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 258 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
M.B. v. Mettke 21AP-620As the civil stalking protection order expired by its own terms and neither the collateral consequences exception nor any other exception to the mootness doctrine applies to this matter, the issues raised in this appeal are moot. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.Luper SchusterFranklin 11/22/2022 11/22/2022 2022-Ohio-4166
In re B.T. 21AP-485Juvenile Court did not err in granting motion for permanent custody by Franklin County Children Services as there was competent, credible evidence to support court's determination that grant of permanent custody was in the child's best interest.McGrathFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4093
Dalrymple v. Westerville 21AP-514Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of city and its employees based on political subdivision immunity.McGrathFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4094
In re A.L. 21AP-633Having conducted our independent review under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we find no merit to the proposed assignment of error, and we are unable to find any non-frivolous issues for appeal related to the trial court's termination of mother's parental rights and the granting of permanent custody of A.L. to FCCS. Going forward, we will no longer accept Anders briefs in cases involving permanent custody and the termination of parental rights.Luper SchusterFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4095
McDougald v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 21AP-655The trial court did not err, and appellant was not deprived of due process, when the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision after appellant failed to file timely objections. Appellant was given multiple extensions in which to file his objections and, without any explanation, did not make the court aware of the fact that appellant had not yet received the DVD of the trial proceedings until after the final deadline to file objections. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4096
Keller v. Keller 22AP-11On review of trial court decision overruling objections and affirming magistrate’s decision modify shared parenting plan and modify child support. Magistrate’s use of allegedly inapplicable statutory factors was not prejudicial to the appellant, as those same facts and analysis were relevant and could be appropriately considered under a different statutory provision, magistrate and trial court were not required to adopt placement recommendations of guardian ad litem, magistrate and trial court were not required to adopt guardian’s recommendation regarding parenting time, and based on evidence in the record magistrate and trial court did not abuse wide discretion by failing to deviate from guideline child support award. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4098
Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C. v. Ohio Power Co. 22AP-13The trial court did not err in granting the motion of AEP to dismiss NEP's claims based on Civ.R.12(B)(1). All of NEP's claims, including its ostensible Valentine's Act claims, are premised upon the provision – or refusal thereof – of electric service within AEP's territory, and are thus service-related issues. Service-related issues are within the exclusive jurisdiction of PUCO; therefore, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over NEPs claims. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4099
Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision 22AP-33The BTA did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence beyond the deadline as beyond the disclosure deadline. The BTA did nor err in independently determining the value of parcels not disputed by the parties before the BOR. Finally, the BTA did not abuse its discretion in assessing the weight of property owners appraisal, and did not err in allocating the values of the properties pursuant to FirstCal. Accordingly, assignments of error overruled. Judgment of BTA affirmed.DorrianFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4100
Smith v. Ohio State Univ. 22AP-125The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in exercising its jurisdiction to consider a class action lawsuit against defendant-appellant, The Ohio State University ("OSU"), brought by a former OSU undergraduate student challenging OSU's closure of its Columbus campus and switch to online classes in spring 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic and related government orders. However, by accepting the closure of campus and transition to online classes as, intrinsically, an injury without probing the evidence in support of the economic injury theory alleged by Smith, the trial court failed to conduct a rigorous analysis as to whether Smith demonstrated the prerequisites of class certification under Civ.R. 23 are satisfied. As a result, pursuant to precedent including Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., 145 Ohio St.3d 329, 2015-Ohio-3430 and Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 373, 2013-Ohio-4733, the trial court abused its discretion. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.SadlerFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4101
Fraternal Order of Police v. Columbus 22AP-130On review of trial court judgment granting motion to confirm arbitration award and denying motion to vacate arbitration. The trial court did not err in confirming the award and holding that the arbitration holding was within the power of the arbitrator. The collective bargaining agreement is fairly read to preclude the respondent from using an outside contractor to conduct investigations into citizen complaints, and the essence of both the arbitration holding and the arbitration award were drawn from the terms of the agreement. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4102
State v. Callahan 22AP-221The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for an oral hearing. The argument whether counsel was ineffective by failing to request a competency evaluation or hearing was waived as appellant failed to first raise this issue with the trial court. Arguendo, even if the issue was first raised with the trial court, the argument would be precluded by the doctrine of res judicata as appellant could have brought it as part of a direct appeal. After a review of the entire record as well as consideration of appellant's identified assignments of error, we find no cumulative errors that deprived appellant of his constitutional rights. As such, we find no basis for considering, let alone finding, cumulative error errors that deprived appellant of his constitutional rights in this case. Judgment affirmed.MentelFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4103
Strother v. Columbus 22AP-7The trial court did not err in granting one defendant's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion because the statute-of-limitations defense was apparent from the face of the complaint and the complaint contained no allegations establishing an exception to the defense. The trial court erred in granting the other defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis the action was time barred because a question of fact existed as to the date plaintiff filed his complaint.KlattFranklin 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 2022-Ohio-4097
Howard v. Mgt. & Training Corp. 21AP-283Judgment reversed and cause remanded. The trial court erred when dismissing the appellant's lawsuit for filing an affidavit that did not conform to the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A). The statute only applies when an inmate commences a civil action "against a government entity or employee." Because appellee is a private, for-profit correctional institution, it did not apply to a civil action filed against it.MentelFranklin 11/15/2022 11/15/2022 2022-Ohio-4071
In re J.G. 22AP-10The manifest weight of the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the child had been in the custody of Franklin County Children Services for 12 months out of a 22-month period and awarding Franklin County Children Services permanent custody was in the child's best interest.KlattFranklin 11/15/2022 11/15/2022 2022-Ohio-4072
State v. Brown 22AP-38, 22AP-39, 22AP-40, 22AP-41, 22AP-42Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying request to continue sentencing hearing because multi-factor Unger balancing test weighed against granting continuance and appellant was not prejudiced by denial of the continuance. Appellant also failed to demonstrate prejudice from denial of request to close the courtroom to the public; therefore, trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying request to close the courtroom. Appellant failed to demonstrate cumulative error. Judgments affirmed.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2022 11/15/2022 2022-Ohio-4073
Nazareth Deli, L.L.C. v. John W. Dawson Ins., Inc. 21AP-394Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, case remanded. As appellants' negligence claim accrued in 2016, when the allegedly negligent act occurred, the trial court erred by finding appellants' negligence claim barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court did not err by finding no genuine issue of material fact as to appellants' breach of fiduciary duty or negligent misrepresentation claims. As the case will be remanded, appellants' assignments of error pertaining to the trial court's interlocutory rulings were moot.DorrianFranklin 11/8/2022 11/8/2022 2022-Ohio-3994
Schwind v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 22AP-230Appellant, an inmate in the care and custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, did not present any evidence qualifying as expert medical testimony to establish the standard of care, breach and proximate cause for his medical malpractice.KlattFranklin 11/8/2022 11/8/2022 2022-Ohio-3995
State v. Allen 22AP-258Defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel in entering guilty plea. The record contains no evidence, aside from defendant's self-serving statement at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, that he was coerced into pleading guilty by his counsel's alleged promise that he would be sentenced to community control instead of jail time. Signed guilty plea form states defendant was not coerced into pleading guilty, the trial court advised him at the plea hearing that community control was only a possibility and his counsel expressly refuted defendant's assertion on the record.KlattFranklin 11/8/2022 11/8/2022 2022-Ohio-3996
Parsons v. Bishop 22AP-266Trial court correctly determined that appellant's negligence claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.10 and that appellant failed to provide any evidence that the tolling provisions R.C. 2305.15 applied such that appellant's complaint could be considered timely filed.KlattFranklin 11/8/2022 11/8/2022 2022-Ohio-3997
Davis v. Hallum-Davis 21AP-312Because the trial court's decision granting joinder of nonparty in divorce action lacked sufficient clarity to enable meaningful appellate review, remand was necessary for the trial court to consider whether granting joinder was proper and to provide explanation or reasoning in support of such determination.DorrianFranklin 11/3/2022 11/3/2022 2022-Ohio-3929
Martin v. Buss 22AP-248The appellate court presumed the regularity of the trial court's issuance of a two-year civil protection order against appellant under R.C. 3113.31. Appellant's sole assignment of error challenged the trial court's findings of fact based on the sufficiency of the evidence. However, appellant failed to provide, in accordance with App.R. 9(B), a transcript of the trial court's hearing on the appellee's petition. Instead, appellant attached an affidavit to his appellate brief but did not comply with App.R. 9(C) in his attempt to use the affidavit as an adequate record of the proceedings. Appellate was therefore unable to point to evidence in an adequate record demonstrating that the trial court erred in granting the civil protection order. Accordingly, the appellate court overruled appellant's sole assignment of error and affirmed the trial court's judgment in granting the civil protection order.DorrianFranklin 11/3/2022 11/3/2022 2022-Ohio-3930
Niese Holdings Ltd., L.L.C. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. 22AP-123The trial court did not err in reversing the Ohio Liquor Control Commission's order, finding that appellee violated Ohio Adm.Code 4301:1-1-52(B)(1) ("Rule 52"), because the order was not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence of inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another, the commission could not rely on R.C. 2917.11(A)(5) as the basis for a Rule 52 violation finding. Judgment affirmed.Luper SchusterFranklin 11/1/2022 11/1/2022 2022-Ohio-3896
State v. Mobley 21AP-162Judgment affirmed. Because appellant's conviction was the result of a guilty plea and not a jury trial, he cannot avail himself of the exception to filing a successive or untimely petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) that requires a showing of constitutional error at trial. The trial court did not err by dismissing appellant's petition.MentelFranklin 10/27/2022 10/27/2022 2022-Ohio-3824
Cross v. Univ. of Toledo 21ap-279Judgment reversed and cause remanded. For each of plaintiff-appellee's proposed classes, the trial court erred by failing to conduct the rigorous analysis required to certify a class under Civ.R. 23.MentelFranklin 10/27/2022 10/27/2022 2022-Ohio-3825
State v. Marshall 20AP-394On appeal of trial court judgment convicting defendant of trafficking in persons, compelling prostitution, promoting prostitution, and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Defendant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. There are no errors regarding jurisdiction or venue, the testimony of a challenged witness is admissible and proper, and the court’s jury instructions are not prejudicial to the defendant. Defendant’s five assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 10/25/2022 10/25/2022 2022-Ohio-3795
State ex rel. Dobson v. Indus. Comm. 21AP-83Claimants are not entitled to their requested writ of mandamus as R.C. 4123.57(B) does not authorize loss of sight compensation when the cause of the vision loss is loss of brain function rather than actual damage to eye structure, itself. Writ of mandamus denied.Luper SchusterFranklin 10/25/2022 10/25/2022 2022-Ohio-3796
State v. Erb 21AP-402Appellant's conviction of felonious assault instead of aggravated assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.MentelFranklin 10/25/2022 10/25/2022 2022-Ohio-3797
State v. Sylvester 21AP-530The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without making the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and the appropriate remedy in this case is a limited remand to address whether the findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) support consecutive sentences. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision.Beatty BluntFranklin 10/25/2022 10/25/2022 2022-Ohio-3798
Farley v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. 22AP-132 & 22AP-140The trial court did not abuse its discretion and therefore did not err in denying appellant's motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Appellant's motion was not filed within a reasonable period of time because he waited until over fifteen months after the trial court entered judgment in favor of appellee to file his motion. Nor has appellant demonstrated substantial grounds warranting relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(5). Appellant provided no explanation for why he failed to file his motion for relief from judgment immediately upon realizing the error of failing to file his evidentiary materials along with his response to Old Dominion's motion for summary judgment, or at least take some other steps to seek leave from the court to append the record with the missing affidavits at any point. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 10/25/2022 10/25/2022 2022-Ohio-3799
McKitrick v. LaRose 22AP-582The trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore erred in reaching the merits. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the case. Judgment vacated; cause remanded.Luper SchusterFranklin 10/25/2022 10/25/2022 2022-Ohio-3800
Cool v. Frenchko 21AP-4The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas did not err by granting appellees' motions to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), and motions for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C). Appellant lacked standing and failed to allege a justiciable controversy. Judgment affirmed.JamisonFranklin 10/20/2022 10/20/2022 2022-Ohio-3747
State ex rel. Cogan v. Indus. Comm. 21AP-9The Industrial Commission erred in its determination of Cogan’s pre-injury visual baseline, and we grant a limited writ of mandamus remanding the matter to the commission to exercise the discretion afforded to it to determine the appropriate pre-injury visual baseline and use that updated pre-injury visual baseline to determine whether the medical evidence supports an award for loss of vision compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B).Luper SchusterFranklin 10/20/2022 10/20/2022 2022-Ohio-3748
State v. Velez 22AP-300Trial court did not err in granting application for involuntary administration of medication pursuant to R.C. 2945.38.McGrathFranklin 10/18/2022 10/18/2022 2022-Ohio-3707
Woodford v. Woodford 20AP-377Trial court’s failure to attach child support worksheet in support of downward deviation was clear error, and where the record failed to provide sufficient detail allowing appellate court to review propriety and amount of award in the absence of the worksheet, and where parties failed to identify evidence in the record that would have justified the award. Assignments of error regarding trial court’s evidentiary rulings, award of shared parenting, and attorney fees lack merit and are overruled. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for failure to attach child support worksheet.Beatty BluntFranklin 10/13/2022 10/13/2022 2022-Ohio-3656
Ltd. Invest. Group Corp. v. Huntington Natl. Bank 21AP-61; 21AP-62; 21AP-63; 21AP-64The trial court did not err in granting judgment in appellee's favor on appellee's claim for foreclosure and on appellee's claims for breach of contract, fraud, and conversion.KlattFranklin 10/13/2022 10/13/2022 2022-Ohio-3657
In re A.M. 21AP-631 & 21AP-632Trial court decision granting Children Services Agency’s motion for award of permanent custody and termination of parental rights affirmed, where appellant-mother did not appear at trial and judgment granting motion was supported by evidence presented.Beatty BluntFranklin 10/11/2022 10/11/2022 2022-Ohio-3627
Archer v. Vallette 21AP-288Because the trial court specifically declined to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal support award in the parties' divorce decree, the trial court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 3105.18(E) to vacate that award under Civ.R. 60(B). Also, the trial court erred in sua sponte vacating the property division provision of the divorce decree under Civ.R. 60(B) and in refusing to consider appellant's motion for attorney fees on its merits.KlattFranklin 10/6/2022 10/6/2022 2022-Ohio-3560
Pond v. Pond 21AP-392The trial court did not err in denying appellant relief from judgment because he had not demonstrated that he had a meritorious claim or defense to present if relief was granted, nor had he established grounds for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(2) or (3).KlattFranklin 10/6/2022 10/6/2022 2022-Ohio-3561
State ex rel. Ware v. Sentence Computation Bur. 21AP-419Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, this court adopts the magistrate’s decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with the magistrate’s decision, we deny as moot relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings, grant relator’s motion for summary judgment in part, grant a partial writ of mandamus, and award relator the sum of $1,000 as statutory damages.JamisonFranklin 10/6/2022 10/6/2022 2022-Ohio-3562
In re J.L.S., 21AP-693Competent, credible evidence supports the probate court's determination under a clear and convincing evidence standard that appellant is a mentally ill person subject to court order because his illness represents a substantial risk of physical harm to others as manifested by evidence of recent violent behavior or recent threats that place another in reasonable fear of violent behavior and serious physical harm under R.C. 5122.01(B).KlattFranklin 10/4/2022 10/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3539
I Love This Bar, L.L.C. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. 21AP-111Because there was no evidence presented to the commission that appellant recklessly caused inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another, the commission could not rely on R.C. 2917.11(A)(5) as the basis for a violation of Ohio Adm.Code 4301:1-1-52(B)(1) ("Rule 52").KlattFranklin 9/30/2022 9/30/2022 2022-Ohio-3509
State v. Ross 21AP-346Trial court’s judgment of sentence vacated and cause remanded for resentencing where both sentencing record and order were ambiguous and unclear as to interaction of defendant’s state sentence with concurrent federal sentence, and where trial court had exceeded its authority in ordering that both sentences were to be served in state custody.Beatty BluntFranklin 9/30/2022 9/30/2022 2022-Ohio-3510
W6 Restaurant Group, Ltd. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. 21AP-407, 21AP-409 & 21AP-410Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part. The common pleas court erred by holding that Ohio Adm.Code 4301:1-1-65(D) prevented the commission from admitting hearsay evidence in the form of an expert affidavit without first determining whether the affidavit was not inherently unreliable and sufficient to constitute reliable, probative and substantial evidence. . The liquor permit holder failed to establish that Ohio Adm.Code 4301:1-1-80 violated R.C. 119.03(G) or the separation of powers doctrine, and the permit holder failed to raise certain arguments in the proceedings below.DorrianFranklin 9/30/2022 9/30/2022 2022-Ohio-3511
State v. Hall-Johnson 21AP-565Trial court decision denying defendant’s motion to suppress inventory search of vehicle affirmed. Initial approach of defendant and defendant’s vehicle was not an investigatory detention of defendant, initial approach gave officers reasonable suspicion that window tint level of vehicle was prohibited, subsequent confirmation of prohibited tint level authorized officers to impound defendant’s vehicle, and officers were required to conduct a preliminary inventory of vehicle contents prior to impoundment.Beatty BluntFranklin 9/30/2022 9/30/2022 2022-Ohio-3512
State v. Brock 21AP-188The parties agree, and the court finds, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of disorderly conduct. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial on the lesser-included offense of disorderly conduct.DorrianFranklin 9/29/2022 9/29/2022 2022-Ohio-3439
Levine v. Kellogg 21AP-338The trial court applied the correct test regarding the measure of damages in a landlord-tenant dispute as the lesser of the cost of repair and the difference in market value caused by the damage. As there is some competent, credible evidence going to the essential elements of the case, we cannot say that any part of the trial court's judgment regarding the award of $0 for alleged damage to the property was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The award of attorney fees was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. We do, however, find that the award was sufficiently disproportionate to the damages obtained to raise the issue of reasonableness under R.C. 5321.16(C). The trial court failed to provide any reasoning as to the disproportionality between the damages and the attorney fees. We remand this matter for the trial court to provide further findings as to the attorney fees award regarding the Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 factors and the disproportionality between the damages and lodestar amount. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part.MentelFranklin 9/29/2022 9/29/2022 2022-Ohio-3440
State ex rel. Wisner v. Indus. Comm. 21AP-494Relator's complaint for mandamus properly denied because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the Industrial Commission's findings. Writ of mandamus denied.JamisonFranklin 9/29/2022 9/29/2022 2022-Ohio-3441
Epcon Community Franchising, L.L.C. v. Wilcox Dev. Group, L.L.C. 21AP-674The Fair Housing Act ("FHA") preempts state law claims for contribution brought pursuant to R.C. 2307.25 because such claims stand " 'as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress' ", in this case the FHA. English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 79 (1990), quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). Thus, the trial court did not err in dismissing Epcon's contribution claim as preempted by the FHA, appellant's sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 9/29/2022 9/29/2022 2022-Ohio-3442
State v. Draughon 22AP-182Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a nunc pro tunc order and motion to set aside a portion of his sentence as motion was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.McGrathFranklin 9/29/2022 9/29/2022 2022-Ohio-3443
Aminatas Daycare, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 22AP-194The court of common pleas did not apply the incorrect standard of review in determining an order of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, which revoked appellant's child care center license, to be supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Appellant additionally failed to show prejudice to warrant reversal since the undisputed administrative code violations provided appellee a legal basis under R.C. 5104.04(D) to impose revocation as a sanction. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 9/29/2022 9/29/2022 2022-Ohio-3444