|
|
29SC Four Pointe LP v. Lockhart
| 26AP-333 | The trial court did not err in entering judgment in favor of appellee for restitution of the premises at issue. Appellant argues that the trial court was divested of jurisdiction before it entered judgment. However, appellant did not meet the necessary requirements for removal of the state action to federal court before the trial court entered judgment. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the judgment. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/10/2026
|
9/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3533 |
|
State ex rel. Weaver v. Aveni
| 26AP-311 | Relator seeks a writ of procedendo ordering respondent, Judge Carl A. Aveni of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to issue a decision on a motion filed on March 5, 2026. Respondent moved for dismissal. Respondent has performed the requested action. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted. Case dismissed as moot. | Jamison | Franklin |
9/10/2026
|
9/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3532 |
|
State ex rel. Muhammad v. Holbrook
| 26AP-81 | Relator requested that this court issue a writ of procedendo ordering respondent to issue decisions on various pending motions. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Because none of relator’s motions had been pending for 120 days or more at the time of the relator’s complaint, the magistrate correctly concluded that the writ of procedendo was premature. Because the complaint on its face indicated that there was not yet a justiciable claim allowing relator to invoke this court’s jurisdiction, the magistrate did not err in failing to consider the additional days that had passed after the filing of the complaint. Objections overruled, motion to dismiss granted, complaint for writ of procedendo dismissed. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/8/2026
|
9/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3517 |
|
State v. Upchurch
| 24AP-320 | Appellant’s convictions for kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01 and domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) are affirmed. The trial court did not err by elevating the domestic violence conviction from a first-degree misdemeanor to a fourth-degree felony based his previous conviction under Columbus City Code 2319.25(D) for intimate partner violence because the offenses are substantially similar, as R.C. 2919.25(D)(3) requires. The prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct based on a single reference to appellant’s “perverse sexual desires” during the opening statement. The trial court did not err by failing to sua sponte grant a mistrial based on a witness’s reference to appellant’s prior incarceration. The statement was merely duplicative of the inevitable inference the jury had to make about the fact of his incarceration because the witness was appellant’s probation officer. Nor did the trial court err by overruling the objection that a detective’s testimony amounted to unqualified expert testimony because the challenged statements arose from his personal observations of victims he had interviewed and were based on his experience as an investigator of sexual assault crimes. The detective did not assert any specialized psychological knowledge, posit a scientific theory, or express an opinion based on knowledge that would have required the trial court to certify him as an expert under Evid.R. 702. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
9/8/2026
|
9/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3515 |
|
State ex rel. Chavis v. Bur. of Sentence Computation
| 25AP-161 | Magistrate properly determined relator failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to have respondent adjust his records to reflect a sentence of 30 years without the “full” designation, or a clear legal duty of respondent to provide such relief. Objection overruled; writ of mandamus denied. | Leland | Franklin |
9/8/2026
|
9/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3516 |
|