|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Stewart
| 2023-CA-59 | State’s appeal. The trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to return money seized pursuant to a drug offense. Appellee was ordered to pay financial sanctions following his conviction in a separate murder case, and the clerk of courts issued a writ of execution against appellee’s assets to satisfy that judgment. The State was entitled to keep the seized money pursuant to the writ of execution, without seeking forfeiture of the money in the drug offense case. Judgment reversed. | Huffman | Greene |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2831 |
|
T.W. v. D.H.
| 30011 | The trial court did not err in issuing a civil stalking protection order against respondent-appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2832 |
|
State v. Snodgrass
| 2023-CA-62 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions to void his conviction and to issue a single judgment entry in compliance with Crim.R. 32(C). Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2830 |
|
State v. Wampler
| 29889 | Following the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Patrick, 2020-Ohio-6803, the trial court conducted a resentencing hearing to consider appellant’s youth as a mitigating sentencing factor; he had committed an aggravated murder and other offenses when he was 15 years old. After the hearing, the trial court resentenced appellant to the same sentence it had originally imposed. The transcript of the resentencing hearing contains numerous notations that appellant’s statements were “indiscernible,” indicating that the transcriber could not understand what appellant had said. Appellant asserts that the “indiscernible” notations render the transcript incomplete and prevent appellate review. However, the gist of appellant’s statements to the court can be discerned, despite the indiscernible notations, and his statements did not relate to his youth at the time the offenses were committed. As such, the indiscernible portions of the transcript do not prevent full appellate review, and appellant cannot establish prejudice. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2833 |
|
Gulf Equity Invests., L.L.C. v. Clifton
| 2023-CA-74 | Appeal from judgment granting restitution of the premises is moot because appellants have vacated the premises, and appellants have not identified any collateral legal consequences that would preclude application of the doctrine. Appeal dismissed. | Tucker | Clark |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2829 |
|
Heck v. Atakpu
| 30009 | The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of the State on its complaint alleging that defendant-appellant was a vexatious litigator. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2733 |
|
Doss v. Doss
| 2023-CA-22 | Following a divorce hearing and the issuance of a divorce decree, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting husband a new trial on attorney-fee and parenting-time issues. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in granting wife Civ.R. 60(A) relief to correct a clerical error in the divorce decree. Finally, awarding legal custody of the parties’ children to wife was not error, and the record supported a finding that money husband received to purchase and maintain commercial real estate during the marriage was a marital gift. Judgment granting a partial new trial affirmed. Judgment entry and decree of divorce affirmed subject to the new trial on attorney-fee and parenting-time issues. | Tucker | Champaign |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2730 |
|
State v. Stewart
| 2023-CA-47 | A jury reasonably concluded that appellant acted purposely, with prior calculation and design, in shooting the victim. Appellant had threatened to harm or shoot someone on Snapchat a few days prior to the shooting and told another person that he intended to hurt the victim on the night of the shooting. Then, after his gun initially misfired, appellant shot the unarmed victim at close range while the victim attempted to evade appellant and had no means of escape. Appellant’s conviction for aggravated murder was supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2735 |
|
State v. Ford
| 2024-CA-1 | By failing to raise the issue of her ability to pay financial sanctions in the trial court, appellant has waived the issue on appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2732 |
|
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Chapel Elec. Co., L.L.C.
| 29956 | Appellee, an insurer, brought a contribution claim against appellant, an electrical contractor, after it settled a wrongful death case. The trial court correctly denied appellant’s summary judgment motion, which alleged that the statute of limitations for filing the contribution claim had expired. Appellee’s contribution action was filed within one year after probate court approval and payment to the wrongful death beneficiaries and was timely under R.C. 2307.26(B). The trial court also did not err in denying summary judgment on claims that appellee was a volunteer in paying the settlement, that appellant had no duty to the decedent, and that appellant’s actions did not proximately cause the death. These matters involved genuine issues of material fact and were proper for the jury to resolve. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a copy of the release appellant obtained, as it was properly authenticated. The court further did not err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. Again, the issues of duty and proximate cause were for the jury to resolve. Moreover, contrary to appellant’s contention, appellee presented admissible evidence of non-economic damages. There was also no error in admitting evidence about the probate court proceeding and no evidence that the jury was inflamed or confused. Finally, the judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2736 |
|
State v. Philpot
| 2023-CA-35 | Appellant pled guilty to various counts in two cases. The trial court ordered that the prison sentences imposed in each case be served concurrently but that the sentence in the first case be served consecutively to the sentence in the second case. The trial court made the required consecutive sentencing findings, and the findings were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgments affirmed. | Tucker | Champaign |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2734 |
|
State v. Dumas
| 30014 | The trial court erred in accepting appellant’s guilty plea to disorderly conduct when she was not first informed of the effect of her plea. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
7/19/2024
|
7/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2731 |
|
State v. Goss
| 2023-CA-72 | The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive prison sentences. It found that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish appellant, that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and to the danger that he posed to the public, and that at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of a course of conduct and the harm caused by the offenses committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term adequately reflected the seriousness of appellant’s conduct. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
7/12/2024
|
7/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2648 |
|
State v. Ramey
| 2023-CA-29 | The termination and/or expiration of appellant’s five-year term of community-control supervision has rendered moot his appeal from the trial court’s earlier decision to keep him on community control with an added condition. Appeal dismissed. | Tucker | Champaign |
7/12/2024
|
7/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2650 |
|
State v. Colquitt
| 2023-CA-37 | The trial court did not err when it failed to note at the plea hearing that a prison term for failure to comply must be served consecutively to any other prison term. The trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b), and appellant's plea was voluntarily made. Any argument regarding jail-time credit is moot as appellant has completed his sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
7/12/2024
|
7/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2647 |
|
P.F. v. A.H.
| 29993 | Appellant cannot challenge on appeal the trial court’s granting of a civil stalking protection order against her as she failed to file objections in the trial court as required by Civ.R. 65.1. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
7/12/2024
|
7/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2649 |
|
State v. Clark
| 2024-CA-3 | The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s petition for postconviction relief. The alleged “new” information provided in a 2023 affidavit was barred by res judicata, and any argument regarding appellant’s sentence is waived as it was not raised below. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Darke |
7/12/2024
|
7/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2646 |
|
State v. Baker
| 2023-CA-28 | Appellant’s conviction for murder was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury reasonably concluded that appellant did not act in self-defense. Appellant’s argument regarding the increase in his pretrial bond is moot. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
7/3/2024
|
7/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2550 |
|
State v. Weller
| 2023-CA-41 | Appellant’s conviction for theft was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant, the complainant’s landlord, reasonably believed that the complainant had abandoned her belongings and vacated the apartment when he hired a contractor to empty the apartment and kept a few of the belongings. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Champaign |
7/3/2024
|
7/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2554 |
|
In re Adoption of L.K.P.
| 2024-CA-4 | The trial court did not err when it held that appellee-father’s consent to child’s adoption was required. Appellee had more than de minimis contact with the child in the year prior to the filing of the adoption petition, and although he did not provide maintenance and support as set forth in a divorce decree, his extensive medical issues provided justifiable cause for the non-payment. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
7/3/2024
|
7/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2551 |
|
State v. Quinones
| 29894 | Appellant did not challenge the reasonable articulable suspicion for the traffic stop or the administration of field sobriety tests in his motion to suppress, so these issues are waived. Even if not waived, reasonable articulable suspicion existed for the traffic stop based on appellant’s failure to stop, and reasonable suspicion for operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI) existed based upon appellant’s demeanor during the traffic stop. The field sobriety tests were conducted in substantial compliance with administrative standards by an experienced officer trained in those standards. Probable cause for arrest for OVI was demonstrated. Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by less than strict compliance in refrigeration of the blood kit. Appellant’s conviction following a no contest plea is not amenable to review on appeal as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
7/3/2024
|
7/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2552 |
|
State v. Woodfork
| 29967 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea because appellant failed to establish a manifest injustice warranting the withdrawal of his plea. The trial court did not err by failing to rule on appellant’s pro se motion to modify his community control sanctions where appellant was represented by counsel and counsel did not join in the pro se motion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding appellant guilty of violating his community control sanctions after appellant refused to participate in an inpatient drug treatment program as required by the terms of his community control. The trial court properly revoked appellant’s community control based on that violation and properly sentenced him to 30 months in prison, as the sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Judgments affirmed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
7/3/2024
|
7/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2555 |
|
State v. Tyler
| 30005 | Conceded error. The trial court committed plain error in classifying appellant as a Tier II sex offender rather than a Tier I offender following his conviction for gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1). Judgment reversed; remanded for classification as a Tier I offender. | Tucker | Montgomery |
7/3/2024
|
7/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2553 |
|
State v. Allen
| 2023-CA-52; 2023-CA-65 | Appellant was sentenced to community control sanctions (CCS) for violating a protection order; he appealed, challenging the imposition of certain special conditions of his community control. While that appeal was pending, appellant’s probation officer filed notices of violations of CCS, and the trial court revoked appellant’s CCS and imposed prison sentences based on violations of the special conditions. We subsequently held in the prior appeal that the special conditions of CCS that the trial court originally imposed were “unreasonably overbroad”; we reversed and remanded for the trial court to impose more narrow special conditions. Appellant now appeals from the revocation of his CCS based on his violation of the original special conditions. Because the CCS violations at issue in this appeal were based on the original conditions and not the modified, narrow conditions, the trial court must reconsider its findings of CCS violations. Judgments reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Clark |
7/3/2024
|
7/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2549 |
|
State v. Weprin
| 29979 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The judge who issued the search warrant had a substantial basis for finding probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found at appellant’s home. The search warrant affiant did not intentionally or recklessly omit pertinent information from his affidavit. Even if a prior recantation by the victim in an earlier case against appellant had been included in the affidavit, that information was not exculpatory and would not have altered the finding of probable cause, because lengthy and detailed allegations were made in this case which were not recanted. The State concedes that the trial court failed to properly advise appellant of Reagan Tokes Act notifications and failed to properly advise appellant regarding post-release control at sentencing. Judgment reversed in part and remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion; judgment affirmed in all other respects. | Huffman | Montgomery |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2469 |
|
K.W. v. D.O.
| 30094 | Appellant failed to file objections to the magistrate’s decision granting a civil stalking protection order against her. As such, she cannot challenge the order on appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2488 |
|
State v. Cornelison
| 2023-CA-36 | Appellant failed to demonstrate that the findings on which the trial court based its imposition of consecutive sentences were clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2482 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 2023-CA-50 | Appellant’s guilty verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence showed that appellant and the victim lived together and that appellant struck the victim, causing physical harm. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted a witness to testify as to what a five-year-old child said shortly after the incident, as it was an excited utterance. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2478 |
|
State v. McElrath
| 2023-CA-45 | The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. Appellant’s professed lack of awareness about the potential for consecutive sentences did not invalidate his guilty plea. Defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to address the statutory consecutive-sentencing factors. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2475 |
|
D.B. v. J.P.
| 30063 | Appellant failed to file objections to the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision granting appellee’s petition for a civil stalking protection order before filing this appeal, as required by Civ.R. 65.1(G). Accordingly, appellant may not appeal from the trial court’s judgment. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2489 |
|
State v. Dean
| 2023-CA-31 | The trial court did not commit plain error when it failed to merge appellant’s convictions for possessing criminal tools and aggravated trafficking in drugs where the two offenses involved separate conduct. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2385 |
|
State v. Tunstall
| 29946 | Appellant was convicted of felony murder and obstructing official business, among other charges. The jury’s determination that appellant did not act in self defense was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The obstructing official business conviction included a finding that appellant’s conduct had created a risk of physical harm to any person; this finding was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2376 |
|
Barry v. Maxim Roofing Co., L.L.C.
| 30038 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to employer-appellee on employee-appellant’s intentional tort claims based on appellant’s fall from a ladder during a roofing job. Appellant was not entitled to the presumption of intent to injure contained in R.C. 2745.01(C) because, as a matter of law, the safety feet of the ladder did not constitute “an equipment safety guard” within the meaning of that section. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2387 |
|
Trinity Fin. Servs. v. Unknown Heirs of King
| 30066 | The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee in a residential foreclosure case. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to compel appellee to produce the original note for inspection and to give an additional opportunity for discovery, pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F), prior to granting summary judgment. Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether appellee had satisfied all conditions precedent prior to filing its action. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2377 |
|
State v. Moore
| 2023-CA-32 | The trial court did not commit either plain error or any error in considering whether appellant had the ability to pay financial sanctions. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Champaign |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2382 |
|
B.B. v. O.D.
| 2023-CA-30 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found appellant in contempt of court for her failure to obey an agreed custody order. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Darke |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2388 |
|
Shehee v. Kings Furniture
| 29902 | The trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint based on his failure to serve appellees within the time specified in Civ.R. 3(A). Appellant requested service to be made on appellees within the statute of limitations for several claims, and the court should have considered this as a refiling of the complaint pursuant to Goolsby v. Anderson Concrete Corp., 61 Ohio St.3d 549, 575 N.E.2d 801 (1991), which would have made failure to comply with Civ.R. 3(A) irrelevant. Judgments reversed and remanded. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2379 |
|
State v. Simpson
| 2023-CA-51 | Appellant’s convictions for rape, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and violation of a protection order were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Additionally, the trial court did not err when it imposed consecutive sentences. The court’s findings with respect to the consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgments affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2378 |
|
State ex rel. Clark-Shawnee Local School Bd. of Edn v. Springfield
| 2024-CA-9 | Relator’s mandamus claim is moot because respondent has provided all records that are the subject of its public records request. Relator is entitled to statutory damages because respondent unreasonably delayed its response to the request. Relator did not demonstrate that respondent acted in bad faith. Attorney fees and court costs denied. Writ denied. | Per Curiam | Clark |
6/20/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2483 |
|
State v. Olson-Graf
| 29988 | Appellant pleaded guilty to violating a protection order by committing a felony, telecommunications harassment, and violating a protection order. Appellant’s argument that her guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is without merit. But the trial court erred by failing to merge the three counts as allied offenses of similar import, which the State concedes. Judgment affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2291 |
|
State v. Dzekunskas
| 2023-CA-69 | Appellant’s conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; his mother testified that he pushed her onto her bed, struck her with a closed fist, and briefly put his hands around her neck. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Greene |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2287 |
|
R.L.R. Invests., L.L.C. v. Cross Street Partners, L.L.C.
| 30034 | The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee a preliminary injunction to prevent plaintiff-appellant from arbitrating against a third party. Defendant, an agent performing construction work on behalf of its principal, lacked standing to enjoin plaintiff from arbitrating against the principal. Judgment reversed; preliminary injunction dissolved. | Tucker | Montgomery |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2292 |
|
In re Adoption of B.M.M.
| 2024-CA-5 | Putative father did not register with the putative father registry or otherwise establish a legal relationship with the child prior to petitioner-appellant’s filing of a petition for adoption. Although putative father’s paternity was subsequently established by DNA testing, he had not attained the status of one whose consent to the adoption was required at the time the petition was filed. The trial court erred in concluding that the contact and support provisions of R.C. 3107.07(A) applied to putative father. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that putative father’s consent to the adoption was not required. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Champaign |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2288 |
|
State v. Mason
| 2023-CA-27 | Appellant was convicted of reckless homicide with a firearm specification; he was sentenced to a mandatory three-year prison term on the firearm specification to be served prior and consecutive to a 36-month “mandatory” prison term on the reckless homicide. Although the trial court was required to impose a prison term on the reckless homicide because of the firearm specification, the sentence on the reckless homicide was not otherwise a statutorily-mandated prison sentence. Thus, the trial court erred by designating the reckless homicide prison sentence as a mandatory sentence, which would preclude appellant’s consideration for judicial release and other potential sentence reductions. The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal of the reckless homicide; the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence several autopsy photographs used by a pathologist during her testimony regarding the cause of the victim’s death. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. | Tucker | Miami |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2290 |
|
State v. Apple
| 2023-CA-21 | The trial court did not err by failing to suppress firearms and methamphetamine found in a locked safe by probation officers during a probationer search. The search in question was authorized under R.C. 2951.02(A)(1)(a), which is a valid statute that meets the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. Accordingly, the search of the safe was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and suppression of the evidence found therein was not required. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Darke |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2286 |
|
State v. Cuffie
| 2023-CA-61 | Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law, and the court’s findings in imposing consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2193 |
|
State v. S.R.S.
| 2023-CA-43 | The trial court erred in granting appellee’s application to seal his conviction. Appellee pled guilty to failure to comply with the order of a police officer, a third-degree felony. Although convictions for certain felony offenses may be sealed, R.C. 2953.32(A)(2) precludes sealing convictions for felony offenses of violence. Under R.C. 2901.01(A)(9)(c), appellee’s conviction is classified as an offense of violence. Judgment reversed. | Welbaum | Champaign |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2195 |
|
State v. Turner
| 2023-CA-51 | Appellant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2196 |
|
State v. Anderson
| 2023-CA-49 | The trial court did not violate Crim.R. 11 by failing to advise appellant of the potential for consecutive sentences or about his eligibility for community-control sanctions. The record does not affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s failure to consider the youth sentencing factors found in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b). The trial court did err, however, in its award of jail-time credit. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of jail-time credit. | Tucker | Clark |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2191 |
|
State v. Knott
| 2023-CA-54 | The trial court erred by failing to dismiss appellant’s aggravated trafficking in drugs charge on grounds that her statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. Judgment vacated. | Welbaum | Clark |
6/7/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2289 |
|