|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State ex rel. Hudson v. Cleveland
| 24AP-207 | Claimant is not entitled to an additional award for a violation of a specific safety requirement because the specific safety requirement claimant contends the City of Cleveland violated was not applicable to the facts of the present case. Sole objection overruled and requested writ of mandamus denied. | Leland | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2871 |
|
State v. Roberts
| 24AP-264 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. There was sufficient evidence for a factfinder to determine that appellant was conscious of the firearm and had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it to support appellant’s weapon while under disability conviction. Appellant’s conviction was also not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Boggs | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2872 |
|
In re D.R.-S.
| 24AP-414 | Trial court did not err by proceeding with permanent custody hearing without mother present because mother’s counsel had been notified of the hearing date as required by the procedural rules and there was no evidence that notice of the hearing date sent to mother by regular mail had been returned to the court. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing children services agency to recall caseworker to give additional direct testimony after her testimony ended the prior day because the testimony given on recall was limited in scope to identifying orders related to prior custody actions and relevant criminal proceedings, and appellant’s counsel was provided the opportunity to cross-examine the caseworker. Trial court’s decision that a grant of permanent custody was in the child’s best interest was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because although there was some evidence tending to establish mother complied with portions of her case plan, there was also evidence that mother failed to fulfill other portions of her case plan and did not remedy the conditions that caused the agency to seek custody of the child. | Dorrian | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2873 |
|
State v. Pace
| 24AP-560 & 24AP-561 | Appellant's convictions for kidnapping and domestic violence are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Leland | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2874 |
|
State v. Ross
| 24AP-613 | Sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence support appellant’s convictions of murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, and improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, as well as the accompanying firearm specifications. The surveillance footage and appellant's own testimony establish the elements of the offenses, and the jury did not clearly lose its way in disbelieving appellant's claim of self-defense. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2875 |
|
First Bank of Ohio v. Vidal
| 24AP-676 | Appellant's 19 assignments of error challenging the trial court's jurisdiction, evidentiary rulings, summary judgment ruling, and the manifest weight of the evidence are overruled. Judgment affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2876 |
|
State v. Smith-Parks
| 25AP-409 | The trial court did not err in ordering appellant to be held without bail pending trial pursuant to R.C. 2937.222. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2877 |
|
In re D.R.
| 23AP-748 | The trial court abused its discretion in its handling of the permanent custody proceedings on remand leaving it unable to satisfy its obligation to engage in a complete analysis of whether granting permanent custody to Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS") is in the child’s best interest. Given the incompleteness of the record related to the child’s and father’s circumstances since the first trial in October 2021, and in light of the amount of time that has now passed since the first trial, the trial court could not–and did not–adequately consider and determine the child’s best interest at the time of the remand proceedings. Because we are unable to discern, from this record, whether permanent custody remains in the child’s best interest nearly four years after the trial court’s initial decision granting permanent custody, we must reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. | Edelstein | Franklin |
8/12/2025
|
8/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2839 |
|
Taylor v. Lucas
| 24AP-472 | LANDLORD/TENANT – R.C. 5321.05 – DAMAGES – SECURITY DEPOSIT: As there is some competent, credible evidence supporting the measure of damages awarded to the landlord of a rental property after the tenant was evicted, and given the limited argument made by the tenant on appeal, we cannot say the judgment in favor of landlord was against the manifest weight of the evidence, except that the matter is remanded to the trial court to modify the judgment entry to credit the tenant with the withheld security deposit as payment toward that judgment. Judgment affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part; cause remanded with instructions. | Edelstein | Franklin |
8/12/2025
|
8/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2840 |
|
State v. Rogers
| 24AP-524 | The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of reckless assault as a lesser-included offense of felonious assault. Where the defendant stabbed the victim at least six times at close range, most seriously wounding her in the chest and face, the defendant did not prevail on her challenges to her felonious assault conviction on sufficiency and manifest-weight-of-the-evidence grounds. | Mentel | Franklin |
8/12/2025
|
8/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2841 |
|
Lake v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
| 24AP-547 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is reversed. Trial court erred in failing to confine its review to the certified record as Dr. Lake waived her right to present evidence when she did not request a hearing after receiving notice. Case is remanded to the common-pleas court to determine whether the State Medical Board’s order was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and was in accordance with law. | Boggs | Franklin |
8/12/2025
|
8/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2842 |
|
Klickovich v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
| 24AP-446 | The Board’s order finding appellant committed sexual misconduct in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 4731-26-02(A) necessarily includes a finding that his conduct had exploited his relationship with Patient 1. Under the clear and unambiguous definition of sexual misconduct as set forth in Ohio Adm.Code 4731-26-01(H), there can be no finding of “sexual misconduct” in the absence of “conduct that exploits the licensee-patient relationship in a sexual way” because they are one in the same thing. Thus, the trial court erred in remanding the case to the Board to determine whether appellant’s conduct exploited the licensee-patient relationship in a sexual way because the Board had already determined that appellant had engaged in sexual misconduct. Judgment reversed and case remanded to trial court to conduct the review required by R.C. 119.12 and determine whether the record contains reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supporting the Board’s order finding sexual misconduct by appellant and whether the order is in accordance with law. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
8/7/2025
|
8/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2783 |
|
Whitney Woods Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Steagall
| 24AP-583 | Trial court decision granting summary judgment in favor of homeowners’ association on claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief related to violations of restrictive covenants in community declaration affirmed. The homeowners did not establish that the association waived its right to enforce the restrictive covenants or that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they had violated the covenants. Homeowners’ association was entitled to injunctive relief because it established that it suffered irreparable harm and had no adequate remedy at law. Homeowners’ association’s cross-appeal regarding denial of attorney fees overruled; attorney fees incurred in defending against administrative racial discrimination claim were not related to enforcement of the declaration for purposes of the fee-shifting provision in the declaration. | Dorrian | Franklin |
8/7/2025
|
8/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2784 |
|
Masjid Oumar Al-Foutiyou v. N. Am. Islamic Trust, Inc.
| 24AP-686 | The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to stay the case pending the arbitration and their motion to vacate because the express terms of the arbitration clause did not include the claims at issue in the matter. Furthermore, the trust containing the arbitration clause had terminated pursuant to its express terms. | Jamison | Franklin |
8/5/2025
|
8/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2750 |
|
State ex rel. Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Mohiuddin
| 24AP-369 | Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the state’s appeal to an award of attorney fees under R.C. 2335.39 because such an appeal is not permitted by the plain language of the statute. Appeal dismissed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
7/31/2025
|
7/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2692 |
|
Jabr v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
| 25AP-155 | CIV.R. 12(B)(1) — SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION — CIV.R. 12(B)(6) — FRAUD — CIV.R. 9(B): The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in dismissing criminal claims alleged against state agencies for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissing civil fraud claim for failure to plead the elements of fraud with particularity. Judgment affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
7/31/2025
|
7/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2693 |
|
State v. Bias
| 24AP-479 | The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(6). The defendant failed to show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the contents of an exhibit in the record that was initially designated as “counsel only” but was later entered into evidence at trial. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
7/29/2025
|
7/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2653 |
|
State v. Quigley
| 24AP-523 | The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences and maximum sentences. The trial court made all the factual findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the trial court explained its reasoning for imposing consecutive sentences. Although the trial court did err by failing to incorporate those findings in the Judgment Entry, this error is readily rectified by the trial court issuing a nunc pro tunc entry. Further, appellant's sentences are within the permissible statutory range, and the record shows the trial court properly considered the criteria found in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in the imposition of maximum sentences. Nor has appellant shown that any of the trial court’s remarks made during sentencing resulted in appellant being denied a fair sentencing hearing. Finally, appellant’s sentences do not arise to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Ohio. Judgment affirmed; case remanded for limited purpose of issuing nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate the factual findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/29/2025
|
7/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2654 |
|
C.D.L. v. M.V.N.C.
| 24AP-573 | Trial court’s decision denying appellant’s motion to set aside a magistrate’s order concerning aspects of temporary and interlocutory rulings of the trial court is not a final appealable order. The decision does not fall within one of the subsections of R.C. 2505.02(B), and it does not contain Civ.R. 54(B) language. Appeal dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. | Edelstein | Franklin |
7/29/2025
|
7/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2655 |
|
Jessica v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
| 24AP-423 | Judgment reversed. The trial court erred by granting Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ("ODJFS")’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The plaintiff filed a class action against ODJFS alleging claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and invasion of privacy following a data breach at Ohio’s unemployment compensation system. Relying on persuasive federal authority, we found the plaintiff’s risk of identity theft or fraud resulting from the data breach to be an injury-in-fact. The risk of identity theft or fraud was a concrete injury because it bore a close relationship to a common law claim for invasion of privacy. The risk of identity theft or fraud was imminent because: (1) the plaintiff alleged the cybercriminals targeted, obtained, and stole her and the class members’ personal information from ODJFS’s system; (2) the cybercriminals misused the class members’ data to defraud ODJFS out of $189,184.62 and allegedly posted the class members’ personal information for sale on the dark web; and (3) the stolen data included plaintiff’s name, address, and social security number which made it more likely the plaintiff would be subject to identity theft or fraud in the future. The plaintiff also alleged facts demonstrating her lost time, mitigation expenses, and emotional distress resulting from the data breach were concrete, present injuries. Because the plaintiff alleged her injuries were fairly traceable to ODJFS’s inadequate security measures and redressable through monetary damages, the plaintiff had standing to pursue her claims against ODJFS. | Mentel | Franklin |
7/24/2025
|
7/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2604 |
|
DeMio v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
| 24AP-752 | The trial court did not err in affirming the order of the State Medical Board of Ohio permanently revoking appellant's license to practice medicine and surgery in Ohio. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
7/24/2025
|
7/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2606 |
|
Kraczek v. Univ. of Cincinnati
| 25AP-152 | The trial court was not required to consider excerpts from the witness's deposition transcript because it was not filed with the court or otherwise authenticated. In any event, nothing in the deposition excerpts would have changed the outcome of the motion for summary judgment. The trial court did not err in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. There was no evidence that the attendant circumstance exception to the open-and-obvious doctrine applied in this case. | Jamison | Franklin |
7/24/2025
|
7/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2607 |
|
In re D.J.
| 23AP-548 | The trial court did not err in granting the motion of Franklin County Children’s Services for permanent custody and the decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant did not have standing to address issues relating to a non-appealing party, and competent, credible evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that granting permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Branch, is affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
7/22/2025
|
7/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2573 |
|
Hayden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 25AP-172 | On review of court of claims decision granting summary judgment to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and denying summary judgment to plaintiff on claim of false imprisonment. Plaintiff cannot establish that he was confined after the expiration of his sentence, or that such confinement was “intentional” or without “privilege” based on the evidence provided, as plaintiff's continued incarceration was required under former R.C. 2929.41(B)(3). Plaintiff's claims that his parole was improperly revoked and that his continued incarceration was in violation of due process are barred by res judicata and beyond the court of claims' jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/22/2025
|
7/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2574 |
|
Mesina v. Mesina
| 24AP-620 | Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to continue the trial. Judgment affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
7/17/2025
|
7/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2517 |
|
Barrett v. Wagenbrenner
| 24AP-555 | On interlocutory appeal. The trial court erred in holding that the defendants had waived their attorney-client privilege. Consenting to an attorney’s appearance as a testifying witness is not enough, by itself, to constitute an express waiver of the privilege under R.C. 2317.02(A)(1). An attorney’s testimony about non-privileged information does not implicate R.C. 2317.02(A)(1). Because the statute does not provide for implied waivers of the attorney-client privilege, Ohio courts cannot apply the common-law rule of implied waiver. Judgment reversed. | Dingus, J. | Franklin |
7/15/2025
|
7/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2494 |
|
Bell v. Kroger Co.
| 24AP-713 | Appellant slipped and fell on ice in a store parking lot and asserted negligence claims against the store, the parking lot owner, and the snow removal contractor. Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of appellees because appellant failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether either exception to the “no-duty winter rule” applied and failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the snow removal contractor was negligent. Appellate court affirmed summary judgment decision after conducting de novo review and considering all portions of appellant's expert witness report and testimony; therefore, any error committed by the trial court in excluding portions of that report and testimony was harmless because it did not affect the final determination of the case. | Dorrian, J. | Franklin |
7/15/2025
|
7/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2495 |
|
Columbus v. State
| 24AP-333 | R.C. 9.681 unconstitutionally usurps the power of municipalities to pass police, sanitary, and other similar regulations relating to tobacco products. By prohibiting cities from protecting their residents from the lethal scourge of tobacco use, the statute here undermines the fundamental principle of the Home Rule Amendment that the government closest to the people serves the people best. The trial court did not err in granting the motion for permanent injunction on the state’s enforcement of R.C. 9.681. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the state’s evidentiary motions. Judgment affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
7/8/2025
|
7/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2408 |
|
State v. Brime
| 23AP-488 | Counsel for appellant did not provide ineffective assistance by withdrawing appellant’s motion requesting a mistrial and by purportedly waiving appellant’s right to appeal. Neither is appellant’s conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/8/2025
|
7/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2407 |
|
State v. Carson
| 24AP-339 | The trial court erred in admitting the child victim's statements to her mother pursuant to Evid.R. 807 by determining that her testimony was not reasonably obtainable without determining her competency to testify. The trial court failed to make findings of fact as required by Evid.R. 807(C). The child's statements to her mother were also not admissible as excited utterances. Furthermore, the trial court's error in admitting these statements was not harmless. The trial court plainly erred in admitting contextual statements made during the child's forensic interview. These statements were not reasonably necessary for medical treatment or diagnosis. Defendant's convictions for rape were supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment reversed, cause remanded. | Jamison | Franklin |
7/8/2025
|
7/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2409 |
|
In re J.M.
| 24AP-580 | The trial court did not commit reversible and plain error in proceeding on a permanent custody motion and granting that motion on the scheduled trial date. The record shows that Mother was sent notice of the hearing on the permanent court commitment ("PCC") motion at her last known physical address via U.S. Mail and the docket does not show any return of service indicating that the mailed notice was returned as undeliverable. Furthermore, in this case Mother was represented by counsel, and pursuant to both Civ.R. 5 and Juv.R. 20, when a party is represented by an attorney, service of pleadings and notices is to be made on the attorney. Civ.R. 5(B)(1); Juv.R. 20(B). The record shows counsel for Mother was properly served with the notice of the hearing on the PCC motion. Nor did counsel object to the trial on the PCC motion going forward based on improper notice. Mother was properly notified of the trial date and, despite Mother’s absence, she was represented by counsel at the trial. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/8/2025
|
7/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2410 |
|
Midwest Motor Supply Co., Inc. v. MRO Sys., L.L.C.
| 24AP-698 | Because appellant established a prima facie case that personal jurisdiction over appellee existed in Ohio, the trial court was required to hold a hearing on appellee's motion before dismissing appellant's complaint. Collateral estoppel does not apply in this case because appellant alleged new, material facts since the referenced federal district court decision. | Jamison | Franklin |
7/8/2025
|
7/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2411 |
|
Harvey v. McNamee
| 24AP-605 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying respondent’s second request to continue a full civil protection order hearing. The trial court had previously continued the full hearing upon respondent’s request, so respondent could obtain counsel. Respondent’s reasons for requesting a second continuance were the same as his reasons for requesting the first, and respondent did not explain why the initial continuance was insufficient. Respondent claimed he had hired counsel the night before the rescheduled hearing, but his new counsel was not available for the hearing and had not entered a notice of appearance. The trial court did not violate respondent’s right to a full hearing when it warned him against speaking directly to the petitioner. Respondent was present for the entire hearing and was given the opportunity to testify, which he declined. Judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
7/1/2025
|
7/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2332 |
|
Bittner v. Bittner
| 24AP-600 | On appeal of domestic relations court order denying in part father’s motion to modify child support. The trial court had jurisdiction to enter new orders of support for a disabled child past the age of majority, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that there was evidence in the record establishing the child’s disability. Uncontroverted evidence established that the other child had not attended high school on a full-time basis after reaching the age of majority, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion only insofar as it ordered support to continue past that child’s reaching the age of majority. Judgment affirmed as modified. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
7/1/2025
|
7/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2333 |
|
Sultaana v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 24AP-344 | The Court of Claims did not err in granting Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC")’s motion for summary judgment on appellant’s claims of false imprisonment and negligence as appellant’s sentencing entry was not facially invalid. Additionally, the Court of Claims did not err in refusing to strike the affidavit of an ODRC employee authenticating appellant’s sentencing entry and did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s discovery motions, motions for an extension of time, and request to take judicial notice. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2312 |
|
State ex rel. Bowling v. DeWine
| 25AP-191, 25AP-192, 25AP-193 | After this court addressed the merits of an interlocutory appeal, and after the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed a subsequent appeal as moot, the trial court did not err in proceeding to final judgment on the underlying action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mandamus. Because the Supreme Court of Ohio did not address the merits of the interlocutory appeal or the merits of the underlying claims that were not at issue in the interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s dismissal based on mootness did not require the trial court to dismiss the entire case on remand. The trial court did not err in applying the law of the case from our previous appellate decision holding that R.C. 4141.43(I), along with Article II’s exclusive reservation of legislative power to the General Assembly, did not allow the Governor to prematurely terminate Ohio’s participation in the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (“FPUC”) program, 15 U.S.C. 9023, which was part of the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The trial court properly ordered the Governor to rescind his early termination of the FPUC program and attempt to obtain the federal benefits that would have been paid to Ohio citizens from June 26 to September 6, 2021. The Governor failed to establish that it would be impossible to recover the benefits, and therefore failed to establish that the action was moot based on the impossibility of meaningful relief. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2313 |
|
State ex rel. Blaine v. State Emp. Relations Bd.
| 23AP-54 | On objections of relator and respondent to magistrate’s decision recommending the issuance of a limited writ of mandamus ordering respondent State Employment Relations Board ("SERB") to vacate its order dismissing relator’s charge that respondent Union had engaged in an unfair labor practice and directing SERB to issue a new order explaining its reasoning. Relator’s objection overruled, respondents’ objections sustained and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. The record evidence demonstrates respondent SERB did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Union had a legitimate, rational basis for its decision not to proceed to arbitration on relator’s grievance against the City of Youngstown. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2233 |
|
State ex rel. Columbus Schools, Columbus Bd. of Edn. v. Mizer
| 23AP-111 | Adopting the recommendation and decision of the magistrate, relator’s request for a writ of mandamus vacating the Industrial Commission’s order granting respondent’s request for reconsideration and awarding her temporary total disability is denied. Respondent, a teacher who elected to be paid over twelve months for work performed during the nine months of the academic school year, suffered a loss of wage during the summer months that was a direct result of her work injury. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2234 |
|
State v. Justice
| 23AP-204, 23AP-205, 23AP-214 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Trial court did not violate appellant’s constitutional right to counsel when she was not represented by counsel at her arraignment, first pre-trial hearing and through the competency hearings as appellant repeatedly refused counsel. Trial court went to great lengths to balance appellant’s right to self-representation and its need to determine her competency to stand trial and substantially complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 44. Trial court also did not abuse its discretion in not ordering another competency evaluation and allowing appellant to continue representing herself. Trial court failed to inform appellant of the five mandatory advisements under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) and we remand for a limited resentencing hearing. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2235 |
|
In re L.W.
| 23AP-690 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Trial court’s granting of Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS")’s motion for permanent custody was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and its determination of L.W.’s best interest did not lack sufficient evidence. The lack of an Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice or had a material adverse effect on the proceedings as there is no indication from appellant that she or L.W. has Native American heritage. | Boggs | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2236 |
|
Neighbors Opposing Pit Expansion, Inc. v. Stevenson
| 24AP-93 | Order reversed. The appellant sought to appeal a permit-to-install (“PTI”) to the Environmental Appeals Review Commission (“commission”). R.C. Chapter 3745 provides two avenues for appeal to the commission: R.C. 3745.04 and 3745.07. While R.C. 3745.07 specifically provides appeal rights to non-parties, such as the appellant in the present case, the appellant failed to file its notice of appeal within the time required by R.C. 3745.07. R.C. 3745.04 provides appeal rights to entities who were a “party to a proceeding before the director” of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“OEPA”). The appellant relied on two documents to claim it was a party to the proceeding for the PTI, but neither document presented OEPA with the appellant’s position, arguments, or concerns regarding the pending application for the PTI. As such, the appellant was not a party to the proceeding for purposes of R.C. 3745.04. Because the appellant failed to timely file its notice of appeal pursuant to R.C. 3745.07 and could not appeal the PTI pursuant R.C. 3745.04, the commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s appeal of the PTI. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2237 |
|
State v. Hayes
| 24AP-216 | Issues regarding bail are moot after a conviction. The court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear violations of the code of judicial conduct. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to quash because appellant did not have standing to challenge a subpoena issued to law enforcement officers. The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress because a uniformed state trooper had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle based on observations of traffic violations by a task force following the vehicle that were relayed to the trooper. | Jamison | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2238 |
|
State ex rel. Thelen v. State Emp. Relations Bd.
| 24AP-283 | Trial court did not err in denying relator-appellant’s request for a writ of mandamus following State Employment Relations Board ("SERB")’s dismissal of unfair labor practice charge for lack of probable cause. | Leland | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2239 |
|
Columbus v. 71-73 E. Norwich Ave., L.L.C.
| 24AP-484 | R.C. 715.30 – PERMANENT INJUNCTION – PUBLIC NUISANCE – CITY CODE VIOLATIONS: Trial court erred in permanently enjoining property owner “and any successors and heirs . . . from maintaining a public nuisance at the subject property or any other property in Franklin County” after the specific nuisance violations alleged in the City’s complaint were abated. R.C. 715.30 did not permit the overbroad permanent injunction imposed by the trial court in this case and instead should have been limited to the conditions giving rise to the trial court’s violation findings. Judgment reversed, in part, and cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2240 |
|
State v. Hogan
| 24AP-520 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea as he failed to articulate a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2241 |
|
Rice v. Stuckey
| 24AP-582 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for stay pending arbitration because the parties’ alleged settlement agreement is not subject to the parties’ prior arbitration agreement governing the operation of the parties’ business pursuits. Further, the portion of the trial court’s decision and entry denying appellant’s motion to dismiss is not a final order which this court may review. Thus, appellant’s first assignment of error is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/26/2025
|
6/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2242 |
|
State v. Paul
| 23AP-505 | Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Appellant's challenges to the legal sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence supporting his convictions for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13, two counts of failure to comply with an order of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331, and obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31 have no merit. Testimony showed that appellant refused the police officers' orders to halt and instead accelerated his vehicle while an officer's hand was inside, requiring the officer to shatter the window to free himself to prevent being dragged as appellant fled and causing injury to the officer's hand. The state concedes the error in sentencing appellant to a term in state prison on a misdemeanor charge and, as a result, the case must be remanded for resentencing. | Mentel | Franklin |
6/24/2025
|
6/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2203 |
|
State v. Copeland
| 24AP-331 | Appellant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel based on his claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to sever the counts of the indictment and for failing to object to expert testimony purportedly vouching for the witness’s veracity because he did not establish a reasonable probability of a different outcome in the bench trial. Appellant also failed to demonstrate his rights under the confrontation clause were violated by the introduction of a forensic video interview of a witness who had already testified. | Dorrian | Franklin |
6/24/2025
|
6/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2204 |
|
Liu v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio
| 24AP-458 | On appeal from Court of Common Pleas decision affirming order of the State Medical Board that permanently revoked appellant’s license to practice massage therapy in Ohio. The trial court’s decision finding that the Board’s order was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and was in accordance with law was not an abuse of the court’s discretion. On review, the appellate court determined that there was reliable, probative, and substantial evidence of false information in the appellant’s licensure application materials, that the board had not improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the appellant, and that the notice of hearing appellant received was sufficiently specific to satisfy appellant’s right to due process. Assignments of error overruled and judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
6/24/2025
|
6/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2205 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 24AP-569 | CRIM.R. 33 — DELAYED MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL — NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE — COUNSEL CONFLICT: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's delayed motion for a new trial where defendant failed to show that his trial counsel's undisclosed prior representation of one of the state's witnesses entitled him to relief under Crim.R. 33(A)(6). Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
6/24/2025
|
6/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2206 |
|