. Meacham
| 24AP-330 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim to testify with the assistance of a therapy dog. Expert witness's statement in the victim's medical records that over 90 percent of children's sexual assault examinations are normal was admissible. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a summary of the victim's forensic interview. Appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. | Jamison | Franklin |
12/18/2025
|
12/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5645 |
|
State v. Holtz
| 24AP-745 | On defendant's appeal of conviction for rape and gross sexual imposition and sentence of incarceration for 18 years to life imprisonment. Conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence presented at trial, and was supported by sufficient evidence, as admissible statements of minor victim in forensic interview were evidence as to every element of each of the offenses. Trial court's decision to run the offenses consecutively was not erroneous. Assignments of error overruled and judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
12/18/2025
|
12/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5646 |
|
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ.
| 25AP-215 | The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in ordering appellant, The Ohio State University, ("OSU") to produce public records in response to a request for emails to and from the University president’s official email address over an 11-day period. The request was adequately specific under the circumstances pursuant to State ex rel. Cleveland Assn. of Rescue Emps. v. Cleveland, 2023-Ohio-3112. OSU’s additional arguments regarding the reasonableness of the request were based on evidence outside the record and could not be considered. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
12/18/2025
|
12/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5647 |
|
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety
| 25AP-355 | The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in its various motions rulings or on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint. All nine assignments of error overruled; judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
12/18/2025
|
12/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5648 |
|
Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Lager
| 25AP-365 | Appeal dismissed. The trial court’s entry granting the state’s motion for a preliminary injunction was not a final, appealable order under either R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) or 2505.02(B)(2). The preliminary injunction order froze the defendants’ assets pending the final adjudication in the case, and the defendants failed to demonstrate how they would be deprived of a meaningful or effective remedy absent an immediate appeal of the order. The preliminary injunction order did not occur in a special proceeding and did not affect the defendants’ substantial rights. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
12/18/2025
|
12/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5649 |
|
In re Estate of Wilson
| 24AP-61 | Judgment affirmed. The probate court did not err when it denied the motion to reopen the estate of appellant’s mother, as the statute of limitation for filing a will contest action under R.C. 2107.76 had long passed. Appellants presented a frivolous legal argument in an attempt to circumvent the statute of limitations and engaged in frivolous and dilatory conduct that justified the probate court’s award of attorney fees under R.C. 2323.51 to appellees. Appellants’ motion to supplement the record and appellee’s motion for sanctions are denied. | Mentel | Franklin |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5594 |
|
State ex rel. Parr v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-537 | The magistrate did not err in finding that the commission used the wrong standard when determining whether relator presented evidence of new and changed circumstances with his second application for permanent total disability. The magistrate correctly applied the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Prinkey to this matter. Relator presented a medical report indicating that he was permanently and totally disabled. Furthermore, the commission's own medical reports indicated an increase in relator's whole-person impairment. The commission's decision failed to explain why these medical reports were not evidence of new and changed circumstances for purposes of R.C. 4123.58(G). The court grants a limited writ of mandamus, remanding this matter back to the commission for it to make findings regarding R.C. 4123.58(G) under the proper legal standard. | Jamison | Franklin |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5595 |
|
State v. Black
| 24AP-594; 24AP-595 | On defendant's appeal of Franklin County Municipal court decision denying Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial in domestic violence case. Motion was filed 6 years after defendant's conviction, based on newly discovered evidence of a new affidavit by victim and primary witness, defendant's father. Affidavit recanted the testimony presented by the victim at trial, but victim did not testify at hearing on new trial motion. Trial court was the same judge who presided over the trial, and the trial court's decision that victim's trial testimony was credible and in accordance with other contemporaneous evidence was not an abuse of discretion. Finding that testimony of witness at new trial hearing, defendant's mother, was not credible based on other evidence in the record was not an abuse of discretion. Trial court applied the appropriate analysis throughout case, and its decision denying the motion for new trial was not an abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5596 |
|
State v. Cunningham
| 25AP-246 | Trial court did not in denying appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for new trial as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. | Leland | Franklin |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5597 |
|
State ex rel. Hairston v. Noble
| 25AP-336 | The magistrate correctly concluded that respondent did not have a legal duty to grant relator’s request for public records under R.C. 149.42(B)(8). Relator failed to articulate any justiciable claim, leaving respondent unable to find that the records would be necessary to support a justiciable claim. Motion to dismiss granted, complaint dismissed. | Dingus | Franklin |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5598 |
|
B.D. v. D.G.
| 25AP-427 | Appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of her request to unseal the record of an ex parte civil protection order ("CPO") for the “limited purpose” of using the ex parte CPO in a criminal prosecution of appellee is moot where the criminal prosecution against appellee was dismissed. Because the “limited purpose” for which appellant sought to unseal the ex parte CPO no longer exists, there is no longer a live controversy from which an appeal could grant meaningful relief. None of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. Appeal dismissed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5599 |
|
Hill v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 25AP-568 | The Court of Claims did not err in granting appellees’ motion to dismiss appellant’s claim of false imprisonment pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because appellant failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim of false imprisonment. Appellant’s sentencing entry is facially valid and we are not permitted to consider extrinsic evidence, including hearing transcripts, to determine whether there is a defect in the judgment. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
12/16/2025
|
12/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5600 |
|
In re Ju.B.
| 24AP-73, 24AP-74, & 24AP-76 | Judgment affirmed. Clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court’s decision to grant the motion of Franklin County Children Services for permanent custody of appellant’s three minor children. Appellant failed to comply with the requirements of the agency’s case plan for reunification and failed to remedy the substance abuse issue that had originally prompted removal of the children. The juvenile court did not err by removing the first guardian ad litem for failing to visit the children in their foster placement and initially refusing to make the recommendation required in that role. | Mentel | Franklin |
12/11/2025
|
12/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5418 |
|
Vargas Pelaez v. Martinez Moreno
| 23AP-747 | Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and modified in part. The juvenile court erred when it failed to make the special findings from a state juvenile court requested by appellant that, under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J), are required to apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The juvenile court relied on Gonzalez v. Rodriguez, 2018-Ohio-2410 (10th Dist.), which interprets the statute in a manner that is inconsistent with a number of state supreme court opinions, as well as the policy manual of the federal agency, and is accordingly overruled. The juvenile court also erred by failing make a finding addressing the best interests of the children under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed with regard its rulings and orders granting divorce and legal custody but is modified to include the special findings requested by appellant. Finally, the juvenile court erred when imposing costs on appellant because it had previously found her to be an indigent litigant under R.C. 2323.311. | Mentel | Franklin |
12/11/2025
|
12/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5532 |
|
Kanode v. Columbus
| 25AP-175; 25AP-176 | The trial court properly granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment. Appellees were entitled to discretionary immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). Even if appellees were not entitled to immunity, appellants malicious prosecution claims failed as a matter of law because the charges were supported by probable cause. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
12/11/2025
|
12/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5533 |
|
Chopin v. Taiwo
| 25AP-341 | The trial court did not commit plain error in denying as untimely appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations and Juvenile Branch affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
12/11/2025
|
12/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5534 |
|
State v. Abdu
| 23AP-739 | The trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress a second warrant for appellant’s phone records, including cell site location data. The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting autopsy photos or by failing to instruct the jury on accomplice testimony pursuant to R.C. 2903.03(D). Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive prison terms for three firearm specifications. Finally, appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
12/9/2025
|
12/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5481 |
|
State v. Langille
| 24AP-253 | On appeal from convictions for gross sexual imposition and rape of a minor under ten years old. The state’s failure to disclose a co-defendant’s plea deal was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because separate unchallenged evidence provided ample support for the defendant’s convictions. The defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel from counsel’s failure to move to suppress the defendant’s email and text communications regarding his sexual desires for and sexual abuse of the victim; there was no showing that the defense would have been likely to succeed on the motion or that a suppression of the evidence would have changed the result of the trial. The defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the lack of specific dates in the bill of particulars. | Dingus | Franklin |
12/9/2025
|
12/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5482 |
|
State v. Todd
| 24AP-381 & 24AP-383 | SEX OFFENSES – MEGAN’S LAW – FORMER R.C. 2950.09(B) – STIPULATION – GUILTY PLEA: Trial court did not err in journalizing sexual predator classification under Megan’s Law even after defendant’s release from prison where defendant stipulated, as part of his negotiated plea agreement, to sexual predator classification and the original sentencing court independently found defendant to be a sexual predator but failed to journalize its finding in the original judgment entry. Permitting a defendant to withdraw but one part of the negotiated plea agreement would run afoul of the precise nature of the package deal the parties agreed to in order to resolve both cases. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
12/9/2025
|
12/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5483 |
|
Arndts v. State Teachers Retirement Sys.
| 25AP-460 | The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in dismissing appellant’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
12/9/2025
|
12/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5484 |
|
State v. Richardson
| 24AP-65 | Judgment reversed and cause remanded. The trial court abused its discretion in finding appellant was competent to stand trial and committed structural error in trying an incompetent defendant. | Boggs | Franklin |
12/4/2025
|
12/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5417 |
|
State ex rel. Williams v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-462 | The magistrate did not err in finding that the commission did not abuse its discretion when it found there were no new and changed circumstances warranting reinstatement of temporary total disability compensation commencing on September 22, 2023, the day following the last payment of temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation in her claim, through May 1, 2024, and to continue. The record evinces that after the condition of L-5 disc bulge was allowed, there is no documented worsening or medical change that coincides with the requested TTD compensation onset date of September 22, 2023. Neither did the magistrate err in finding that the report of Dr. Yankush is “some evidence” to support denial of TTD compensation based on the newly allowed condition of bulging disc at L-5 commencing on September 22, 2023. Objections overruled; writ of mandamus denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
12/4/2025
|
12/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5419 |
|
In re D.J.
| 25AP-196, 25AP-197, & 25AP-224 | Appellant-mother did not demonstrate that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by allowing the permanent custody hearing to proceed when mother’s attendance at the first day of the hearing was not available by remote means or by not objecting to the mother’s inability to attend in person due to her incarceration. Ineffective assistance of counsel was also not demonstrated by counsel’s failure to make certain objections to testimony and evidence or to pursue certain questions in cross-examination. Appellant-father did not establish that his due process rights were violated by the agency’s alleged failure to demonstrate reasonable efforts at reunification. Therefore, the permanent custody determination is affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
12/4/2025
|
12/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5420 |
|
Bankers Healthcare Group, L.L.C. v. Pozycki
| 25AP-436 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee. Appellant failed to respond to the requests for admission and thereby the matters therein were deemed admitted, including that appellant was in breach of the Promissory Notes for failure to pay according to its terms and that appellee is entitled to enforce the obligations under the Note. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
12/4/2025
|
12/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5421 |
|
1298 Atcheson 1/2, L.L.C. v. Sperlazza
| 25AP-449 | Relator has not shown it is entitled to a writ of prohibition. Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein, deny relator’s motion for preliminary injunction, grant respondents’ motion to dismiss, and dismiss relator’s action in its entirety. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
12/4/2025
|
12/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5422 |
|
State v. Solomon
| 25AP-474 | On state’s appeal, record demonstrates that trial court clearly and convincingly erred by waiving statutorily-mandated fine for fourth-degree felony operating a vehicle impaired ("OVI") conviction. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
12/4/2025
|
12/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5423 |
|
State v. Whitley
| 24AP-403 | Because the trial court’s judgment entry imposing consecutive sentences did not include the necessary findings that the court made at the sentencing hearing in support of the sentences, this matter must be remanded for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc entry that reflects those findings. Judgment affirmed; cause remanded with instructions. | Dingus | Franklin |
12/2/2025
|
12/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5390 |
|
O'Brien v. Barron
| 25AP-389 | On appeal from Franklin County Municipal Court decision granting appellee’s motion to vacate default judgment on account for lack of proper service. Trial court judgment of vacatur, issued after a hearing during which appellee testified that she never received service of process for the underlying suit and during which appellant failed to present any evidence to refute or undermine that testimony, was not an abuse of discretion. Evidence of appellee’s dismissed bankruptcy cases, which were not presented to the trial court, could not establish that appellee was properly served with process. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/26/2025
|
11/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5335 |
|
In re M.P.
| 25AP-225 | Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements in App.R. 16. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
11/25/2025
|
11/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5334 |
|
State ex rel. Oldham v. Ohio Police & Fire Retirement Fund
| 23AP-688 | The magistrate correctly determined that relator is not entitled to receive the preferred 3-year statutory calculation set forth in R.C. 742 because he failed to transfer his Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") service credit to respondent before the July 2, 2013, deadline, as required by R.C. 742.37(C)(1) and, thus, lacked the necessary 15 years of service credit required to utilize the preferred 3-year calculation. Objection to magistrate’s decision overruled; request for writ of mandamus denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5232 |
|
State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-242 | Petition for writ of mandamus denied. Objections to the magistrate’s decision are overruled and the magistrate’s decision, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is adopted. | Boggs | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5233 |
|
State ex rel. Oberdier v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-476 | The commission applied an incorrect legal standard when it concluded that the relator failed to present “sufficient evidence of meaningful or substantial new and changed circumstances which would warrant readdressing [relator’s] request for permanent and total disability compensation at this time.” The plain text of R.C. 4123.58(G) only requires that a claimant “present evidence of new and changed circumstances before the industrial commission may consider a subsequent application” for permanent total disability compensation. By applying a different or heightened standard from that required by R.C. 4123.58(G), the commission’s staff hearing officer committed legal error. The matter must be remanded to the commission for it to make findings regarding R.C. 4123.58(G) under the proper legal standard. The court adopts the findings of fact in the magistrate's decision. The court also adopts the conclusions of law in the magistrate’s decision as relevant to the first and second objections which are overruled. The court determines to be moot the third and fourth objections. The court grants a limited writ of mandamus returning this matter to the commission for further proceedings in accordance with the law and this decision. | Dorrian | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5234 |
|
Slupski v. McGill Dev. Corp.
| 24AP-658 | The trial court erred in permitting expert testimony on a matter of law. The remaining assignment of error is rendered moot. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and this matter is remanded to address the amount of sanctions in accordance with R.C. 2323.51. | Mentel | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5235 |
|
O’Brien v. Anderson
| 25AP-322 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on and granting appellee’s motion for relief from judgment that was sent to the address on file for the original plaintiff. Appellant did not notify the trial court of a change of ownership or change of address for the original plaintiff, did not move to substitute as party until several months after the trial court granted relief from judgment, and conceded that appellee sent the motion for relief from judgment to the address on file for the original plaintiff. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5236 |
|
In re C.P.
| 25AP-423 | Trial court did not plainly err by finding a child to be dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C), which focuses on a child’s condition or environment, without having a mental health assessment completed by mother. Mother failed to file a transcript of proceedings before the trial court magistrate and the court of appeals presumed the regularity of proceedings in the trial court. | Dorrian | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5237 |
|
Arnoff v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 25AP-265 | Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction was entitled to discretionary immunity regarding appellant's inmate placement claims. Appellant's claims regarding kosher diet and law library/courts access were constitutional in nature. Thus, the Ohio Court of Claims properly determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant's claims. Appellant's claim regarding lost property was not raised in the trial court and thus was waived on appeal. | Jamison | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5238 |
|
State v. Walker
| 24AP-329 | Appellant filed an application to reopen on June 9, 2025 asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant failed to raise any specific deficiencies as to either trial counsel or appellate counsel’s performance. Application to reopen filed on June 9, 2025 is denied. Appellant filed an application to reopen on July 17, 2025. Having filed an application to reopen on June 9, 2025, there is no right to file successive applications for reopening under App.R. 26(B). Application to reopen filed on July 17, 2025 is moot. | Jamison | Franklin |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5191 |
|
State v. Miller
| 24AP-454 | Appeal of conviction of three counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance and one count of gross sexual imposition. Judgment affirmed. Mother of child victim’s testimony identifying victim and defendant in videos found on phone owned by defendant, in conjunction with the remaining evidence, was sufficient evidence to sustain defendant’s convictions on all charges. Defendant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the record did not support defendant’s argument that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failure to obtain a expert testimony, and the trial court did not err by concluding that defendant could be separately convicted and sentenced for each of the three counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5192 |
|
McCarthy v. Lee
| 25AP-180 | Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in a wrongful-death claim based on medical care filed more than four years after the last alleged negligent act by a physician, despite two of the beneficiaries being minors at the time of decedent’s death. Under Supreme Court of Ohio precedent the four-year statute of repose for medical claims applies to wrongful-death claims based on medical care and the trial court properly concluded that the minority-tolling provision under R.C. 2305.16 did not apply to toll the statute of repose. | Dorrian | Franklin |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5193 |
|
State v. Hardy
| 25AP-207 | The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion to suppress. The detective’s surveillance of appellant at the residence, from a vantage point where the detective had a right to be, did not constitute a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, based on either the traffic infraction or the active warrant, law enforcement had reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop of the vehicle. Because the officer observed the firearm in plain view through the open car door, there was no invasion into appellant’s legitimate expectation of privacy. Based on the discovery of the firearm in plain view, the officers were justified when they engaged in a protective sweep of the vehicle. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5194 |
|