|
|
State v. Musarra
| 113487 | Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal; insufficient evidence of venue; State’s appeal as of right; dismissal of indictment. On remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, we find that the trial court erred by terminating this sexual assault case for the State’s failure to establish venue because all of the evidence presented at trial concerning where the offenses took place showed that they took place in Cuyahoga County. Courts cannot grant Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal based on insufficient evidence of venue. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
7/2/2026
|
7/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2531 |
|
A.M. v. J.M.
| 114462; 114488 | Reformation of antenuptial agreement, spousal support, child support, imputation of income, contempt, direct contempt. | Stevenson | Cuyahoga |
7/2/2026
|
7/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2532 |
|
Awad v. Lovelace
| 115070 | Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b); App.R. 16(A)(3); App.R. 16(A)(7); App.R. 12(A)(2); summary judgment; alternative basis. Judgments affirmed. Plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee and defendants-appellees/ cross-appellants waived certain issues raised on appeal by failing to object to magistrate’s decisions upon which their challenges were based. Moreover, the parties failed to raise plain-error arguments and comply with the appellate rules. Finally, we are precluded from finding in the defendants-appellees/cross-appellants’ favor where there remains an unchallenged and sufficient basis to affirm the trial court’s summary-judgment ruling. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
7/2/2026
|
7/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2533 |
|
All Foils, Inc. v. Kulik
| 115306 | Lack of jurisdiction; final appealable order; lack of justiciable controversy; R.C. 2505.02. Dismissed. The motion to dismiss is reconsidered and granted. An appeal from the granting of a preliminary injunction is generally considered an interlocutory appeal and not a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) when the permanent injunction remains pending. Because the appellants failed to demonstrate otherwise, the appeal must be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
7/2/2026
|
7/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2534 |
|
Coughlin v. Coughlin
| 115353 | Divorce; abuse of discretion; magistrate’s decision; objections; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); expert testimony; Civ.R. 53; failure to object; plain error; division of marital property; marital debt; spousal support; disability; imputed income; indefinite award; financial misconduct; R.C. 3105.171(E); distributive award; treble damages; contempt; R.C. 3105.73(A); attorney fees; reasonableness. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The trial court properly limited Husband’s Daubert challenge of Wife’s vocational expert. Husband was given the opportunity to challenge the expert but challenged the substance of her findings and report instead. Furthermore, Wife’s failure to attach the expert’s curriculum vitae her report did not frustrate the purpose of Civ.R. 26 because both parties were aware of the expert’s report and aware that she would testify at trial. The court’s finding that Husband was voluntarily unemployed and its imputation of $86,000 in additional income to him was proper. While Husband was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), he had no evidence from a physician, psychiatrist, or therapist deeming him unemployable. The court’s spousal-support award was appropriate based the parties current circumstances and income. Additionally, it was within the court’s discretion to decline to award Wife indefinite spousal support and to decline the retroactive modification of Husband’s temporary support obligation. The magistrate found that Husband failed to comply with the temporary support obligation by failing to pay half of the mortgage on the marital residence and ordered Husband to pay Wife the outstanding balance of the arrears on the temporary support order. The court exercised its discretion and fashioned a remedy to make Wife whole for Husband’s failure to pay his half of the mortgage payments in this matter. Although the trial court’s finding of financial misconduct was proper for Husband’s intentional withdrawal of $119,271.62 from his retirement account, the court’s award of compensation to Wife was improper. Because of the Husband’s financial misconduct, the court awarded Wife $238,543.24 from the retirement account and also offset Husband’s interest in the parties’ marital residence in the amount of $81,729.08 against the award. This cumulative remedy is exactly what the statute prohibits. And it was within the court’s discretion under R.C. 3105.171(E) to decline the award of treble damages for Husband’s financial misconduct. Husband’s challenge to the value of the marital residence is reviewed for plain error because Husband did not object to the magistrate’s value. Husband cannot demonstrate plain error when the court accepted Wife’s valuation over his because he was unable to present any evidence or testimony to refute Wife. It was within the court’s discretion to conclude that to additionally order Husband to pay the debt incurred to pay the mortgage in addition to awarding Wife a temporary support arrearage would result in a windfall to her. Lastly, the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to make a finding of the reasonableness of the award of attorney fees by determining the reasonableness of the time spent on the matter and the reasonableness of the hourly rate. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
7/2/2026
|
7/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2535 |
|