|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State ex rel. Oldham v. Ohio Police & Fire Retirement Fund
| 23AP-688 | The magistrate correctly determined that relator is not entitled to receive the preferred 3-year statutory calculation set forth in R.C. 742 because he failed to transfer his Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") service credit to respondent before the July 2, 2013, deadline, as required by R.C. 742.37(C)(1) and, thus, lacked the necessary 15 years of service credit required to utilize the preferred 3-year calculation. Objection to magistrate’s decision overruled; request for writ of mandamus denied. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5232 |
|
State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-242 | Petition for writ of mandamus denied. Objections to the magistrate’s decision are overruled and the magistrate’s decision, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is adopted. | Boggs | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5233 |
|
State ex rel. Oberdier v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-476 | The commission applied an incorrect legal standard when it concluded that the relator failed to present “sufficient evidence of meaningful or substantial new and changed circumstances which would warrant readdressing [relator’s] request for permanent and total disability compensation at this time.” The plain text of R.C. 4123.58(G) only requires that a claimant “present evidence of new and changed circumstances before the industrial commission may consider a subsequent application” for permanent total disability compensation. By applying a different or heightened standard from that required by R.C. 4123.58(G), the commission’s staff hearing officer committed legal error. The matter must be remanded to the commission for it to make findings regarding R.C. 4123.58(G) under the proper legal standard. The court adopts the findings of fact in the magistrate's decision. The court also adopts the conclusions of law in the magistrate’s decision as relevant to the first and second objections which are overruled. The court determines to be moot the third and fourth objections. The court grants a limited writ of mandamus returning this matter to the commission for further proceedings in accordance with the law and this decision. | Dorrian | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5234 |
|
Slupski v. McGill Dev. Corp.
| 24AP-658 | The trial court erred in permitting expert testimony on a matter of law. The remaining assignment of error is rendered moot. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and this matter is remanded to address the amount of sanctions in accordance with R.C. 2323.51. | Mentel | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5235 |
|
O’Brien v. Anderson
| 25AP-322 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on and granting appellee’s motion for relief from judgment that was sent to the address on file for the original plaintiff. Appellant did not notify the trial court of a change of ownership or change of address for the original plaintiff, did not move to substitute as party until several months after the trial court granted relief from judgment, and conceded that appellee sent the motion for relief from judgment to the address on file for the original plaintiff. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5236 |
|
In re C.P.
| 25AP-423 | Trial court did not plainly err by finding a child to be dependent under R.C. 2151.04(C), which focuses on a child’s condition or environment, without having a mental health assessment completed by mother. Mother failed to file a transcript of proceedings before the trial court magistrate and the court of appeals presumed the regularity of proceedings in the trial court. | Dorrian | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5237 |
|
Arnoff v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 25AP-265 | Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction was entitled to discretionary immunity regarding appellant's inmate placement claims. Appellant's claims regarding kosher diet and law library/courts access were constitutional in nature. Thus, the Ohio Court of Claims properly determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant's claims. Appellant's claim regarding lost property was not raised in the trial court and thus was waived on appeal. | Jamison | Franklin |
11/20/2025
|
11/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5238 |
|
State v. Walker
| 24AP-329 | Appellant filed an application to reopen on June 9, 2025 asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant failed to raise any specific deficiencies as to either trial counsel or appellate counsel’s performance. Application to reopen filed on June 9, 2025 is denied. Appellant filed an application to reopen on July 17, 2025. Having filed an application to reopen on June 9, 2025, there is no right to file successive applications for reopening under App.R. 26(B). Application to reopen filed on July 17, 2025 is moot. | Jamison | Franklin |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5191 |
|
State v. Miller
| 24AP-454 | Appeal of conviction of three counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance and one count of gross sexual imposition. Judgment affirmed. Mother of child victim’s testimony identifying victim and defendant in videos found on phone owned by defendant, in conjunction with the remaining evidence, was sufficient evidence to sustain defendant’s convictions on all charges. Defendant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the record did not support defendant’s argument that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failure to obtain a expert testimony, and the trial court did not err by concluding that defendant could be separately convicted and sentenced for each of the three counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5192 |
|
McCarthy v. Lee
| 25AP-180 | Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in a wrongful-death claim based on medical care filed more than four years after the last alleged negligent act by a physician, despite two of the beneficiaries being minors at the time of decedent’s death. Under Supreme Court of Ohio precedent the four-year statute of repose for medical claims applies to wrongful-death claims based on medical care and the trial court properly concluded that the minority-tolling provision under R.C. 2305.16 did not apply to toll the statute of repose. | Dorrian | Franklin |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5193 |
|
State v. Hardy
| 25AP-207 | The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion to suppress. The detective’s surveillance of appellant at the residence, from a vantage point where the detective had a right to be, did not constitute a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, based on either the traffic infraction or the active warrant, law enforcement had reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop of the vehicle. Because the officer observed the firearm in plain view through the open car door, there was no invasion into appellant’s legitimate expectation of privacy. Based on the discovery of the firearm in plain view, the officers were justified when they engaged in a protective sweep of the vehicle. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5194 |
|
Buck-Reed v. Sanford Plumbing, L.L.C.
| 25AP-416 | CIV.R. 56(C) — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — NEGLIGENCE — TRIP AND FALL — INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant plumbing contractor in a trip-and-fall case because plaintiff failed to show that defendant created or knew about the allegedly hazardous condition. Without knowledge of the risk, defendant did not have a duty to warn plaintiff of it or to correct it. Thus, construing all issues of fact in a light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for negligence against defendant. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
11/18/2025
|
11/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5195 |
|
State ex rel. McCormack v. Ashtabula Cty. Med. Ctr.
| 24AP-270 | The magistrate correctly determined that R.C. 4123.522 applies only when a party or their representative did not receive notice of the commission’s order. Because the commission had some evidence that counsel for relator had received notice of the December 10, 2020 order when counsel filed the February 18, 2021 appeal from that order before seeking R.C. 4123.522 relief, the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying relator’s request for R.C. 4123.522 relief. Objections overruled, writ of mandamus denied. | Edelstein | Franklin |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5151 |
|
State ex rel. Davis v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-431 | Objections overruled. Limited writ of mandamus granted. Because the staff hearing officer applied a heighted standard from that required by R.C. 4123.58(G) in evaluating whether Davis had met her burden under the statute, the commission committed legal error. This matter be remanded to the commission for it to make findings regarding R.C. 4123.58(G) under the proper legal standard. | Mentel | Franklin |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5152 |
|
Reissland v. Sage Park Alzheimer's Special Care Ctr.
| 24AP-641 | Because the plain and ordinary meaning of paragraph 16(D) of the residency agreement establishes a 90-day deadline to file a motion to compel arbitration, appellants waived their right to arbitrate by their failure to file before the 90 days expired. Appellants’ sole assignment of error overruled, judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5153 |
|
Moutcheu v. Williams
| 25AP-259 | The trial court erred in dismissing this case with prejudice, for failure to prosecute without providing notice to the appellant when both parties appeared for mediation. The judgment is reversed; cause remanded. | Jamison | Franklin |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5155 |
|
State ex rel. Lattimore v. Franklin Cty. Mun. Court
| 25AP-363 | Petitioner brought an original action for writ of prohibition against Respondent, Franklin County Municipal Court. Respondent is not sui juris and may not be sued in their own right. Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted. | Jamison | Franklin |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5156 |
|
Graddic v. Wharton
| 25AP-315 | On plaintiff’s appeal of the trial court judgment granting defendant’s counterclaim for allocation of parental rights and designating her sole residential parent and legal custodian of the minor child. Because pro se plaintiff failed to file timely objections to the magistrate’s decision, filed a nonspecific objection two weeks late, and did not seek prior or contemporaneous leave to file such objection, plaintiff has forfeited all but plain error on appeal. Plaintiff’s failure to file transcript of proceedings below precludes this court from finding plain error. Plaintiff’s sole assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5157 |
|
State ex rel. Burgan v. Cuyahoga Hill Juvenile Corr. Facility
| 24AP-448 | Writ of mandamus denied. Relator sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order finding that relator was at maximum medical improvement for her allowed physical conditions, thereby ending her right to receive temporary total disability compensation based on those physical conditions. The magistrate correctly found that relator will continue to receive temporary total disability compensation based on other allowed conditions and that the commission may address each allowable condition individually to determine if maximum medical improvement has been reached for that condition. | Boggs | Franklin |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5054 |
|
Lane v. U.S. Bank N.A.
| 25AP-401 | Trial court did not err by denying motion for relief from judgment that sought relief from appellate court decision. When appellant did not appeal that prior decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the appellate court’s determinations became final. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the trial court lacked authority to grant relief from the appellate court’s decision. | Dorrian | Franklin |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5055 |
|
Grossman v. Morrison
| 24AP-154 | GUARDIAN AD LITEM – FEES – CONTEMPT – CUSTODY: Although the juvenile court had the authority to levy guardian ad litem fees as court costs against a party in a private custody dispute, the trial court erred in holding mother in contempt of court for her failure to pay the fees and sentencing her to a suspended three-day jail sentence. Court costs constitute a civil obligation for which a party may not be incarcerated under Article 1, Section 15 of the Ohio Constitution. Further, the guardian ad litem did not submit all billing statements to the trial court for approval and trial court failed to review the propriety of block-billed guardian ad litem fees, consider mother’s ability to pay additional fees after parents’ deposit to guardian ad litem was exhausted, and evaluate the fairness in the allocation of fees. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Edelstein | Franklin |
11/4/2025
|
11/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5016 |
|
State v. Lowry
| 24AP-668 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Boggs | Franklin |
11/4/2025
|
11/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5017 |
|
State v. Henderson
| 24AP-669 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellate counsel submitted an Anders brief having found no issues of arguable merit. After our own independent review of the record, we cannot find any non-frivolous issues for appeal. | Boggs | Franklin |
11/4/2025
|
11/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5018 |
|
State v. G.P.C.
| 24AP-691 | Before the trial court, the state asserted the existence of a second conviction in its objection to appellant’s application to seal the record pursuant to 2953.32(B)(1)(a); however, before this court, the state conceded it does appear it was mistaken in stating there was a second conviction. The proper remedy at this stage is not to grant the application. However, given that we are unable to discern from the entry or the record whether the trial court considered and gave weight to either the state’s assertion of a second conviction or appellant’s denial of the second conviction, we find it appropriate to reverse the trial court’s judgment denying appellant’s application to seal the record and remand this case to the trial court. On remand, the trial court shall consider the information which the state provided to this court in its brief that it does appear the state was mistaken in stating there was a second conviction as well as any other relevant information provided by the state or appellant. On considering the same, the trial court shall determine whether to grant or deny the sealing of record. Judgment reversed and remanded with instructions for further consideration and determination. | Dorrian | Franklin |
11/4/2025
|
11/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5019 |
|
Lupton v. Ohio State Racing Comm.
| 24AP-687 | The trial court did not err in ordering a new hearing before the Ohio State Racing Commission (“Racing Commission”), or in finding the Racing Commission hearing officer abused his discretion in granting the Racing Commission’s motion to quash the subpoena of a witness. However, the trial court, like the Racing Commission, erred in defining “cruelty” for the purpose of Adm.Code 3769-2-26(A)(9). Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4984 |
|
State v. Whitfield
| 24AP-325 | Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the admission of alleged other-acts evidence or a photographic exhibit introduced by the state. The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting into evidence the alleged other-acts evidence. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4957 |
|
In re E.H.
| 24AP-718 | As the records at issue, consistent with the trial court’s entry, were “destroyed, deleted, or erased so that the record is permanently irretrievable,” we are unable to meaningfully review the trial court’s decision to grant the expungement. Because appellant failed to seek a stay of execution, her appeal from the trial court’s grant of appellee’s application for expungement of the criminal records is rendered moot. Case dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4958 |
|
Damron v. Ohio Parole Bd.
| 24AP-724 | The trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s complaint for a declaratory judgment for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. An inmate has no clear legal right to review his parole record prior to a parole hearing, and appellant did not allege that he was denied the right to respond to information discussed at his parole hearing or to submit additional pertinent information following the hearing. Appellant’s complaint contained no nonspeculative facts that the parole board denied him meaningful consideration for parole by failing to produce copies of the materials upon which the parole board relied, by basing its decision on substantively incorrect information, or by basing its decision on an unwritten “first flop” policy. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4959 |
|
Craig v. Sagraves
| 25AP-214 | In this insurance coverage dispute, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellant fails to show appellee, the insurer, had a duty to defend appellant against claims arising from a home renovation contract dispute between a limited liability company (the named insured) and the party suing appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4960 |
|
Mohler v. Univ. of Toledo Athletic Dept.
| 25AP-248 | The Court of Claims erred in determining that discretionary immunity applied to appellant’s claims related to appellant’s dismissal from the university’s soccer team. However, summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and negligence claims was proper because no genuine issues of material fact remained and appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court of Claims’ decision is affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4961 |
|
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ.
| 25AP-376 | The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err by overruling appellant’s objections to a special master’s report and recommendation, adopting the report and recommendation, and entering judgment for appellee, The Ohio State University, on appellant’s complaint alleging a denial of access to public records. In determining that the requested materials—lists of names and email addresses of all persons who receive newsletters about the university’s athletic activities—are not public records, the Court of Claims did not err by relying on this court’s binding precedent in Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 2024-Ohio-5891 (10th Dist.). Because the identities and addresses of those who receive the university’s athletics newsletters reveal nothing about the university’s organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities, the Court of Claims did not err by concluding that the requested materials did not qualify as records under R.C. 149.011 or public records under R.C. 149.43. Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s motion to strike portions of appellee’s appellate brief is denied. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4962 |
|
In re A.O.
| 24AP-712 | The trial court’s decision granting legal custody of the child to a family friend was not an abuse of discretion, and its finding that the placement was in the child’s best interest was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although the appellant putative father maintained a strong familial bond with the child, he failed to comply with important aspects of the case plan related to drug use and lack of stable housing, and the child had flourished under the care of her custodian over the course of over two years. | Dingus | Franklin |
10/28/2025
|
10/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4923 |
|
State v. Sheppard
| 24AP-741 | The trial court correctly determined that Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky. Because the trial court called the state's witness as a court witness, it did not error in allowing the state to impeach its own witness. The trial court did not plainly error in refusing to give an accomplice jury instruction because the state's witness was not charged with complicity as a result of his involvement in this matter. | Jamison | Franklin |
10/28/2025
|
10/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4924 |
|
In re Estate of Schwarzbach
| 25AP-753 | Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Trial court erred in dismissing Appellant’s objections on questions of law for failure to file a transcript, as Appellant did not need to provide a transcript for the trial court to review and decide Equal Protection Clause arguments. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/28/2025
|
10/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4925 |
|
State v. McDonald-Glasco
| 25AP-498 | The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s petition for postconviction relief because the petition was untimely, and no exception set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A) applied. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/28/2025
|
10/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4926 |
|
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Thomas
| 24AP-350 | The trial court did not err, as a matter of law, in granting judgment for the mortgagor despite the evidence in the record regarding the existence and amount of damages. Having offered into evidence a partial payment history of the mortgage loan, the mortgagee cannot complain that the trial court erred in considering that evidence in determining whether the mortgagee met its burden to prove the amount of principal and interest due on the loan. The trial court’s judgment in the mortgagor’s favor is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in denying the mortgagee’s motion for a new trial. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4856 |
|
Reed v. Reed
| 25AP-179 | Domestic relations court did not err by denying motion to modify agreed divorce decree. The requested modification did not satisfy the requirements of R.C. 3105.171(I) because there was not express written consent or agreement to the modification by both spouses. Even if not barred by statute, appellant was not entitled to the requested relief under Civ.R. 60(B) because her motion was untimely, having been filed more than eight years after the agreed divorce decree was entered. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4857 |
|
State v. Hussein
| 25AP-181 | Appellant’s convictions for aggravated robbery, robbery, and felonious assault were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state presented evidence that a theft offense occurred, and that the victim suffered serious physical harm. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4858 |
|
State v. Quarles
| 25AP-243 | Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant-appellant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea. Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4859 |
|
State v. Smith
| 23AP-669 | The trial court erred by denying appellant’s motion to suppress. During an inventory search, law enforcement opened a closed container without a standardized policy or practice specifically governing the opening of such containers. Because the discovery of the drug paraphernalia was the result of the officer improperly opening the closed container, all evidence obtained as a result of the search must be suppressed. Judgement reversed and cause remanded. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4806 |
|
State ex rel. Richardson v. Indus. Comm.
| 24AP-301 | Respondents did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision recommending this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission to vacate its decision that denied relator’s request for permanent total disability compensation and issue a new decision in accordance with the law. Finding no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, it is adopted in full and the requested writ of mandamus is granted. | Edelstein | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4807 |
|
Mitchell v. Geiger
| 24AP-366 | The trial court abused its discretion in terminating the parties’ shared parenting plan without first conducting the proper best interests analysis as required. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4808 |
|
Donna Keels, L.L.C. v. Nofal Foods, L.L.C.
| 24AP-612 | Trial court did not err in vacating magistrate’s attorney fee award decision where voluntary dismissal by parties of all claims nullified the action and dissolved all prior interlocutory orders, including prior partial summary judgment decision, and such dismissal divested trial court of jurisdiction to award fees to appellant as a prevailing party under the terms of a lease agreement as there was no adjudication on the merits. | Leland | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4809 |
|
Wuerth v. Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C.
| 24AP-660 | The trial court’s decision to award summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee on plaintiffs-appellants’ individual claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act was proper because no genuine issues of material fact remain and appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the trial court’s decision is affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4810 |
|
M.F. v. Ohio State Univ. College of Medicine
| 24AP-84 | Because the manifest weight of the evidence does not support the Court of Claims’ finding regarding proximate cause, the Court of Claims erred in entering judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor on defendants’ claims for medical negligence, loss of consortium, and lack of informed consent. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
10/21/2025
|
10/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4814 |
|
Croley v. JDM Servs., L.L.C.
| 23AP-544 | The trial court erred by granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment as there is a reasonable dispute of fact whether the display of a noose in appellant’s vehicle was severe enough conduct to create a hostile work environment. The trial court also erred by granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment as to appellant’s retaliation claim. There is a reasonable dispute of fact whether appellant’s termination based on his refusal to turn over the noose to appellees, or allow them to cut a piece of it for use in the investigation, was protected activity. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/16/2025
|
10/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4762 |
|
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Ohio Parole Bd.
| 24AP-708 | Objections to magistrate’s decision sustained. The relator’s certified inmate account statement complied with R.C. 2969.25(C) as it set forth the balance in the inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier. This matter is remanded to the magistrate to address the remaining arguments in respondent’s motion to dismiss. | Mentel | Franklin |
10/16/2025
|
10/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4763 |
|
State v. Allen
| 24AP-34 | The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty for rape, sexual battery, and gross sexual imposition of the three victims; therefore, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. Further, the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant did not identify any conflicting evidence that would support his argument that the jury clearly lost its way and created such a miscarriage of justice that the convictions must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4727 |
|
In re K.P.
| 24AP-549 & 25AP-350 | JUVENILE – CONCEALED WEAPON – FOURTH AMENDMENT – MOTION TO SUPPRESS – PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE WEAPONS SEARCH – SPECIAL SAFETY NEEDS – INEVITABLE DISCOVERY: The trial court did not err in denying juvenile’s motion to suppress evidence he claimed was obtained in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution where the public high school had a written policy for daily weapons searches that included a bag check and metal detection screening of all students as part of the school's entry procedure. Notwithstanding the Security Resource Officer ("SRO")'s practice of simultaneously patting down each student while performing the hand-held wand scan and his testimony about feeling the firearm in the juvenile's waistband before scanning that area with the metal detector wand, the discovery of the firearm was inevitable. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4728 |
|
State ex rel. Kaminski v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-632 | Relator did not demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission to approve his request for permanent total disability compensation. The commission considered all the evidence before it and determined, based on medical evidence and consideration of the nonmedical factors, that relator was not permanently and totally disabled. Because the commission had some evidence upon which to rely, specifically identified the evidence upon which it relied, and provided a brief explanation for its reasoning, the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying relator’s application for permanent total disability compensation. Writ of mandamus denied | Edelstein | Franklin |
10/9/2025
|
10/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4663 |
|