|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Weaver
| 2024-CA-53 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress his statements to state agents and evidence of his possession of a firearm following an administrative inspection of a club at which appellant was providing security services. The encounter was consensual, and the firearm was in plain view. Even if a brief detention occurred, the investigating agents had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Appellant’s conviction for having weapons under disability was supported by sufficient evidence of his prior conviction of a felony offense of violence. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
6/27/2025
|
6/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2256 |
|
State v. Halderman
| 2025-CA-5 | Neither Crim.R. 11(C)(2) nor Crim.R. 11(D) applied to appellant’s guilty plea to a first-degree misdemeanor charge of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. Therefore, any failure by the trial court to comply with those provisions did not render his plea involuntary or otherwise invalidate it. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
6/27/2025
|
6/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2253 |
|
Calicoat v. Conner
| 30365 | The trial court reasonably concluded that a landlord was not entitled to damages from a former tenant after she vacated a rental property that he owned. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s conclusions that the landlord’s testimony lacked credibility and that the alleged damage had not been established by the weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
6/27/2025
|
6/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2252 |
|
State v. McCain
| 30410 | The sentence imposed by the trial court fell within the statutory range, and the court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. The court was not required to make any specific findings or provide its reasons for the sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
6/27/2025
|
6/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2254 |
|
State v. Parker
| 30353 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to terminate her commitment following a finding that she was incompetent to stand trial. The maximum prison term appellant could have received if she had been convicted of the most serious offense charged had not yet expired under R.C. 2945.401(J)(1)(b). Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
6/27/2025
|
6/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2255 |
|
State v. Duran
| 2024-CA-41 | Appellant’s convictions for felonious assault and escape were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury was free to credit the testimony of the State’s experts over the defense expert in determining that appellant was not insane at the time of those crimes. Appellant’s argument that he did not actually commit an attempted kidnapping is foreclosed by his not guilty by reason of insanity plea to that offense, which was an affirmative defense that necessarily admitted the elements of the crime. Finally, appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
6/20/2025
|
6/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2165 |
|
State v. Smith
| 2024-CA-39 | Res judicata barred appellant’s successive application for expungement. The trial court could have also reasonably concluded that appellant, a former police officer, should not have his conviction expunged because he failed to perceive conduct that resulted in his arrest and conviction as threatening and minimized the behavior. Judgment affirmed. (Epley, P.J., dissenting.) | Huffman | Greene |
6/20/2025
|
6/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2166 |
|
State v. Tarver
| 2024-CA-49 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. Under the totality of the circumstances, the affidavits in support of the search warrants provided sufficient probable cause; the information relied upon was not stale, and there was a temporal and spatial nexus between the alleged crimes, the objects to be seized, and the places to be searched. The veracity of the information provided by an informant was corroborated. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
6/20/2025
|
6/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2167 |
|
Becraft v. Snyder
| 2025-CA-10 | The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the parties’ shared parenting plan, designating mother as the legal custodian and residential parent of the parties’ children, and awarding father parenting time at mother’s discretion. The juvenile court did not err in ordering father to comply with the guardian ad litem’s recommendations, as represented in mother’s testimony, that father comply with sentencing requirements in a criminal matter, address his alcohol issues, and maintain his mental health. The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing father’s counsel to withdraw on the day of the hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
6/20/2025
|
6/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2164 |
|
State v. Thompson
| 2024-CA-40 | The trial court did not clearly err when it overruled appellant’s objection to the State’s use of a peremptory challenge on an African-American prospective juror. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error in providing a jury instruction requested by the State that was a correct statement of law, relevant to the case, and supported by the evidence. The trial court did not err in refusing to merge two felonious assault offenses and an improper discharge of a firearm offense, because the offenses were of dissimilar import or significance. The trial court’s findings in support of consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. The trial court erred by failing to advise appellant of and properly calculate his jail-time credit. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proper imposition of jail-time credit. | Lewis | Clark |
6/20/2025
|
6/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2168 |
|
State v. Webster
| 2024-CA-56 | The trial court’s imposition of two 12-month sentences, to be served consecutively, was not contrary to law and not appealable where the parties had agreed to a 24-month sentence for appellant’s two fourth-degree felonies. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
6/20/2025
|
6/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2169 |
|
State v. Wood
| 2024-CA-49 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, because appellant did not meet his initial burden of demonstrating that there were substantive grounds for relief. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s motion for leave to move for a new trial, because appellant failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he had been unavoidably prevented from discovering the alleged newly discovered evidence. The trial court’s consideration of the State’s untimely responses to appellant’s petition and motion for leave was harmless error. The trial court had no duty to notify the public defender or to appoint counsel when the court found that appellant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
6/20/2025
|
6/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2170 |
|
State v. Smith
| 30201 | Appellant’s convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, and operating a vehicle while under the influence were based upon sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant did not attempt to introduce the victim-driver’s toxicology report at trial, so there is no evidentiary ruling on this issue to consider on appeal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert accident reconstruction testimony or in imposing maximum and consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
6/13/2025
|
6/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2086 |
|
State v. Tanner
| 30264 | The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The facts known to the officer when he called for the drug-sniffing canine during the traffic stop were insufficient to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify prolonging the stop, and the officer suspended his efforts to resolve the issue that led to the original stop until after the canine alerted. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
6/13/2025
|
6/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2087 |
|
State v. Robinson
| 30316 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion to dismiss several of appellant’s criminal charges with prejudice; the court had already dismissed these charges without prejudice years earlier. Appellant’s motion was also barred by res judicata because he had previously appealed from a judgment that included dismissal of the charges. The motion was untimely if construed as a petition for postconviction relief. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2026 |
|
State v. Nelson
| 2024-CA-75 | Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of due process based on counsel’s lack of advocacy are not properly raised on direct appeal because they rely on evidence outside the record. Appellant also has not demonstrated that counsel’s actions affected his ability to enter a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek a dismissal based on a speedy trial violation and for failing to advise appellant of the speedy trial process under R.C. 2941.401. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2025 |
|
State v. Eckelbarger
| 2024-CA-16 | Appellant’s claim that his guilty plea to violating a protection order was invalid because he did not waive his right to an indictment in strict compliance with R.C. 2941.021 lacks merit. The record establishes that appellant executed a waiver of indictment before he entered his guilty plea. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Champaign |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2024 |
|
State v. Roweton
| 2025-CA-6 | After appellant served a portion of his jail terms in three cases, the trial court suspended his jail sentences with conditions. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s judgments reimposing the suspended jail sentences after he violated a condition of his release. Appellant’s challenge to the aggregate length of his jail sentences was barred by res judicata, because he could have challenged it when the sentences were originally imposed. The trial court erred in failing to calculate the amount of jail-time credit to which he was entitled in each case. Judgments reversed in part and remanded for resentencing on jail-time credit; judgments affirmed in all other respects. | Epley | Miami |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2027 |
|
State v. Sellers
| 2024-CA-28 | Because appellant has completed his sentence, his challenge to the court’s alleged failure to reduce his sentence by the number of days he spent in jail prior to sentencing is moot; there is no remedy this court can provide. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Miami |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2028 |
|
In re Estate of Boggs v. Todd
| 2024-CA-23 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee. There was no genuine issue of material fact that the parties’ mother had transferred money into joint bank accounts with appellee and had not objected to appellee’s withdrawal of money from those accounts before she died. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the testimony of appellee and mother’s friend regarding mother’s donative intent in depositing money into the joint bank accounts. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Miami |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1947 |
|
State v. Couch
| 2024-CA-55 | The trial court did not err in finding that appellant had not rebutted the presumption of a prison term for his burglary conviction. The trial court’s order for appellant to pay restitution of $8,209.10 absent record evidence supporting that figure did not create a manifest miscarriage of justice warranting plain-error relief under Crim.R. 52(B). Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1943 |
|
State v. Hambidge
| 2024-CA-54 | The trial court did not err in revoking appellant’s community control following her administrative discharge from a treatment program. Appellant was provided with all of the due process protections applicable to a revocation hearing. Even if the witnesses who testified at the revocation hearing lacked first-hand knowledge of appellant’s behavior at the treatment program, there was no dispute that she had failed to complete the program, which was a condition of her community control. Appellant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1944 |
|
State v. Helton
| 2024-CA-21 | The revocation of appellant’s community control sanctions was based on non-technical violations, which authorized the trial court to impose a seven-month prison sentence. We cannot clearly and convincingly conclude that the record did not support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1945 |
|
State v. Hoskins
| 2024-CA-27 | Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law, and the court considered the principles and purposes of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors in imposing sentence. The trial court’s findings in support of imposing consecutive sentences were supported by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1946 |
|
Lu v. Univ. of Dayton
| 30272; 30375 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee. Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under R.C. 4112.02(I). Even if he had, appellee presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for rejecting appellant’s employment application, and there was no evidence that appellee’s reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for relief from judgment, as he did not establish any of the requirements for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(2) or (3). Judgments affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1948 |
|
State v. Pierce
| 30276 | Appellant’s “motion to proceed to trial” was properly overruled by the trial court. The issues contemplated in the motion were known at the time of trial and could and should have been raised on direct appeal. Those issues were also raised in a 2020 motion to the trial court. Because the issues could and should have been raised previously and were not, appellant’s arguments are barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1812 |
|
State v. Warren
| 30258 | Appellant’s convictions for obstructing official business and resisting arrest were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1814 |
|
State v. Williams-Stupp
| 30304 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by calling a police detective to testify at a motion to suppress hearing where the detective had observed appellant jaywalking and communicated this fact to the police officer who made the investigatory stop of appellant. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1815 |
|
Village Capital & Invest., L.L.C. v. Unknown Heirs of Watters
| 2024-CA-26 | In this foreclosure action, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee-lender. Appellant did not submit any Civ.R. 56 evidence in opposition to summary judgment, and appellant’s various “statements” in his summary judgment response were irrelevant to whether the trial court should grant foreclosure. Appellant did not challenge appellee’s notice of default in the trial court, waiving all but plain error on that issue, and no plain error is shown. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Champaign |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1813 |
|
State v. Bonerigo
| 2024-CA-61 | Appellant’s domestic violence conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Despite the victim’s refusal to testify against appellant at trial, his conviction was supported by the victim’s 911 call, allegations she made to responding police officers, and the content of jailhouse phone calls. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1809 |
|
In re E.M.
| 2024-CA-5 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father’s motion to terminate or modify a shared-parenting plan. The court reasonably concluded that there had been no change in circumstances, that changing the parenting arrangement was not in the child’s best interest, and that shared parenting should not be terminated. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Miami |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1810 |
|
State v. Burt
| 2024-CA-27 | Having pled guilty to aggravated arson, appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument was waived except as it affected his plea, and appellant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The trial court considered the appropriate factors at sentencing, and appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Miami |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1758 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 2024-CA-17 | Crim.R. 23(A) requires a defendant in a petty offense case to file a written jury demand if he wants a trial by jury; in the absence of such a demand, appellant’s constitutional rights were not violated by a bench trial. Appellant’s conviction for criminal damaging was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in awarding restitution in the amount sought by the victim; the amount was substantiated by testimony and exhibits, and appellant did not contest the amount in the trial court. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Miami |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1767 |
|
State v. Davis
| 2024-CA-45 | The trial court’s imposition of two consecutive three-year firearm specifications was not contrary to law, and we cannot clearly and convincingly conclude that the record did not support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Appellant did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for new counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Greene |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1760 |
|
State v. King
| 2024-CA-50 | The trial court erred in ordering the sentence it imposed upon revoking appellant’s community control to be served consecutively to another sentence when the court had not notified appellant at his original sentencing that consecutive sentences were a possibility. Judgment reversed remanded for the filing of a new judgment entry imposing concurrent sentences. | Epley | Clark |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1762 |
|
Clyburn v. Clyburn
| 2024-CA-34 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the parties’ dog to appellee in their divorce proceedings, and it was not required to note on the record which statutory factors it considered when making its decision. Appellant cannot argue for the first time on appeal that the trial court should have given him half of the dog’s value, when he did not raise that issue in the trial court or present any evidence as to the dog’s value. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1759 |
|
State v. Masters
| 2024-CA-28 | The trial court’s decision to revoke appellant’s community control in Case No. 2024 CR 043 was not an abuse of discretion, and the aggregate 30-month prison term it imposed in Case Nos. 2024 CR 043 and 2024 CR 132 was not contrary to law. The trial court was not bound to follow the State’s recommended sentence of community control as contemplated by the parties’ plea agreement. Judgments affirmed. | Hanseman | Champaign |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1763 |
|
In re M.D.S.
| 30287 | The juvenile court incorrectly determined that the $9.00 court cost mandated by R.C. 2743.70(A)(2) was not waivable and abused its discretion by failing to exercise its authority to evaluate whether that cost should be waived on indigency grounds. Judgment reversed with respect to imposition of $9.00 court cost and remanded for the juvenile court to evaluate whether appellant is indigent for the purpose of determining whether it is appropriate to waive that cost. Judgment affirmed in all other respects. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1761 |
|
State v. Mitchell
| 30262 | Because appellant’s plea agreement included a jointly-recommended sentence that was imposed by the trial court and was authorized by law, the sentence is not reviewable on appeal. Appellant’s constitutional claim that R.C. 2929.02(B)(1) violates the Eighth Amendment is without merit because it is not cruel and unusual punishment for a juvenile to be sentenced to life term without considering his youth. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1764 |
|
Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., L.P.A. v. Peterson
| 30307 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded appellee unpaid legal fees. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1765 |
|
Taylor v. Kettering Med. Ctr.
| 30162; 30163; 30164; 30165; 30222 | The trial court erred by denying appellants’ motions for summary judgment based on its implicit finding that the statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C) conflicted with Civ.R. 15(C) on a procedural matter, which rendered R.C. 2305.113(C) unconstitutional as applied. The other issues raised by the parties are either moot or not ripe for our review and are overruled. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1766 |
|
State v. Mathews
| 2024-CA-2 | In his application for reopening, appellant has not established that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the ineffectiveness of trial counsel or failing to raise a "fabrication of evidence" claim; both arguments relate to a pair of gloves found in appellant’s possession several days after the offense, the relevance of which was not established, and a similar argument was raised on direct appeal. Appellant also has not established that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that there was a Mooney-Napue violation based on divergent testimony from two witnesses regarding whether appellant had gloves on his person when booked into jail. Application for reopening denied. | Per Curiam | Champaign |
5/14/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1811 |
|
State v. Davis
| 2024-CA-32 | The trial court did not err in refusing to merge felonious assault and improper discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises offenses, because the felonious assault required harm to a particular person and firing a handgun across the roadway and penetrating a nearby house placed numerous people at risk and harmed the public at large. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to assert a speedy trial violation or to object to the admission of certain evidence at sentencing; appellant’s speedy trial time had not been exhausted, and the rules of evidence did not apply at the sentencing hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1676 |
|
In re Adoption of B.M.H.M
| 2025-CA-1 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting petitioners’ adoption petition. Biological father had consented to the adoption, biological mother’s consent was not necessary pursuant to R.C. 3107.07, the continued placement of the child with petitioners was the least detrimental available alternative, and the adoption was in the best interest of the child. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Darke |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1677 |
|
Miller v. Bates
| 2024-CA-9 | Although appellee conferred a benefit on appellant, who was his then-girlfriend, by helping with the construction of her home, he acted as a volunteer and also benefited from living in the home for 30 months without contributing to living expenses. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith on the part of appellant, the trial court’s finding of unjust enrichment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Moreover, appellee’s construction company, a limited liability company, was not a party to this action; although appellee was the company’s sole member, the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding damages to appellee on behalf of the company. Appellee was entitled to recover for the value of his personal gun safe, which had been built into appellant’s home, either through return of the safe or payment for its value. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Darke |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1679 |
|
State v. Anderson
| 30211 | The trial court did not err in rejecting appellant’s insanity defense. While both experts agreed that appellant suffered from a severe mental disease when he murdered the victim, they disagreed about whether, due to the disease, he failed to understand at the time of the offense that his conduct was wrongful. The trial court reasonably credited the State’s expert’s conclusion. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to have appellant testify about his state of mind at the time of the crime; other evidence of appellant’s state of mind was admitted, including a video of appellant’s interview by police immediately after the crime and his own statements about his state of mind to both experts. Appellant is also presumed to have acquiesced in this decision. The trial court erred in merging one of appellant’s felonious assault convictions with the murder conviction, as it involved separate, identifiable harm to the victim and a separate offense. Judgment affirmed in all respects other than the merger of the felonious assault conviction; reversed and remanded for resentencing only as to that count. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1673 |
|
B.M. v. P.M.
| 30326 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a change of circumstances had occurred and that a change in the parents’ custody arrangement was in the child’s best interest. Further, any harm likely to be caused by designating Mother as residential parent and legal custodian was outweighed by the advantages to the child. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1674 |
|
State v. Dabbelt
| 30285 | Appellant’s conviction for violating a protection order was based on legally sufficient evidence. Appellant cannot collaterally attack the protection order’s constitutionality in a criminal case involving his prosecution for violating it. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1675 |
|
In re Testamentary Trust of Jones
| 30295 | The individual trustee of a testamentary trust sought to challenge the probate court’s fee schedule as violative of her equal protection rights due to a different fee provision for corporate trustees. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the trustee’s proposed witnesses, denying her request for a special process server, and implicitly denying her constitutional argument. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in determining that the trustee had not established that she performed any extraordinary services warranting additional trustee fees. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1678 |
|
Peoples v. Peoples
| 30299 | Appellant did not file a transcript of the final evidentiary hearing in the parties’ divorce proceedings, and the limited record before us does not affirmatively establish that the trial court abused its discretion in making the challenged findings. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1680 |
|