|
|
Long St. Assocs., LLP v. Young Men's Christian Assn. of Cent. Ohio
| 26AP-57 | The trial court did not err by granting the YMCA’s motion for summary judgment. The YMCA demonstrated that there was no reasonable dispute of fact that the parties had reached Final Plans, and Long Street had provided the YMCA with a Construction Budget as contemplated under the lease agreement, which exceeded the agreed-upon Construction Budget Threshold. The submission of the Final Plans, followed by a Construction Budget that surpassed this threshold, effectively triggered the YMCA’s contractual right to terminate the lease. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/6/2026
|
10/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3942 |
|
Davison v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.
| 25AP-150 | Because appellant did not make an affirmative showing the trial court considered the allegedly inadmissible testimony, the appellate court must presume the trial court did not err as alleged. The judgments in appellee’s favor on her claim for wrongful death was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/1/2026
|
10/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3883 |
|
Main & Nelson Station, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision
| 25AP-786; 25AP-860 | Because the appellant did not timely appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals decision, this court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals. Therefore, the appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and these appeals are dismissed. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/30/2026
|
9/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3862 |
|
Forhan v. Ohio House of Representatives
| 25AP-895 | Judgment affirmed. The Court of Claims did not err by finding that witness interview notes, taken by attorneys retained to act as special counsel for the House of Representatives (“House”), were personal notes and not public records. The requestor had the burden to prove the interview notes were public records, and he failed to carry his burden. The requestor failed to demonstrate that the interview notes were created for a reason other than the convenience of the individual note-taker, that anyone besides the note’s creator had access to or used any of the notes, or that anything required the attorneys to maintain the interview notes. The requestor’s arguments asserting the interview notes contained information that was not otherwise publicly available and/or that the notes contained information related to wrongdoing were irrelevant. Because the interview notes were not public records the House had no obligation to produce the notes. The Court of Claims did not err by finding that the report drafts were public records, because the attorneys created the drafts pursuant to delegated public duties and the drafts documented House activities. The House failed to carry its burden to prove that the drafts were exempt from disclosure either as trial preparation records or based on the attorney-client privilege. | Leland | Franklin |
9/30/2026
|
9/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3863 |
|
Arndts v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio
| 26AP-165 | Trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss and in denying appellant’s motion for leave to amend complaint. | Leland | Franklin |
9/30/2026
|
9/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3864 |
|