| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Morris
| 2021-CA-31 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress drugs retrieved from her purse in the course of a traffic stop in which she was the vehicle’s passenger. The evidence established that appellant freely and voluntarily consented to the search of her purse in the absence of any coercive procedures. Judgment affirmed. | Donovan | Clark |
1/14/2022
|
1/14/2022
| 2022-Ohio-94 |
|
Dovetail Energy, L.L.C. v. Bath Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
| 2021-CA-15 | The trial court did not err in finding that appellee’s biodigester facility is a public utility pursuant to R.C. 519.211(A) and thus exempt from zoning restrictions. The trial court also did not err in not remanding the case back to the BZA for further proceedings on the public utility issue; R.C. 2506.04 permits, but does not require, such an action. Finally, the trial court did not err in ordering the BZA to grant appellee’s request for an exemption to expand the facility because the expansion will also be part of the public utility. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
1/14/2022
|
1/14/2022
| 2022-Ohio-92 |
|
In re A.A.R.
| 2021-CA-23 | The record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s dependency adjudication for appellant Mother’s three children. The preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court’s dispositional order awarding appellee Greene County Children Services temporary custody of the children. Judgments affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
1/14/2022
|
1/14/2022
| 2022-Ohio-93 |
|
State v. Carter
| 29091 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. Based upon the totality of the circumstances following a ShotSpotter alert at an early morning hour, the officers’ reasonable articulable suspicion justified the Terry stop of appellant, a solitary pedestrian in the radius area of the alert, whose demeanor caused the officers to fear he might be armed and dangerous and pose a threat to their safety. In the course of the ensuing pat down for weapons, an officer lawfully seized methamphetamine “sticking out” from appellant's shorts. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in relation to appellant’s no contest plea. Judgment affirmed. (Tucker, P.J., concurring.) | Donovan | Montgomery |
1/14/2022
|
1/14/2022
| 2022-Ohio-91 |
|
State v. Wells
| 2021-CA-19 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to grant a continuance to appellant or to exclude witnesses when the State inadvertently sent a witness list to another one of appellant’s pending cases. All the potential witnesses were listed in discovery completed months earlier, and appellant was not prejudiced. Similarly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not classify a witness as an expert witness. Finally, because there were no errors, the doctrine of cumulative error does not apply. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
1/7/2022
|
1/7/2022
| 2022-Ohio-30 |
|
State v. Clemmons
| 29204 | The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s post-conviction “Claim of Actual Innocence” because it was an untimely, successive petition for post-conviction relief that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider, and because the claims raised therein were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
1/7/2022
|
1/7/2022
| 2022-Ohio-27 |
|
In re Disinterment of Glass
| 29160; 29161 | The probate court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to quash a subpoena and notice to take Civ.R. 30(B)(5) depositions of appellant’s employees. Appellant, a cemetery association, is not exempt from providing discovery based on its claim of immunity from liability for damages under R.C. 2108.83. These cases involve applications for disinterment, which were brought under R.C. 517.23 and R.C. 517.24. In contrast, R.C. 2108.83 deals with the original disposition of a body and does not apply. Furthermore, even if R.C. 2108.83 were relevant, any immunity from damages it grants does not preclude nonparties from being subpoenaed for discovery. Civ.R. 45 specifically requires nonparties to provide information in litigation. Under Civ.R. 45, nonparties can challenge discovery requests where they create an undue burden or involve matters like privilege, and that is the proper avenue for obtaining relief. Accordingly, appellant was not exempt from providing discovery and was required to use standard means to quash or modify a subpoena. Finally, the probate court did not abuse its discretion when it found that appellant had failed to establish that the subpoena imposed an undue burden. Judgments affirmed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
1/7/2022
|
1/7/2022
| 2022-Ohio-28 |
|
Timberlake Apartments, L.L.C. v. Underwriters at Lloyds London
| 29191 | The trial court erred in converting a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss into a Civ.R. 56(C) motion for summary judgment and entering final judgment for appellee without first giving appellant an opportunity to present evidentiary materials in response. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
1/7/2022
|
1/7/2022
| 2022-Ohio-29 |