|
|
State v. Fips
| 111900 | Ineffective assistance of counsel; search of vehicle; automobile exception; inventory search incident to arrest and tow; speedy trial; concurrent terms on merged counts. Conviction affirmed; case remanded. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise that the officers’ search of the vehicle exceeded what was authorized under either the automobile exception to a warrantless search or an inventory search incident to tow because the record demonstrates that the drugs would have been found during the inventory search of the vehicle and therefore the inevitable discovery rule applied. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds. The trial court erred in imposing concurrent terms on merged counts. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
10/29/2026
|
10/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4275 |
|
Galloway v. Lichtig
| 115609; 115972 | Res judicata; American rule; attorney fees; prevailing party; cost shifting; compulsory counterclaims; termination-of-jurisdiction principle; collateral issues; contempt; sanctions; Civ.R. 13(A); Civ.R. 59(B); App.R. 4(B)(2). Trial court’s order granting contractual attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses is vacated because the claim was made pursuant to a contract and therefore is a compulsory counterclaim and there is no exception to the termination-of-jurisdiction principle that allowed the trial court to hear a new claim in the case after final judgment was entered. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
10/29/2026
|
10/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4276 |
|
Cleveland v. Price
| 115803 | Theft; R.C. 2913.02(A)(2); scope of consent; sufficiency; manifest weight; audio-recorded proceedings; inaudible; scope of redirect examination; abuse of discretion; admission of evidence; failure to object; ineffective assistance. Judgment affirmed. There was sufficient evidence of theft when appellant exceeded the scope of consent by not returning the property or paying for it. Appellant’s conviction for the theft was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In addition, appellant’s due process rights were not violated when his proceedings were audio-recorded. Further, appellant is not entitled to a perfect record and the words that were transcribed as inaudible did not affect appellate review. Allowing redirect on topics outside the scope of cross-examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and failure to object is not ineffective assistance of counsel when objecting would have been futile. Finally, appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
10/29/2026
|
10/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4277 |
|
Protich v. Cleveland Clinic Found.
| 115874 | Medical malpractice; standard of care; foreseeability; directed verdict; admissibility; evidence; speculate; conjecture; proximate cause; discovery depositions; expert testimony; affidavits; treating physician; personal knowledge; open the door; invited-error doctrine; harmless error; voir dire; for cause; abuse of discretion; fair and impartial. Trial court properly allowed evidence on the issue of foreseeability where foreseeability of injury was relevant to the physicians’ standard of care. Trial court properly allowed the defense to play portions of video discovery depositions of treating physicians who offered some expert opinions where plaintiff’s counsel opened the door to their testimony by raising issues of standard of care and causation during his questioning of these witnesses in the plaintiff’s case in chief. Court could qualify treating physicians as expert witnesses based on affidavits because no formal testimony is necessary in resolving preliminary questions of admissibility and the court was not bound by the rules of evidence in making those determinations. Trial court properly overruled plaintiff’s request to remove a juror where there was no evidence that the juror would not be fair and impartial or that she was biased against or partial to either party. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/29/2026
|
10/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4278 |
|
Cleveland v. Baffes
| 115940 | Sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; assured clear distance, R.C. 4511.21(A); Crim.R. 16; discovery violation; plain error. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support appellant’s conviction for assured clear distance in violation of R.C. 4511.21(A). Appellant’s conviction for assured clear distance was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court utilized the correct legal standard in finding appellant guilty of assured clear distance in violation of R.C. 4511.21(A). The trial court erred when it failed to rule on appellant’s motion to compel discovery prior to trial. However, the appellant did not object to the court proceeding to trial without first addressing his motion to compel nor did he bring to the court’s attention that discovery was still outstanding. As a result, the appellate court reviewed for plain error and determined that based on a plain-error review and the trial court record, it could not say that the outcome of the case would have been different had the court ruled on his motion to compel prior to trial. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
10/29/2026
|
10/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4279 |
|