|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Long v. Hutchinson
| L-23-1228, L-23-1235 | Judge Duhart, fraudulent conveyance, badges of fraud | Duhart | Lucas |
4/29/2025
|
4/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1520 |
|
Hampton Court, L.L.C. v. French
| L-24-1145 | Zmuda. Reversing trial court’s judgment. Trial court did not have jurisdiction over the case where landlord failed to comply with federal recertification notification requirements. | Zmuda | Lucas |
4/29/2025
|
4/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1522 |
|
In re Estate of Devine v. Monroe Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
| L-24-1061 | Bequest in will contained latent ambiguity, permitting court to consider extrinsic evidence to assist it to better interpret intention from language used in will. Trial court erred in broadly considering extrinsic evidence to determine testator’s general intention. Charitable organization, which executor named a defendant in declaratory judgment action, was aggrieved by trial court’s ruling that it was not intended beneficiary of bequest and therefore had appellate standing. | Mayle | Lucas |
4/29/2025
|
4/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1523 |
|
State v. Alliman
| OT-24-009 & OT-24-010 | R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Osowik | Ottawa |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1490 |
|
State v. Robinson
| L-24-1146 | Duhart. Reversing trial court’s denial of Robinson’s motion to dismiss and remanding for both factual findings on the record and for findings on the merits of Robinson’s “as-applied” constitutional challenge. | Duhart | Lucas |
4/22/2025
|
4/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1431 |
|
In re R.H.
| OT-24-024, OT-24-037 | Sulek, J. In a legal custody action, the trial court properly considered the children’s best interests and determined that the agency made reasonable efforts to reunite the family. | Sulek | Ottawa |
4/17/2025
|
4/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1377 |
|
Booker v. RSH 506, L.L.C.
| L-24-1225 | Osowik - R.C. 1901.181(A)(1) grants a municipal court housing division exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate claims brought under Chapter 5321 of the Ohio Revised Code. Therefore, the lower court erred in dismissing tenant’s claim on jurisdictional grounds. The lower court further erred in determining that tenant’s claim was barred for failing to deposit rent at the time of filing her application for relief. R.C. 5321.07(B)(2) allows, but does not require, a tenant to do so | Osowik | Lucas |
4/17/2025
|
4/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1375 |
|
In re S.T.
| E-24-007 | Judge Duhart. Legal custody. Non-family member. Best interest of the child. Visitation. Interference. Magistrate’s decision. Objections. Additional hearing. | Duhart | Erie |
4/17/2025
|
4/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1379 |
|
State v. Guerin
| WD-24-032, WD-24-033 | Osowik - Merger does not apply to pleas of guilty to a multiple count indictment alleging different dates and methods of violating a protection order. Judgment affirmed | Osowik | Wood |
4/17/2025
|
4/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1376 |
|
State v. Solomon
| WD-24-053 | Because the defendant’s only challenge on appeal was the trial court’s jail-time credit calculation, the appeal was rendered moot once he was released from jail. | Mayle | Wood |
4/17/2025
|
4/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1378 |
|
Hendricks v. Ventra Sandusky, L.L.C.
| E-24-047 | Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) where the motion was unsupported by any operative facts or evidence establishing her right to relief. | Mayle | Erie |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1288 |
|
State ex rel. Acosta v. Mandros
| L-25-00001 | (Osowik): Petition for a writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate an order in relator’s criminal case and to order the State to return seized property that is the subject of a forfeiture action by State, is dismissed sua sponte where petition seeks the same relief as two previously-filed original actions and where relator had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. | Osowik | Lucas |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1286 |
|
State v. Disher
| L-24-1142 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, find that trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for convictions within the same case and consecutive to previously-imposed sentences. | Zmuda | Lucas |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1287 |
|
In re Am.J.
| L-24-1226 | Per Mayle, J., trial court’s finding that appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence proving that she can provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for child’s health, welfare, and safety, as required under R.C. 2151.414(E)(11), is supported by clear and convincing evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because only one factor under R.C. 2151.414(E) is needed to support permanent custody award, remaining arguments under that section are moot. | Mayle | Lucas |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1289 |
|
State v. Smith
| L-24-1108 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences as not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record | Zmuda | Lucas |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1290 |
|
Johnson v. Mercy Health Care, St. Vincent Med. Ctr.
| L-24-1107 | Per Mayle, J., under plain language of R.C. 2305.113(B)(1), a plaintiff need not send a 180-day letter to both the hospital and a non-physician employee in order to extend the statute of limitations for bringing a claim for vicarious liability against only the hospital. | Mayle | Lucas |
3/31/2025
|
4/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1157 |
|
State v. Mercer
| S-24-006 | Neither trial court error nor ineffective assistance of counsel in sentencing appellant after jury convictions for importuning and attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. Judgment affirmed. Osowik. | Osowik | Sandusky |
3/31/2025
|
4/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1158 |
|
State v. Merillat
| WM-23-005, WM-24-008 | Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions to suppress and to sever, in imposing financial sanctions on appellant’s felony sentence, or in disposition of appellant’s minor misdemeanor traffic offense. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Williams |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1100 |
|
State v. Arce
| WD-24-008 | Osowik - Trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to suppress. Under the totality of the circumstances, appellee’s consent to search his motor vehicle was not knowingly given, due to appellee’s English language barrier. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Wood |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1091 |
|
State v. Greene
| WD-23-056 | Zmuda, writing for the majority, affirms the convictions arising from misuse of charity funds, finding no abuse of discretion in precluding testimony and declining to provide “claim of right defense” jury instruction, finding the convictions supported by sufficient and credible evidence, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel, and finding costs imposed did not include non-mandatory costs. | Zmuda | Wood |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1096 |
|
Hoytville v. Kaufman
| WD-24-003 | Duhart. Reversing trial court’s decision reversing denial of property owner’s request for variance and denying municipality’s request for injunction. | Duhart | Wood |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1097 |
|
State v. Jones
| OT-24-026 | Duhart. The trial court did not employ the wrong legal standards as related to “materially exculpatory” evidence and/or its destruction. Nor did it err in failing to consider bad faith argument. It was not reversible error to mention records retention policies in decision granting dismissal. Also, no reversible error in dismissing all of the counts on the basis of a due process violation. | Duhart | Ottawa |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1098 |
|
State v. Elam
| L-24-1213 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, reverses the judgment and remands for evidence or stipulation as to undisputed facts, as necessary for finding the defendant demonstrated application of the statute, limiting his Second Amendment rights, was unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case. | Zmuda | Lucas |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1092 |
|
State v. Garibaldo
| L-23-1284 | Per Mayle, J., Court is bound by stare decisis to apply legal standards enunciated by Ohio Supreme Court and will not adopt new standard. State asserted legitimate race-neutral reason for exercising peremptory challenge where juror said she would expect DNA evidence as part of proper protocol. State’s misconduct did not clearly and unquestionably demonstrate intent to invite mistrial, thus retrial not barred by double jeopardy. | Mayle | Lucas |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1093 |
|
State v. Gaston
| L-24-1171, L-24-1172 | Duhart. Trial court did not err, and sentence was not contrary to law, where trial court made required findings for consecutive sentences at a second, “reconvened,” sentencing hearing that was held prior to the issuance of a journalized judgment entry. | Duhart | Lucas |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1094 |
|
Liber v. Westmeyer
| L-24-1076 | Judge Duhart, legal malpractice, statute of limitations, purported partnership under R.C. 1776.38(A). | Duhart | Lucas |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1099 |
|
Short v. Wert
| L-24-1152 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 25, with the dismissal otherwise than on the merits and without determining the validity of any affirmative defense to the claims. | Zmuda | Lucas |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1103 |
|
State v. Barnum
| F-24-003 | Per Mayle, J., trial court erred by denying appellant’s for-cause challenges of two jurors who were spouses because the couple had a relationship with victim’s grandfather that was sufficiently close and ongoing to call into question their claims that they could be impartial. This court will not adopt an old standard for reviewing circumstantial evidence that the Ohio Supreme Court overruled. The evidence showed that appellant acted recklessly, so his convictions are supported by sufficient evidence. | Mayle | Fulton |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1105 |
|
State v. Gillen
| E-24-001, E-24-002, E-24-003, E-24-004, E-24-005 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, find that trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motions to suppress and that the state introduced sufficient evidence to support appellants’ convictions. Judgment affirmed. | Zmuda | Erie |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1095 |
|
State v. Lebron-Novas
| E-23-025 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, find that trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Zmuda | Erie |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1101 |
|
Reynolds v. Kamm
| E-24-026 | Municipal court judge and clerk of courts are immune from civil liability for claims arising from the performance of their duties. Further, under R.C. 1901.20, a municipal court has subject matter and personal judication over the violation of any ordinance or misdemeanor occurring within the territorial limits. | Sulek | Erie |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1102 |
|
State v. Szafranski
| E-24-020 | Per Mayle, J., the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the victim had a subjective belief that appellant would cause him physical harm, so appellant’s menacing conviction under R.C. 2903.22(A)(1) is not supported by sufficient evidence. | Mayle | Erie |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1104 |
|
Barnhart v. Stanley
| E-24-031 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority affirms the stay for arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.02(B), as a trial court properly stays the entire action pending arbitration of the arbitrable issue before proceeding in the case. | Zmuda | Erie |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-997 |
|
Brown v. State
| L-24-1104 | Judge Duhart. Wrongful imprisonment. Res judicata. | Duhart | Lucas |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-998 |
|
State v. Howard
| L-24-1105 | Osowik - Evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant violated R.C. 2903.22(A)(1) where victim testified that she believed that it was possible that appellant would touch her. The conviction was not against the manifest weigh of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Lucas |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-999 |
|
State v. Smallwood
| WM-24-001, WM-24-002, WM-24-003, WM-24-004 | Osowik - Appellant’s attempted murder conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in not merging abduction and domestic violence offenses with attempted murder offense, as they were committed separately, with separate harm, and thus, were not allied offenses. Judgement affirmed. | Osowik | Williams |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1001 |
|
Bd. of Trustees Wood Cty. Property Trust Agreement, UAD June 4, 2008 John F. Nixon, Chairman v. Melcher
| WD-24-006 | Sulek - Beneficiary’s decision to not exercise a joint option to purchase a property jointly that was granted in a trust agreement and subsequent “release” of that right is akin to declining the option, and is not a “disclaimer” of that right for purposes of R.C. 5815.36. | Sulek | Wood |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1000 |
|
State v. Daniels
| WD-24-009 | Sulek - In a direct appeal, claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel must fail where it relies upon evidence from outside of the record. | Sulek | Wood |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-869 |
|
Luckey v. T&S Agriventures, L.L.C.
| WD-24-024 | Duhart. The trial court did not err in finding that the Village extended a good faith offer to appellants. In addition, the trial court did not err in finding that appellants failed to rebut the presumption of necessity that arose from the Village’s Resolution 376. | Duhart | Wood |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-871 |
|
State v. Mauss
| L-23-1302 | The State presented legally sufficient evidence to support defendant’s misdemeanor conviction for adulterating her coworker’s beverage with a harmful substance, where the defendant admitted to putting hand sanitizer into co-worker’s drink and the State presented evidence that coworker could have suffered physical harm as a result and was “seriously annoyed” by defendant’s act. | Mayle | Lucas |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-870 |
|
Waldock v. Waldock Invest. Co.
| E-24-021 | In a “books and records action” under R.C. 1701.37, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the plaintiff, a 50% shareholder of a closely held corporation who was wrongfully denied records, where there was clear and convincing evidence that the corporation and its president/treasurer engaged in dilatory tactics and with an intent to mislead the shareholder. President/treasurer’s conduct also subjected him to a forfeiture award under R.C. 1701.94 and precluded indemnification under the company’s bylaws. | Osowik | Erie |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-872 |
|
In re. O.S.
| E-23-048, E-24-049, E-23-050 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to father. | Zmuda | Erie |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-776 |
|
Marchbanks v. Neema, L.L.C.
| E-24-010 | Sulek, J. In an appropriation action, the trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion in limine to prohibit property owner’s expert appraiser’s valuation testimony. | Sulek | Erie |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-777 |
|
State v. Armstrong
| L-24-1025, L-24-1026 | Per Mayle, J., appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The state proved that appellant had constructive possession of drugs found in car and actual possession of gun, and detective’s testimony did not contradict his report. | Mayle | Lucas |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-771 |
|
State v. Coleman
| L-24-1033 | Judge Duhart. Juvenile. Murder. Plea. Amenable. | Duhart | Lucas |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-773 |
|
State v. Henry
| L-23-1270 | Osowik - Trial court did not err in not merging felonious assault and discharge of a firearm as allied offenses of similar import. The record reflects separate victims and separate harm. Parties concur that trial court misstated case numbers in the sentencing entries. Judgement affirmed, in part, and reversed and remanded, in part, for issuance of a nunc pro tunc. | Osowik | Lucas |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-774 |
|
Blue Water Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co.
| S-24-009, S-24-010 | Per Mayle, J., plaintiff failed to present Civ.R. 56 evidence showing it incurred consequential damages potentially covered by contractor’s Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policy. Faulty workmanship is not an “occurrence” under CGL policy. Property owner was “additional insured” under CGL policy only with respect to third-party claims for liability caused by contractor’s acts or omissions. Once it was determined that there was no coverage under CGL policy, insurer’s duty to defend ceased. | Mayle | Sandusky |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-772 |
|
State v. Hesser
| WD-24-027 | Where defendant entered a guilty plea and was represented by counsel, he waived his right to appeal any non-jurisdictional defect that occurred during earlier stage of proceeding, including any alleged error relating to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. | Mayle | Wood |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-775 |
|
S.P. v. B.M.
| WM-23-013 | Per Mayle, mother can challenge trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction years after case filed. Texas was child’s home state on filing date, so court lacks Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Agency ("UCCJEA") jurisdiction. Absence not temporary under duration test when child was away for six consecutive months ending within six months of filing. Nothing shows that mother stipulated to jurisdictional facts, she could not consent to nonexistent jurisdiction, and record evidence is sufficient to determine home state, so transcripts are unnecessary. | Mayle | Williams |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-778 |
|
State v. Morris
| WD-24-038 & WD-24-039 | Per Mayle, J. trial court did not err in declining to impose jointly-recommended community-control sanctions. Defendant signed written plea agreement indicating his understanding that sentencing recommendation was not binding on court. At plea hearing, defendant confirmed his understanding after court informed him of possible penalties for offenses, made clear it was not bound by State’s sentencing recommendation, and explained that it was within its discretion to determine appropriate sanction. | Mayle | Wood |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-684 |
|