|
|
Breen v. Hochheiser
| 115504 | Motion for extension; commercial docket; Cuyahoga C.P., Gen. Div., Loc.R. 15.1; Sup.R. 49; Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; legal-malpractice; professional negligence; statute of repose for legal-malpractice claims; R.C. 2305.117(B)(1); statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims; R.C. 2305.11(A); motion to strike; harmless error, Civ.R. 61. Court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for 90-day extension to allow newly retained counsel to prepare appellant’s case, where extension request was denied months prior to case deadlines pertinent to this appeal. Court did not err in denying transfer to commercial docket that plaintiff’s counsel did not seek until more than one year after refiling complaint. Court erred in granting summary judgment on several legal-malpractice claims where, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, it was not clear when the attorney conduct complained of occurred. Any error in denying motion to strike unauthenticated evidence attached to the motion for summary judgment was harmless because consideration of such evidence did not impact our resolution of the motion for summary judgment as to any count in the complaint. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
7/16/2026
|
7/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2714 |
|
Kushan v. King David Post Acute Nursing & Rehab., L.L.C.
| 115666 | Arbitration; motion to stay. The trial court did not err when it granted the appellees’ motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
7/16/2026
|
7/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2717 |
|
Westside Hanna Group, L.L.C. v. Perfect Property Preservation, L.L.C.
| 115615 | Motion for judgment on pleadings; Civ.R. 12(C); de novo; standing; intended third-party beneficiary; assignment of rights; retroactive. Judgment affirmed. The trial court’s grant of appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was proper because appellant did not have standing to bring his crossclaim against appellees. Appellant did not own the property where the alleged damage occurred and was not an intended third-party beneficiary to the contract. Furthermore, appellant’s attempt to cure the lack of standing with the execution of the assignment of rights and his motion to substitute himself as the real party in interest was improper because appellant cannot retroactively become the real party in interest in order to cure the lack of standing at the time he filed his crossclaim. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
7/16/2026
|
7/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2716 |
|
KeyBank, N.A., v. Troutman
| 115872 | Pro se; jurisdiction; final judgment; bootstrapping; Civ.R. 60(B); App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A)(7). Judgment affirmed. Defendant-appellant attempts to bootstrap time-barred arguments and improperly seek review of alleged errors that he failed to timely appeal. We lack jurisdiction to consider those arguments. Moreover, the burden rests with defendant-appellant to establish the validity of his assignments of error; however, he provides this court with minimal guidance or support for his positions. Accordingly, we decline to review defendant-appellant’s assignments of error regarding the trial court’s denial of his Civ.R. 60(B) motion and alleged violation of his due-process rights. However, even if we were to address the appeal’s merits, we would find that the trial court properly denied defendant-appellant’s motion for relief from judgment. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
7/16/2026
|
7/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2721 |
|
Westlake v. Johnson
| 115752 | Community-control sanction; violation; no-contact order. The trial court erred in finding that appellant violated the no-contact order by merely being in a vehicle in front of the victims’ residence. At the time of the alleged violation, the no-contact order did not require appellant to stay 500 feet away from the victims and only precluded contact. The City had not presented any evidence of actual contact with the victims. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
7/16/2026
|
7/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2719 |
|