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 51 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Rutan 23AP-309On trial court decision overruling petitioner’s motion for leave to file motion for new trial and untimely petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner failed to identify any single piece of evidence or facts that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering, and therefore failed to show how such evidence was either potentially exculpatory as required for new trial or provided a necessary basis for postconviction relief. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/15/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-593
State v. Osborn 22AP-695Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress statements in a custodial interrogation because the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a gunshot residue test as the results involved the collection of highly evanescent evidence, taken with minimal intrusion on the defendant, and was supported by probable cause. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of text messages between the defendant and the victim under Evid.R. 404(B) to show intent, motive and state of mind of the defendant. Defendant’s counsel’s performance also fell within the wide range of reasonable professional behavior expected of attorneys and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.BoggsFranklin 2/13/2024 2/13/2024 2024-Ohio-528
Medlock v. Brooks 22AP-726The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the final orders of the Division of Unclaimed Funds of the Ohio Department of Commerce requiring appellants to report and remit their respective unclaimed funds liabilities under R.C. 169.03. Appellants do not identify any evidentiary deficiency to counter the trial court’s conclusion that reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supported the final orders. Judgments affirmed.MentelFranklin 2/13/2024 2/13/2024 2024-Ohio-529
State v. Gordon 23AP-437Trial court did not err in denying appellant's untimely, successive petition for post-conviction relief.LelandFranklin 2/13/2024 2/13/2024 2024-Ohio-530
State v. Worrell 23AP-244SIERAH’S LAW — R.C. 2903.41 — VIOLENT OFFENDER DATABASE — RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION — EQUAL PROTECTION: Application of Sierah’s Law to violent offenders who committed a qualifying offense prior to the law’s effective date, were sentenced before the law took effect, and were serving a term of confinement for that offense on the law’s effective date does not violate the Retroactivity Clause of Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, trial court did not err in denying defendant’s post-conviction motion for exclusion from the violent offender database registry requirements imposed upon him by Sierah’s Law. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 2/8/2024 2/8/2024 2024-Ohio-442
Sheets v. Sheets 23AP-226 & 23AP-259These are two appeals from post-divorce decree custody-related orders. One appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is an appeal from the denial of a request for emergency temporary custody, which is not a final, appealable order. The other appeal is from the trial court’s disposition of appellant’s challenge to the magistrate’s resolution of requests for the reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities. Appellant fails to demonstrate any error in the second appeal. Appeal dismissed in case No. 23AP-226, and judgment affirmed in case No. 23AP-259.Per CuriamFranklin 2/8/2024 2/8/2024 2024-Ohio-443
State v. Carter 22AP-136The trial court did not err in declining to give a jury instruction on adverse possession as that concept is neither a defense to the crime charged nor does it apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Neither did the trial court plainly err in refusing to give an instruction on abandonment. Finally, the evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of criminal trespassing and that conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgement affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/8/2024 2/8/2024 2024-Ohio-444
Access Urgent Med. Care of Upper Arlington v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce 22AP-668 & 22AP-669The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the final orders of the Division of Unclaimed Funds of the Ohio Department of Commerce requiring appellants to report and remit their respective unclaimed funds liabilities under R.C. 169.03. Appellants do not identify any evidentiary deficiency to counter the trial court’s conclusion that reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supported the final orders. Judgments affirmed.MentelFranklin 2/8/2024 2/8/2024 2024-Ohio-445
In re C.D. 22AP-649, 22AP-650, 22AP-674 & 22AP-675Trial court decision granting children services agency’s motion to terminate mother’s parental rights and denying maternal grandfather’s motion for custody affirmed. Trial court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence, agency complied with requirements of Ohio kinship caregiver law, and trial court was not required to appoint separate counsel for one of the children and mother lacked standing to challenge the decision as the child had never expressed a wish to be placed with the mother.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/8/2024 2/8/2024 2024-Ohio-446
Marchbanks v. Ice House Ventures, L.L.C. 21AP-24The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to award contract damages against Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for its breach of the parties’ settlement agreement entered into to resolve an appropriation matter instead of going to trial. Furthermore, the parties’ agreement is clear that the issue of damages was left to the trial court should the issue arise. Therefore, the trial court did not err in awarding expectation damages to appellee. Nor did the trial court err in finding that ODOT breached the parties’ agreement as the record clearly shows ODOT was unable to convey the Parking Mitigation Property as promised in the agreement and in fact stipulated to same. Finally, the trial court did not err in in finding ODOT liable for IHV’s attorney fees. Ohio law is clear that where a party breaches a settlement agreement entered into to resolve litigation and the breach causes the other party to incur attorney fees in continuing the litigation, such fees are properly awarded by a court as compensatory damages. Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/6/2024 2/6/2024 2024-Ohio-417
State v. Abdullahi 21AP-350The trial court did not err in denying Abdullahi’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, Abdullahi did not demonstrate the requisite prejudice from his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, Abdullahi did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court did not err in imposing an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law.Luper SchusterFranklin 2/6/2024 2/6/2024 2024-Ohio-418
Hettinger v. McDonald 24AP-37Judgment entry granting a plaintiff’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion, thereby vacating a prior entry dismissing the divorce due to the parties failing to provide trial notebooks and reinstating the divorce, is not final and appealable under the relevant provisions of R.C. 2505.02(B). Motion to dismiss granted; appeal dismissed.Beatty BluntFranklin 2/2/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-368
Abu-Arish v. Badawi 23AP-312Without a transcript of the bench trial proceedings to assess Nationwide ATM's assignments of error, we conclude the trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate's decision finding in favor of appellee. Judgment affirmed.LelandFranklin 2/1/2024 2/1/2024 2024-Ohio-350
Hogan v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority 23AP-471Because the trial court, in granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to dismiss, failed to enter judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims and did not certify that there was no just reason for delay, the judgment entry appealed from is not a final appealable order and this court is without jurisdiction to review it. Appeal Dismissed.JamisonFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-307
Campbell v. 1 Spring, L.L.C. 23AP-375Trial court did not abuse its discretion by entering charging order against membership interest of judgment debtors in limited liability company with payment of unpaid balance of previously issued judgment. Entry of a new advertising sign lease did not extinguish judgment debtors' obligation to compensate judgment creditor under previously issued judgment.DorrianFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-308
Sauter v. Integrity Cycles, L.L.C. 23AP-313The trial court erred as the refiled complaint was timely filed under Ohio’s savings statute, R.C. 2305.19(A). The one-year period prescribed in R.C. 2305.19 concludes after counting the number of months, 12, from the commencing date, January 6, 2022, and ends on the same numerical day in the concluding month, i.e., January 6, 2023. Judgment reversed; cause remanded.MentelFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-309
HSBC Bank USA N.A. v. Rao 23AP-293Trial court did not err by denying homeowner’s motion to enforce settlement agreement. Evidence indicated the parties had not reached an agreement on essential terms, a necessary party was not included in negotiations, and terms in the motion differed from the terms of the purported agreement. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-310
State v. Williams 23AP-144OVI – R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant’s admission to consuming alcohol prior to driving and poor performance on standardized field sobriety tests—in conjunction with breathalyzer test registering a breath alcohol concentration level of 0.125 and trooper’s testimony describing defendant’s marked lanes violation, bloodshot and glassy eyes, and odor of alcohol—proved that defendant operated his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in admitting the breathalyzer test evidence is without merit because defendant failed to object to the admission of such evidence in the trial court and did not argue plain error on appeal. Judgment affirmed.EdelsteinFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-311
Reading Hills, L.L.C. v. Bryant 23AP-107Because defendant vacated the leased premises, the appeal of the judgment granting plaintiff restitution of the leased premises is moot.LelandFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-312
A.A. v. Ohio Univ. 23AP-73Trial court abused its discretion when it quashed a subpoena issued to a child protective services agency seeking records pertaining to an incident of sexual abuse by a police officer employed by appellee/University. Appellant, who was later sexually abused as a minor by the same officer, established good cause to obtain the records in that the records likely contain facts relevant to her claim against the University for negligent retention and supervision. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct an in camera review of the records to determine if they are discoverable. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.JamisonFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-313
State ex rel. Wyse v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. 22AP-25Relator filed no objections to the magistrate’s decision concluding that some evidence in the record supported the decision of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System to terminate relator’s disability benefits. Because there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, it is adopted and the request for a writ of mandamus is denied.MentelFranklin 1/30/2024 1/30/2024 2024-Ohio-314
State ex rel. Ware v. Bratton 20AP-347Magistrate's decision recommending denial of request for writ of mandamus, statutory damages, and court costs adopted. The magistrate did not err by determining that relator failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the purported records request was directed to the public office or person responsible for the records sought. Relator was not entitled to statutory damages or court costs because the purported records request was not directed to the public office or person responsible for the records sought.DorrianFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-260
Hunter v. Rhino Shield 22AP-507The trial court did not err when awarding sanctions in favor of appellees under R.C. 2323.51. It was frivolous conduct to sue entities that had no connection to the plaintiffs and were not parties to the original agreement they entered into, to sue an entity that did not exist at the time of contracting, and to refuse to dismiss those entities as defendants. Nor did the trial court err when overruling appellant's motion for sanctions based on alleged frivolous conduct because the subjects of the motion were non-parties who did not engage in a conspiracy to avoid service, but actually provided appellant with an address for proper service. Because there were no reasonable grounds for the appeal, appellees’ motion for sanctions under App.R. 23 is granted.MentelFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-261
State v. Morris 23AP-186Appellant’s motion seeking a final appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C) was incorrectly construed as an untimely motion for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 but was properly denied. After severance of the counts in the criminal indictment and their resolution in two separate judgments, appellant failed to appeal from the second judgment to raise the argument that all counts had to be resolved in a single final appealable order. The argument that he was entitled to a separate case number for the second set of counts does not demonstrate prejudice, and the trial court referenced all counts in both judgment entries. Judgment affirmedMentelFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-262
State ex rel. Stone v. Norman 23AP-376The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas erred in granting summary judgment in favor of respondent-appellee, the Registrar of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, in realtor-appellant’s action for a writ of mandamus ordering respondent-appellee to vacate his driver’s license suspension pursuant to R.C. 4509.40, or alternatively for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court erroneously concluded that a judgment that has gone dormant and cannot be revived is not “stayed” or “satisfied” for purposes of R.C. 4509.40. Based on its erroneous legal conclusion, the trial court concluded that relator-appellant did not have a clear legal right to relief in mandamus and was not entitled to declaratory relief. The trial court also erred by holding that relator-appellant had an adequate remedy at law. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.BoggsFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-263
State v. Rohrig 23AP-403Because appellant failed to support his arguments alleging errors occurring at his community control revocation proceedings with a transcript or alternative record under App.R. 9, this court must presume the validity of those proceedings and affirm.DorrianFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-264
Fluellen v. Miller 23AP-472LANDLORD-TENANT — RETALIATION CLAIM — R.C. 5321.02 — CIV.R. 12(B)(6): Because trial court did not fully consider the sufficiency of tenant’s retaliation claim against landlord under R.C. 5321.02(A), the trial court erred in finding tenant failed to state a claim under which relief could be granted and dismissing the retaliation claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Trial court did not err, however, in dismissing tenant's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims against landlord. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.EdelsteinFranklin 1/25/2024 1/25/2024 2024-Ohio-265
State ex rel. Rodgers v. Indus. Comm. 22AP-759The magistrate's decision contained no error of law or other defect on its face. Therefore, we adopt as our own the magistrate's decision finding that the commission did not abuse its discretion when it found that relator was not entitled to TTD compensation. Accordingly, relator's request for a writ of mandamus is denied.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/23/2024 1/23/2024 2024-Ohio-223
In re A.A. 23AP-152Juvenile court did not plainly err in admitting into evidence the guardian ad litem’s report and relying on that report in determining that granting permanent custody of minor child to public children services agency was in the minor child’s best interestDorrianFranklin 1/23/2024 1/23/2024 2024-Ohio-224
Tchankpa v. Gauer 23AP-275The trial court did not err in its determination that appellant’s other claims were subsumed within the legal malpractice cause of action as they arose from appellee’s legal representation in the course of the attorney-client relationship. The trial court did not err by dismissing appellant’s legal malpractice claim as both the date of termination and the cognizable event occurred more than one year from the date the complaint was filed. Judgment affirmed.MentelFranklin 1/23/2024 1/23/2024 2024-Ohio-225
Gipson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 23AP-291The trial court did not err in granting the motion of ODRC to dismiss after finding that it lacked subject jurisdiction over appellants’ claim for tampering with evidence, and further finding appellants’ claim regarding ODRC’s failure to investigate was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2743.16(A). Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/23/2024 1/23/2024 2024-Ohio-226
Gipson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 23ap-390The trial court did not err in granting the motion of OAPA to dismiss after finding that appellants’ complaint failed to state claims upon which relief may be granted because OAPA is entitled to immunity from those claims pursuant to the public duty rule, codified at R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(a). Judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/23/2024 1/23/2024 2024-Ohio-227
State v. Workman 21AP-607Judgment affirmed. The evidence was not legally insufficient to support appellant’s convictions for aggravated burglary, aggravated murder, and tampering with evidence, nor were they against the manifest weight of the evidence. Any privilege appellant enjoyed to remain on the property terminated when he shot the victim, extensive ballistic and forensic evidence linked appellant to the murder weapon, which he sold days after the murder, and appellant confessed to the crime in a letter written and given to prison officials. The trial court did not err when imposing the firearm specification because it was mandatory under R.C. 2929.14(C)(1)(a), and was not at the trial court’s discretion under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) as appellant argues.MentelFranklin 1/18/2024 1/18/2024 2024-Ohio-167
State ex rel. Harris v. Brown 23AP-21Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate’s decision, this court adopts the magistrate’s decision. We therefore grant respondent’s motion and dismiss relator’s complaint for a writ of procedendo.Luper SchusterFranklin 1/18/2024 1/18/2024 2024-Ohio-168
Yoonessi v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio 23AP-160On appeal of common pleas court decision affirming order of State Medical Board of Ohio permanently denying application to reinstate license. The common pleas court correctly held that the board’s order denying petition based on reciprocity for out of state suspension was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, and was in accordance with law. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s motion to supplement the record with extrinsic evidence, as that evidence was only relevant to challenge the basis of petitioner’s out-of-state suspension, and petitioner’s right to due process was not violated as he received fair notice of the precise nature of the charges against him and the hearing on those charges. Assignments of error overruled and judgment affirmed.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/18/2024 1/18/2024 2024-Ohio-169
Asbanyoli v. Haddadin 23AP-163The trial court’s designation of appellee as the sole legal custodian and residential parent of the minor children was not an abuse of discretion. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to deviate from the amount of child support provided in the guidelines. Judgment affirmed.MentelFranklin 1/18/2024 1/18/2024 2024-Ohio-170
State v. Vokas 23AP-167Trial court did not err in failing to make required findings during sentencing hearing; however, matter remanded to trial court for limited purpose of issuing nunc pro tunc entry incorporating the required findings in its sentencing entry.LelandFranklin 1/18/2024 1/18/2024 2024-Ohio-171
State ex rel. Meros v. Munson 23AP-366Respondent's motion to dismiss granted; action dismissed.LelandFranklin 1/18/2024 1/18/2024 2024-Ohio-172
Bruce v. Belucon 21AP-497Judgment reversed. The trial court properly ruled that appellant’s failure to refile the complaint in his worker’s compensation appeal under R.C. 4123.512 within a year from its dismissal, as allowed by the savings statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), barred him from demonstrating his right to participate in the workers’ compensation fund, and the employer was therefore entitled to judgment. However, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the commission to vacate its orders, charge payments to the Surplus Fund, or determine the existence or non-existence of the employer’s liability, as the scope of review under R.C. 4123.512(D) is limited to determining only “the right of the claimant to participate or to continue to participate in the fund upon the evidence adduced at the hearing of the action.”MentelFranklin 1/16/2024 1/16/2024 2024-Ohio-139
State ex rel. Staple v. State Emp. Relations Bd. 22AP-78Relator, a bargaining unit employee, has standing under R.C. 4117.11 to pursue an unfair labor practice charge against respondent/employer alleging that the employer interfered with relator’s right to arbitrate his grievance by unilaterally determining that the notice of intent to arbitrate was untimely submitted by respondent/union. SERB abused its discretion when it concluded probable cause did not exist to believe respondent/employer committed the ULP because the timeliness of a notice is a question of arbitrability that should have been submitted to the arbitrator in the first instance. SERB abused its discretion by dismissing one of relator’s ULP charges against respondent/union without providing any explanation or reasoning for the decision. SERB abused its discretion in dismissing relator’s ULP charge against respondent/union alleging unfair representation where the evidence showed that the union knew relator wished to arbitrate the grievance but failed to timely notify respondent/employer, as required by the CBA, based on erroneous instructions from relator’s private counsel. Objections overruled, relator’s motion for summary judgment granted, and writ of mandamus issued.JamisonFranklin 1/16/2024 1/16/2024 2024-Ohio-140
State ex rel. McNew v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 23AP-63Relator’s objection to a magistrate’s decision, which recommended that this court dismiss relator’s action for a writ of mandamus, is sustained. Relator sought a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, to provide him with a copy of a Risk Assessment Report and other nonconfidential documents regarding relator, an inmate. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), but respondent improperly relied on evidence beyond the face of relator’s complaint and of which this court may not take judicial notice. Because respondent’s motion to dismiss was based on evidence outside of relator’s complaint, dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is improper, and the matter is remanded to the magistrate with instructions to issue an order converting the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and to issue a new decision addressing the motion under the standards set out in Civ.R. 56. Relator’s remaining objections were moot.BoggsFranklin 1/16/2024 1/16/2024 2024-Ohio-141
State v. Short 22AP-543 & 22AP-544MANIFEST WEIGHT — IDENTIFICATION — REVERSAL: Convictions for offenses involving a shooting death captured on home video surveillance footage are against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant’s identity as the shooter was established by one witness’s opinion that the perpetrator depicted in the surveillance video was defendant and the state’s theory that defendant mistook victim for another person. Witness testified to identifying defendant as the shooter in the seconds’ long, low quality, black-and-white surveillance footage based on his gait and clothing. On review, surveillance footage did not contain sufficient detail for jury to find this identification credible where shooter’s clothing unremarkable, defendant’s gait not described as unique such that it could reasonably suffice as a credible identifying factor, witness never described seeing defendant walk for an appreciable distance, no physical evidence connected defendant to the crime scene, no eyewitnesses to the shooting testified at trial, no compelling motive evidence was presented, and the jury was not provided with adequate evidence to compare, for themselves, defendant’s gait to that of the shooter. Additionally, the state’s theory that defendant shot the victim because he was related to and looked like someone else was not reasonably supported by credible evidence. Moreover, the state’s claim that the other person was connected to the crime scene was not borne out by the record and relied on the improper stacking of inferences. Defendant’s convictions for offenses stemming from an entirely separate incident, however, are not against the manifest weight of the evidence where victim positively identified defendant in a photo array and in-court as the person who shot him and his brother. Judgment reversed, in part, and cause remanded.EdelsteinFranklin 1/11/2024 1/11/2024 2024-Ohio-92
State ex rel. Tchankpa v. Indus. Comm. 20AP-259Claimant was not entitled to mandamus when he voluntarily dismissed his right to participate action in a common pleas court but did not refile the action, and failed to invoke the Industrial Commission’s continuing jurisdiction within five years from the date of the last payment of medical benefits or compensation. Writ of mandamus denied.JamisonFranklin 1/11/2024 1/11/2024 2024-Ohio-93
Smith v. Smith 22AP-720Plaintiff-appellant demonstrated the trial court erred and abused its discretion by granting defendant-appellee’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a final judgment-divorce decree based on Civ.R. 60(B)(3) and Civ.R. 60(B)(4) where the parties expressly disputed the characterization of disclosed assets as separate or marital property and the proponent of the alleged separate property, defendant-appellee, failed to appear at the final hearing to present evidence on that issue. Judgment reversed.BoggsFranklin 1/9/2024 1/9/2024 2024-Ohio-45
State ex rel. Ware v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 23AP-18Relator’s affidavit of prior civil actions failed to include all information mandated by R.C. 2969.25(A). Strict compliance with the statute is required. Accordingly, relator’s original action in mandamus is dismissed.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/9/2024 1/9/2024 2024-Ohio-47
Estate of Reardon v. OhioHealth Corp. 23AP-148 & 23AP-154Defendants, healthcare providers and doctors, appealed trial court’s denial of summary judgment arguing that they were immune from suit as a result of the enactment of 2019 Ohio H.B. 606, which expanded the qualified statutory immunity from suit granted to healthcare providers during the period of the COVID-19 emergency. On review, appeal dismissed. Trial court’s decision denying summary judgment was not a final order, and aside from the statutory exception for political subdivisions under R.C. Chapter 2744, Ohio courts do not allow for interlocutory review of a denial of summary judgment based on immunity.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/9/2024 1/9/2024 2024-Ohio-48
State v. T.W.C. 23AP-196The trial court did not err in sealing the records of defendant’s convictions.JamisonFranklin 1/9/2024 1/9/2024 2024-Ohio-49
State v. Burks 21AP-657The sufficiency of the evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence support Burks’ convictions of felonious assault, discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises, tampering with evidence, and having a weapon while under disability, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in providing the Howard charge to the jury, and Burks did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court erred, however, in failing to impose the indefinite sentencing scheme required by the Reagan Tokes Law, and we remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Law.Luper SchusterFranklin 1/4/2024 1/4/2024 2024-Ohio-17
CPC Parts Delivery, L.L.C. v. Ohio Bur. of Worker's Comp. 22AP-671, 22AP-672, 22AP-696The trial court did not err in finding BWC was entitled to summary judgment on appellants’ claim for unjust enrichment because the evidence showed BWC did not retain any benefits conferred by appellants upon it. Neither did the trial court hold that there was a rational basis for BWC’s differing treatment of employers based on whether the employers participated in the Large Deductible Program versus the Individual Retro Program, because the trial court’s statement presented in a footnote to that effect was merely dicta. However, the trial court erred in finding it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over appellants’ claim premised on violation of equal protection. Appellants’ equal protection claim was brought not as a private cause of action seeking relief for the violation itself, but rather as an alternative basis for the same relief sought under its unjust enrichment claim. As such, the Court of Claims retains subject matter jurisdiction over the ancillary constitutional claim. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/4/2024 1/4/2024 2024-Ohio-18
Alford v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 22AP-779The trial court did not err in in denying appellant’s motion to compel discovery of the video of the December, 2015 incident. First, appellant did not file a motion to compel production of the video. Moreover, the record does not show that appellant made any effort to make the trial court aware of the fact that the video of the December 26, 2015 incident had not been produced as previously requested as part of his requests for discovery. Under these circumstances, we find no plain error on the part of the trial court on this issue and thus appellant has waived this issue for appeal.Beatty BluntFranklin 1/4/2024 1/4/2024 2024-Ohio-19
12