|
|
190 E. 15th Ave., L.L.C. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
| 24AP-607 | The first assignment of error is overruled because the jury’s response to an interrogatory and resulting verdict were not contrary to or against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because the second assignment of error was conditioned on the court sustaining the first assignment of error, it is rendered moot and dismissed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
8/20/2026
|
8/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3242 |
|
In re C.M.
| 25AP-342, 25AP-343, & 25AP-344 | The juvenile court did not err by granting the motions of Franklin County Children Services for permanent custody, and the decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Competent, credible evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that granting the motions was in the children’s best interests. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
8/20/2026
|
8/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3243 |
|
M.S. v. S.-W. City School Dist.
| 25AP-458 | The trial court’s denial of summary judgment to a school district and its former middle school principal, who asserted statutory immunity under R.C. 2744 against negligence claims arising from a teacher’s sexual abuse of a student, is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The school district is not entitled to immunity on the plaintiff’s negligence per se claim based on the failure to report suspected abuse under R.C. 2151.421, as the Ohio Supreme Court has previously recognized that school districts may be held liable for an employee’s failure to comply with R.C. 2151.421’s mandatory reporting requirements. However, the school district is entitled to immunity on the plaintiff’s claims for negligent supervision, negligence, and negligent security because no exception to political subdivision immunity applies to these claims. The former principal is not entitled to statutory immunity on any of the claims asserted against her. Genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the extent of the former principal’s knowledge of the sexual abuse, and, in turn, whether she had a statutory duty to report the abuse under R.C. 2151.421, and whether her failure to report or investigate the abuse constituted reckless or wanton conduct. | Jamison | Franklin |
8/20/2026
|
8/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3244 |
|
State v. Kirkendoll
| 25AP-477 | Appellant failed to establish that trial counsel's comment regarding Appellant's pretrial incarceration during closing argument was prejudicial. Thus, he failed to satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test. Appellant's conviction for gross sexual imposition was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's challenge for cause during voir dire. The trial did not err in admitting the detective's opinion testimony. It was admissible under Evid.R. 701. Even if it was inadmissible, there was no material prejudice. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
8/20/2026
|
8/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3245 |
|
State ex rel. Owensby v. Franklin Cty. Mun. Court
| 25AP-932 | Relator’s action failed to meet the requirements of a petition for writ of mandamus. Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted. | Jamison | Franklin |
8/20/2026
|
8/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3246 |
|