|
|
Suburban Maintenance & Constr., Inc. v. Complete Gen. Constr. Co.
| 25AP-454 | The judgments of the trial court as to both the appeal and the cross-appeal are affirmed. The trial court did not err in finding that cross-appellant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on appellant’s claims of alleged entitlement to additional payments for work performed under the parties’ Subcontract. Nor did the trial court err in finding that cross-appellant’s breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law and that appellant was entitled to judgment in its favor on this claim. Finally, the trial court did not err in finding that cross-appellant’s tort claims were barred by the economic-loss rule. Judgments affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
10/22/2026
|
10/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4160 |
|
State v. Sherman
| 26AP-96 | Appellant appealed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas court ruling denying a new trial. Appellant also assigned an error arguing that the trial court judge used the wrong legal standard when denying his motion for new trial. More than 120 days after the trial, Verizon Wireless notified the prosecutor that the records provided and entered into evidence at his trial had given the wrong origination and termination locations for cell phone calls. The prosecutor advised trial counsel and provided a copy of the letter. The trial court found this to be newly discovered evidence, appointed new trial court counsel, and held a hearing on the issue. The trial court found that although there was newly discovered evidence, the newly discovered evidence did not disclose a strong probability that it would change the result if a new trial was granted. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for new trial. Further, we find that the trial court reviewed the evidence and applied the correct legal standard when finding that there is not a strong probability that the outcome of the trial would be different. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/22/2026
|
10/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4161 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 24AP-715 | MANIFEST WEIGHT — FELONIOUS ASSAULT — SELF-DEFENSE: Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice by finding the state disproved at least one element of a self-defense claim where defendant retrieved a gun from his car and shot the victim after the physical altercation concluded. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
10/20/2026
|
10/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4117 |
|
Ohlin v. Machol
| 25AP-621 | The trial court erred in granting defendant social hosts’ motion for judgment on the pleadings because the plaintiff pleaded viable negligence per se claims against these defendants. As to the defendant liquor permit holders, the trial court did not err in dismissing, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiff’s claims against these defendants premised on R.C. 4399.18. However, the trial court erred in dismissing, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiff’s negligence per se claims against the defendant liquor permit holders premised on their alleged violation of R.C. 4301.69, but not brought pursuant to R.C. 4399.18. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
10/20/2026
|
10/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4118 |
|
Sly v. Barbee
| 25AP-841 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding defendant attorney fees in this divorce action. The trial court considered the factors listed in R.C. 3105.73(A) and reasonably determined that awarding defendant a portion of his attorney fees was equitable, based largely on conduct by plaintiff and her counsel throughout the proceedings. The trial court’s failure to record its in-camera interview with the parties’ minor children pursuant to R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(c) does not amount to reversible error. Nor does the trial court’s refusal to admit as evidence a copy of a judgment entry in which defendant was allegedly convicted of an unidentified, out-of-state felony prior to the parties’ marriage or the trial court’s restrictions on questioning defendant regarding allegations of domestic violence. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/20/2026
|
10/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4119 |
|