|
|
State v. Davic
| 24AP-755 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when overruling appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1 because he did not demonstrate the manifest injustice required to overcome the res judicata bar on postsentence plea withdrawal. Appellant’s arguments are all subject to res judicata, as they rely entirely on the trial court record available during the direct appeal. | Mentel | Franklin |
5/7/2026
|
5/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1662 |
|
State v. Hayes
| 25AP-709 | Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief and argues that the trial court erred by relying on the doctrine of res judicata to deny his petition, that his due process rights were violated, and the trial court failed to file separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. On review, defendant's postconviction petition was summary in nature, did not specify the nature of his claims, and did not attach or point to any specific evidence outside the record to support his claims. Moreover, defendant's petition asserted only claims that were known and presented during his trial proceedings without objection. Accordingly, defendant's assignments of error are overruled and the trial court's judgment denying his petition is affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/7/2026
|
5/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1663 |
|
State ex rel. Woodard v. Anderson
| 25AP-792 | Appellant seeks a writ of mandamus to order the parole board to hold a hearing to reconsider the evidence and find him not guilty of parole violations. The court adopts the magistrate’s decision denying writ of mandamus as there is no clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide such relief, and there remains an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Writ of mandamus denied. | Jamison | Franklin |
5/7/2026
|
5/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1664 |
|
Villavicencio v. Mingo
| 25AP-891 | On review of magistrate’s decision recommending dismissal of relator’s mandamus action due to improper captioning and the failure to show the existence of a clear legal right or clear legal duty. Having found no error with the magistrate’s decision, we adopt it in full. | Dingus | Franklin |
5/7/2026
|
5/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1665 |
|
Hood v. Hood
| 25AP-904 | On appeal from a trial court’s order adopting a magistrate’s decision that granted appellee’s motion to terminate shared parenting plan, and which designated appellee as the sole legal custodian and residential parent of the parties’ minor child. Appellant failed to file objections to the decision prior to filing an appeal as required under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i). Further, appellant failed to order transcripts of the two hearings underlying the decision as required under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii) and App.R. 9(B)(1). Appellant forfeited his arguments on appeal and did not otherwise establish plain error. Judgment affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
5/7/2026
|
5/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1666 |
|
State v. Brown
| 24AP-699 | Alleged defect in municipal court complaint did not render judgment of conviction and sentence invalid, because appellant was tried and convicted on the charge contained in a grand jury indictment filed in the common pleas court, not on the charge contained in the municipal court complaint. Appellant’s statutory right to a speedy trial was not violated, because although more than 270 days passed between his arrest and trial, fewer than 270 days were attributable to the state due to tolling and waiver. Appellant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated because although the length of delay was presumptively prejudicial, consideration of the balancing factors weighed against finding a constitutional violation. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/5/2026
|
5/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1622 |
|
Sattelmyer v. Covidien, L.L.C.
| 25AP-319 | PRODUCT LIABILITY – CIV.R. 12(B)(6) – NOTICE PLEADING – CIV.R. 8: Because plaintiff pled sufficient facts to support her manufacturing-defect and design-defect claims under the Ohio Product Liability Act, R.C. 2307.71 et seq., the trial court erred by applying the heightened federal pleading standard and granting defendant-manufacturers’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's product liability claims. However, because plaintiff failed to articulate facts that would provide defendants with adequate notice of her nonconformance with representations and inadequate warning or instructions claims, the trial court did not err in dismissing these claims under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/5/2026
|
5/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1623 |
|
State v. Abukar
| 25AP-354 | Appeal dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. The sentencing entry does not identify the offense by name or statute and therefore does not constitute a single entry or one document that satisfies the requirements of Crim.R.32(C) as it is missing the fact of conviction. Therefore, appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dorrian | Franklin |
5/5/2026
|
5/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1624 |
|
Toledo v. State
| 25AP-872 | The trial court did not err in determining R.C. 5703.38 removed its subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Toledo’s claims related to the state’s enforcement of the spending setoff provisions of R.C. 5747.502. However, though the trial court correctly determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter, the trial court erroneously entered judgment “on the merits” rather than dismissing the action. Thus, we modify the trial court’s decision and judgment entry to reflect the matter is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | Edelstein | Franklin |
5/5/2026
|
5/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1625 |
|
State ex rel. Wright v. Franklin Cty. Mun. Court
| 25AP-935 | The magistrate correctly found relator has failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A). Specifically, relator did not file in conjunction with his petition a properly executed affidavit attesting to his prior civil filings. Further, even if the affidavit attesting to his prior civil filings had been properly executed, it failed to list any civil actions or appeals that relator filed in the previous five years in state or federal court. Accordingly, this court grants the motion to dismiss filed by respondent and dismisses relator’s action. Writ of mandamus denied; complaint dismissed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
5/5/2026
|
5/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1626 |
|
State v. Lindsey
| 23AP-588 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lindsey’s first, second, third, and fourth grounds for postconviction relief. The trial court did not err by denying Lindsey’s seventh ground for postconviction relief without a hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1567 |
|
Huntington Natl. Bank v. He
| 25AP-203 | Both parties moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment was issued in favor of Appellee. Appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that a genuine issue of material fact existed and did not meet her reciprocal burden on summary judgement. Affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1568 |
|
Newman v. Greater Columbus Arts Council
| 25AP-238 | On appeal from the Court of Claims’ decision that partially granted and partially denied the appellant’s public records request for records possessed by appellees Film Columbus and/or its parent organization, the Greater Columbus Arts Council. The Court of Claims held that (1) many of the requested records did not exist, (2) some of the records were financial records related to contracts with public offices subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.431, (3) the remainder of the records were not financial records, and (4) appellees did not have to disclose the remaining records under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, because the appellees were not functionally equivalent to public offices pursuant to the factors articulated in State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 2006-Ohio-4854. The Court of Claims properly distinguished appellees’ financial records from its other records. The court erred by failing to properly articulate its assessment of the Oriana House factors, leaving the appellate court unable to evaluate the validity of the court’s conclusion that appellees were not subject to the general provisions of the Public Records Act. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1569 |
|
Wooden v. Marysville Animal Care Ctr.
| 25AP-379 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision. Trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s finding that the contract was vague and that the parties orally modified the contract which was reflected in their course of conduct. The magistrate did not err in excluding evidence as violative of the parol evidence rule. Appellant’s allegation that the trial court was improperly motivated by bias and sympathy was not supported by evidence to rebut the presumption of the regularity of the proceedings. The trial court’s decision does not indicate that the concept of pretext was a motivating factor in its determination nor did the trial court or magistrate err in finding certain testimony not credible as it is within the scope of the trier of fact to believe or disbelieve testimony. Trial court did not err in not addressing appellant’s counterclaim for damages and the trial court found that appellant materially breached the agreement. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1570 |
|
State ex rel. Barnette v. Chambers-Smith
| 25AP-398 | MANDAMUS — SENTENCE COMPUTATION – R.C. 2929.191: On petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) to modify its computation of relator’s aggregate prison sentence of life without parole, the magistrate properly found that, contrary to relator’s argument otherwise, the 2020 decision of the Seventh District Court of Appeals reversing and vacating the trial court’s 2019 sua sponte imposition of post-release control for kidnapping convictions through an improperly termed “resentencing” hearing had no impact on the trial court’s 2011 judgment imposing two sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for two counts of aggravated murder, which was affirmed on direct appeal in 2014. As such, relator failed to establish, as a matter of law, a clear legal right to the requested relief or that respondent was under a clear legal duty to provide it. Writ denied. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1571 |
|
State ex rel. Preston v. Inst. Inspector Lloyd
| 25AP-663 | Relator failed to file in conjunction with his complaint for mandamus the written affirmation required by R.C. 149.43(C)(2). Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted. Respondent’s motion to strike relator’s brief denied as moot. No objections filed by either party. Magistrate’s decision adopted. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1572 |
|
Bushong v. Bushong
| 25AP-669 | Trial court did not err in proceeding to final judgment because it retained jurisdiction absent the filing of a judgment entry of dismissal. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal as to the July 21, 2025 judgment, but failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to the June 24, 2025 judgment. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction to review the June 24, 2025 judgment. We affirm the July 21, 2025 judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations. | Leland | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1573 |
|
Bear River Dispensaries, L.L.C. v. Canepa
| 25AP-760 | R.C. 3780.10(B) required applicants to possess a license to operate a medical marijuana dispensary at the time of application in order to be eligible for a 10(B) license. Because appellant did not meet this condition, the trial court did not err in granting the Division’s motion for summary judgment. Assignment of error overruled; judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
4/30/2026
|
4/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1574 |
|
Bahorek v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
| 25AP-164 | In R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a), the General Assembly implemented conditions that limit property owners from challenging the undervaluation of another’s property for tax purposes. In effect, those conditions shift the property tax burden from commercial property owners to ordinary Ohioans. Application of the R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) conditions blatantly treats properties differently by exposing some to a value correction while allowing others to remain undervalued. Thus, because R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) systematically and intentionally departs from the uniform valuation of real property, we hold it violates the uniform rule and is unconstitutional under Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution. | Leland | Franklin |
4/28/2026
|
4/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1523 |
|
Bahorek v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
| 25AP-165 | In R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a), the General Assembly implemented conditions that limit property owners from challenging the undervaluation of another’s property for tax purposes. In effect, those conditions shift the property tax burden from commercial property owners to ordinary Ohioans. Application of the R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) conditions blatantly treats properties differently by exposing some to a value correction while allowing others to remain undervalued. Thus, because R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) systematically and intentionally departs from the uniform valuation of real property, we hold it violates the uniform rule and is unconstitutional under Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution. | Leland | Franklin |
4/28/2026
|
4/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1524 |
|
Medley v. BMI Fed. Credit Union
| 25AP-632 | On pro se plaintiff's appeal from decision awarding attorney fees to defendant following decision granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's claims, awarding attorney fees, and remanding case to trial before magistrate on correct amount of attorney fee award. Plaintiff's assignments of error do not challenge the amount of attorney fees awarded but focus on the underlying judgment. Plaintiff's assignments of error lack legal merit and are overruled--record clearly established that plaintiff's claims for relief were unsupportable, that defendant was entitled to summary judgment, and that plaintiff owed the deficiency on auto loan amount to the defendant. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/28/2026
|
4/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1525 |
|
Bahorek v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
| 25AP-10 to 25AP-64; 25AP-66 to 25AP-72; 25AP-76 to 25AP-81; 25AP-101 to 25AP-105; 25AP-107 to 25AP-126 | In R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a), the General Assembly implemented conditions that limit property owners from challenging the undervaluation of another’s property for tax purposes. In effect, those conditions shift the property tax burden from commercial property owners to ordinary Ohioans. Application of the R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) conditions blatantly treats properties differently by exposing some to a value correction while allowing others to remain undervalued. Thus, because R.C. 5715.19(A)(6)(a) systematically and intentionally departs from the uniform valuation of real property, we hold it violates the uniform rule and is unconstitutional under Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution. | Leland | Franklin |
4/28/2026
|
4/28/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1526 |
|
State v. Magan
| 25AP-306 | BENCH TRIAL — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — REJECTION OF PLEA OFFER — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: The testimony of defendant's live-in partner and her sister, along with photographic evidence of victim's injuries, was sufficient for the trial court to find defendant guilty of domestic violence assault and assault following a bench trial. Further, domestic violence conviction was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the record showed defendant knocked the victim to the ground and pinned her down by pressing his knee into her arm, thus causing “physical harm” as defined in R.C. 2901.01(A)(3). Although defendant presented a different account of events, the trial court judge was in the best position to evaluate discrepancies in witness testimony and determine witness credibility. As to the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim regarding defendant’s decision to reject the state’s plea offer, defendant failed to show his trial counsel inadequately advised him of the offer or that he was unaware of the potential consequences associated with rejecting it. Further, defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea offer prior to trial but for trial counsel’s conduct. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/23/2026
|
4/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1466 |
|
State ex rel. Justice v. State
| 25AP-801 | MANDAMUS - DISMISSAL - R.C. 2969.25 - R.C. 2731.04: The magistrate did not err in finding relator’s noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C) warranted dismissal of this action. Additionally, relator failed to comply with R.C. 2731.04 because relator did not bring the instant petition in the name of the state on the relation of relator. Motion to dismiss granted; action dismissed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/23/2026
|
4/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1467 |
|
Robinson v. Judge Page
| 25AP-827 | A criminal defendant’s consent to the proceedings is irrelevant to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court of common pleas to hear felony cases. Because relator’s complaint failed to allege the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under any viable legal theory, we dismiss his complaint seeking a writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/23/2026
|
4/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1468 |
|
In re D.W.R.
| 24AP-31 | The appellant was denied due process because appellee’s key witness was permitted to testify against appellant even though he was incompetent under Evid.R. 601(B). Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/21/2026
|
4/21/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1433 |
|
Wilson v. Montgomery
| 25AP-318 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee’s motion to intervene without an attached pleading as his motion clearly stated his purpose for intervening and the basis for his claims. The trial court’s order for genetic testing was not void as R.C. 3119.962 provides an alternative mechanism to rescind paternity acknowledgment through genetic testing without the time restrictions contained in R.C. 3111.28. | Boggs | Franklin |
4/21/2026
|
4/21/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1434 |
|
Jackson v. Tyler
| 25AP-662 | Appellant’s failure to object to the magistrate’s decision waived all but plain error on review and prevented both the trial court and this court from reviewing a transcript of the magistrate’s hearing. We find no plain error and presume the regularity of the below proceedings. Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
4/21/2026
|
4/21/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1435 |
|
State v. Cherry
| 26AP-11 | POSTCONVICTION — RES JUDICATA — APPELLATE REVIEW — JURISDICTION: The trial court did not err in denying a petition for postconviction relief on the basis of res judicata where defendant’s postconviction claims challenging the legality of his prison sentence could have been raised and litigated on direct appeal. Further, we do not have jurisdiction to consider defendant’s arguments about a decision that is not the subject of this appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/16/2026
|
4/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1386 |
|
State v. Wappner
| 24AP-8 | On appeal from jury convictions for felonious assault, felony murder, and reckless homicide, arising from the defendant’s acts of striking the victim with a gun and shooting the victim. The defendant admitted to the acts but attempted to assert that he struck the victim in defense of others and shot the victim by accident. The court allowed the accident defense but instructed the jury that it could not consider defense of others, holding that the two defenses were mutually exclusive. The trial court erred in disallowing the defendant’s defense-of-others claim; because each defense applied to a separate act, the two defenses were not mutually exclusive. The error affected defendant’s felonious assault and felony murder convictions, but it did not impact the reckless homicide conviction. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Cause remanded for further proceedings on the charges of felonious assault and felony murder. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1350 |
|
State ex rel. Woodard v. Hoying
| 24AP-307 | Relator failed to establish that respondent is under a clear legal duty to provide the requested relief. Respondent's conclusion that relator violated the terms of his parole was supported by substantial evidence. Having found no error of law or other evidentiary defects in the magistrate's decision, we adopt that decision in its entirety and deny relator's petition for a writ of mandamus. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1351 |
|
Thomas v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
| 25AP-89 | The Court of Claims of Ohio erred by entering summary judgment for the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) on plaintiff-employee’s claims relating to BWC’s subrogation demand for fees related to an independent medical examiner’s review and report ordered by BWC. The Court of Claims erroneously held that BWC acquired vested contractual rights defining the parties’ subrogation obligations and rights under R.C. 4123.93 and 4123.931 when they executed a settlement agreement. A state agency may not obtain vested contractual rights to funds it was not statutorily entitled to recoup. The independent medical examiner’s fee was unlawfully included in BWC’s subrogation demand, in part, because BWC is statutorily required to bear the cost of the medical reviews it orders. As the independent medical examiner’s fee did not fall within the statutory definition of “subrogation interest,” the disputed fee was not encapsulated by the settlement agreement and release’s reference to the “subrogation lien.” | Boggs | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1352 |
|
Castro v. Hero Havens, L.L.C.
| 25AP-397 | Judgment affirmed; trial court did not err in granting appellee leave to amend its counterclaim and in denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment. | Leland | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1354 |
|
State ex rel. Jones v. Sadler
| 25AP-596 | Relator failed to establish that respondent is under a clear legal duty to provide relief or that relator lacks an adequate remedy at law. In short, it was the clerk of courts' duty to notate upon the journal the date of filing of the dismissal entry. It was not the respondent's duty. Thus, we adopt the magistrate's decision in its entirety, overrule relator's objections, grant respondent's motion to dismiss, and deny relator's petition for a writ of mandamus. | Jamison | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1355 |
|
State ex rel. Cotten v. Aveni
| 25AP-869 | On review of magistrate's decision. Having found no error with that decision, it is adopted in full , including the findings of fact and conclusions of law as they are set forth in the decision. The respondent’s motion to dismiss is sustained, and the relator’s petition for writ of procedendo is dismissed as moot. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
4/14/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1356 |
|
State v. Slaughter
| 25AP-255 | Judgment affirmed. Because the evidence demonstrated appellant failed to pay any of his court-ordered child support during the relevant timeframe, both sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence supported appellant’s conviction for nonsupport of dependents under R.C. 2919.21(B). Appellant failed to demonstrate the jury instructions amounted to plain error, the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct, or that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/9/2026
|
4/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1291 |
|
In re A.S.
| 25AP-582 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s request for a continuance on the first day of trial where mother had not made meaningful progress toward reunification with the child and testified she was not seeking custody of the child. Additionally, mother did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when assigned counsel sent substitute counsel in his place. Mother did not articulate any prejudice from substitute counsel proceeding to trial in place of assigned counsel, and mother did not challenge the trial court’s determination that granting Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS")’s motion for permanent custody was in the best interest of the child. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
4/9/2026
|
4/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1292 |
|
Muhammad v. PNC Fin. Servs.
| 25AP-696 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Res judicata barred appellant’s claims. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/7/2026
|
4/7/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1252 |
|
Columbus v. Argous, L.L.C.
| 25AP-139, 25AP-140, 25AP-141, 25AP-142, 25AP-143 | The trial court did not err by excluding appellant from participating in the January 2025 hearing as he was not an “interested party” as defined under R.C. 3767.41. Because appellant is not an interested party under the statute, he has no standing to raise arguments concerning the trial court’s grant of the order of sale. Appeal dismissed in part; judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
4/7/2026
|
4/14/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1353 |
|
Allen v. Marre
| 25AP-717 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellee demonstrated that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to appellant’s claims, and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to those claims. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
4/2/2026
|
4/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1186 |
|
BBI Logistics, L.L.C. v. GRS Transport, Inc.
| 23AP-766 | Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the requests for admission resulted in the requests becoming admissions. The trial court did not err either in refusing to grant plaintiff leave to withdraw its default admissions or in considering those admissions as evidence. Plaintiff demonstrated a lack of diligence by making no attempt to conduct the depositions it needed to respond to summary judgment within the discovery period. Additionally, plaintiff opposed extending the case schedule deadlines, and it only reversed its position and sought court intervention after the discovery cut-off deadline passed. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant plaintiff a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance. Because plaintiff did not establish that the trial court relied on inadmissible evidence in granting defendant summary judgment, the trial court did not err in implicitly denying plaintiff’s motion to strike that evidence. Finally, the trial court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and bad faith as defendant demonstrated that the lost and/or damaged property at issue was not covered property under the insurance policy. | Mentel | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1146 |
|
State v. Robertson
| 24AP-184 | The trial court committed plain error in requiring appellant to appear in visible shackles in front of the jury without adequate justification. The jury’s view of appellant’s shackles was neither brief nor inadvertent, and it occurred in the courtroom, during trial, and just prior to appellant’s testimony to assert his affirmative defense of duress. Based on these unique facts, we find this case to be the exceptional circumstance that requires correction of a manifest miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s convictions for aggravated robbery, improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation, felonious assault, aggravated murder, and felony murder, but we affirm appellant’s conviction of murder under Count 7 as the duress defense was not applied to that charge at trial. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1147 |
|
Miller v. Miller
| 24AP-730 | Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Trial court’s determination of the value of the marital business was supported by competent, credible and reliable evidence. Appellant’s second assignment of error is barred by res judicata and the trial court did not err in not retaining jurisdiction over the spousal support order. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1148 |
|
Jones v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.
| 25AP-186 | The Court of Claims did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant's age and sex discrimination claims because appellant did not present a genuine issue of material fact that appellee's reason for appellant's termination was a pretext for discrimination. Judgment affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1149 |
|
C.L. v. McFadden
| 25AP-317 | The trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of a home daycare provider on claims of negligence and loss of consortium brought by the parents of two minor children who were sexually abused when the daycare provider left them alone with her husband. The trial court erroneously held that no duty of care existed, because the criminal acts were not reasonably foreseeable to the daycare provider. The daycare provider owed a duty of care to the children, both due to the special, custodial relationship between herself and the children and because she voluntarily undertook to render services she should have recognized as necessary for the children’s protection. Questions of foreseeability are relevant to whether the daycare provider breached her duty of care to the children, not to whether she owed a duty at all. | Boggs | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1150 |
|
Hicks for a Better Clermont v. Ohio Election Integrity Comm.
| 25AP-736 | The common pleas court erred in finding Adm.Code 3517-1-11(A) is an invalid administrative rule. The Ohio Election Integrity Commission had statutory authority to develop procedures different from those contained in R.C. Chapter 119, and the rule is not internally inconsistent. Judgment reversed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1155 |
|
State ex rel. Fraley v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 25AP-732 | Motion to dismiss mandamus petition for failure to comply with statutory requirements of the Public Records Act denied. The relevant statutory requirements were added to the Public Records Act by legislative amendment. The amendment had not gone into effect when relator made his public records request but had become effective by the time relator filed his mandamus claim. Consistent with Supreme Court of Ohio precedent holding that public records requests are governed by the version of the Public Records Act in effect at the time the request was made, petition is not subject to dismissal for failure to comply with statutory amendments that went into effect after relator made his public records request. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/31/2026
|
3/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1156 |
|
Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman Ltd. Partnership
| 22AP-638 | Judgment reversed. The trial court applied the doctrine of waiver by estoppel, rather than the doctrine of equitable estoppel, to find the defendant/landlord was estopped from claiming the leases terminated on December 31, 2021. However, competent, credible evidence did not support the court’s estoppel determination, because the defendant/landlord accepted the rent from the plaintiff/tenant prior to the expiration of the parties’ final standstill agreement, and the defendant/landlord did not engage in any conduct inconsistent with its right to claim either that the final standstill agreement expired on April 15, 2022 or that the leases expired on December 31, 2021. | Dorrian | Franklin |
3/26/2026
|
3/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1057 |
|
CPC Parts Delivery, L.L.C. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.
| 25AP-403; 25AP-406; 25AP-408 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motions for summary judgment. Because appellants cannot show that they were treated differently than a party similarly situated in all relevant respects, their equal protection claims fail. Judgments affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
3/26/2026
|
3/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1058 |
|
Lupia v. Lupia
| 25AP-483 | DIVORCE – CUSTODY – SHARED PARENTING – SCHOOL-PLACEMENT PARENT – BEST INTEREST – R.C. 3109.04: Where the trial court appropriately balanced the competing testimony of Mother and Father with the best interest of their child, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in naming Mother as the residential parent for school-placement purposes, notwithstanding the guardian ad litem’s recommendation that Father be designated the school-placement parent. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
3/26/2026
|
3/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1059 |
|