|
|
Westbrook v. Westbrook
| 24AP-720 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from an amended agreed judgment entry in a divorce action. The amended agreed judgment entry required appellant to refinance or otherwise remove appellee from the mortgage and home equity line of credit associated with the marital residence, which appellee had quit-claimed to appellant. Appellant sought relief from judgment on the basis that, since the filing of the agreed amended judgment entry, appellee had obtained a discharge in bankruptcy on the underlying debt secured by the mortgage and line of credit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellant failed to allege in her motion operative facts which, if proven, would warrant relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) or (5), nor did it abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion without a hearing. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/11/2026
|
6/11/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2192 |
|
State ex rel. Cordle v. Indus. Comm.
| 25AP-484 | MANDAMUS — R.C. 4123.522: Relator challenged the Industrial Commission’s denial of his request for relief under R.C. 4123.522, wherein relator sought to extend his time for appeal by alleging his attorney did not receive notice of the commission’s order refusing relator’s appeal from the staff hearing officer’s order disallowing his workers’ compensation claim in its entirety. Following a hearing, the commission found relator’s attorney failed to rebut the presumption that he received notice of the commission’s order. The magistrate correctly determined the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying relator’s request for R.C. 4123.522 relief. Magistrate’s decision adopted without objection; writ of mandamus denied. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/11/2026
|
6/11/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2193 |
|
State v. Cardwell
| 26AP-189 & 26AP-190 | JAIL-TIME CREDIT ALLOCATION: When a defendant is sentenced to both mandatory and non-mandatory prison terms, as in this case, any mandatory prison term imposed for a firearm specification must be served first. R.C. 2929.14(C)(1); Adm.Code 5120-2-03.1(I). As such, the 398 days of jail-time credit would apply to the aggregate six-year mandatory consecutive prison terms imposed for the two firearm specifications in one of defendant’s cases. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion seeking to allocate jail-time credit to the ten years of non-mandatory prison time concurrently imposed for the aggravated burglary counts in other cases. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/11/2026
|
6/11/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2194 |
|
Allen v. Lewis
| 25AP-381; 25AP-383 | The trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motions for summary judgment as to their asserted statutory immunity defense. A factfinder could reasonably find that they acted recklessly in response to appellee’s altercation with another juvenile at the Franklin County Juvenile Intervention Center. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
6/9/2026
|
6/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2155 |
|
Siegel v. State
| 25AP-388 | The trial court did not err in finding that appellants’ fraud and spoliation of evidence claims were time-barred, as our previous plurality decision issued in Siegel I did not constrain it from doing so by either the concept of collateral estoppel and/or the law-of-the-case doctrine. Furthermore, appellants’ assignments of error regarding the merits of their remaining claims are moot in light of our finding that the trial court properly found the claims to be barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/9/2026
|
6/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2157 |
|