|
|
New Gen RE Ohio, L.L.C. v. Pierce Twp. Bd. of Trustees
| CA2025-12-099 | The trial court did not err by denying certain portions of appellants' motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C) where, when applying the applicable Civ.R. 12(C) standard, it could not be determined whether appellants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to any of appellee's claims challenging the constitutionality of the rules and regulations that appellants had adopted with respect to adult-use cannabis dispensaries seeking to open and operate within the appellant township's territorial boundary. | Piper | Clermont |
7/13/2026
|
7/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2650 |
|
Hill v. Dorger
| CA2025-04-033 | The trial court did not err in awarding $60,699.17 of attorney fees to Appellee because the plain language of contract permitted the trial court to do so. | Byrne | Clermont |
7/13/2026
|
7/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2647 |
|
State v. Gilbert
| CA2025-11-111 | Defendant's conviction for gross sexual imposition by force affirmed. Defendant's conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State presented no DNA evidence. The testimony of trial witnesses was enough. Moreover, Ohio statute gave the trial court discretion to impose prison time instead of community-control. | Siebert | Warren |
7/13/2026
|
7/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2655 |
|
State v. Schweitzer
| CA2025-09-100 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to continue a scheduled hearing because the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the continuance would have resulted in an inconvenience to all parties, and because Appellant's timing and vague explanation for the request undermined its legitimacy. | Byrne | Butler |
7/13/2026
|
7/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2645 |
|
Meeker v. Nolt
| CA2026-02-005 | Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants seeking to construct a commercial egg-production facility. Although restrictive covenants on the land were not effectively terminated, they did not prohibit egg-production. The facility was not an anticipated private nuisance where it could not be shown the facility would necessarily operate to injure adjacent property. | Piper | Brown |
7/13/2026
|
7/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2644 |
|