Ohio Supreme Court
- Eighth District Court of Appeals (11864)
- Fifth District Court of Appeals (9324)
- Supreme Court of Ohio (9119)
- Tenth District Court of Appeals (8204)
- Second District Court of Appeals (7491)
- Ninth District Court of Appeals (6290)
- Court of Claims (5576)
- Eleventh District Court of Appeals (5386)
- Sixth District Court of Appeals (5344)
- Third District Court of Appeals (4043)
- Twelfth District Court of Appeals (3941)
- Seventh District Court of Appeals (3851)
- Fourth District Court of Appeals (3450)
- First District Court of Appeals (2091)
- State v. Coleman, (Ohio 2014)
The appellants aggravated robbery and vandalism convictions are based on legally sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in finding that the appellant had failed to overcome the statutory presumption of competence to stand trial. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Judgment affirmed.
- State v. Grissom, (Ohio 2014)
Appellants convictions for felonious assault, discharging a weapon on or near a prohibited premises, and having a weapon while under disability were supported by the record and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. As a result, the record also contains sufficient evidence to support each of Appellants convictions, and the trial court did not err in overruling Appellants motion for acquittal. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in providing the jury with a flight instruction, as there was sufficient evidence indicating that Appellant fled the scene after committing a felonious assault. Finally, the trial court did not err in failing to merge Appellants convictions for felonious assault and having a weapon while under disability, because the off...
- Ketchum v. Coleman, (Ohio 2014)
The trial court did not err when it found that appellant was voluntarily unemployed and imputed additional income to her for child support purposes pursuant to R.C. 3119.01(C)(11). Judgment affirmed.
- King v. Niswonger, (Ohio 2014)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting certain expert opinions. The opinions were an extension of those expressed in discovery deposition and constituted arithmetic calculations derived from them. Appellant could have anticipated that the experts testimony would include them and was not prejudiced by their inclusion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross examination of the expert. The limitation properly excluded testimony on matters beyond the experts ken. The trial court properly directed a verdict on certain causation issues. The jury interrogatory, listing eight types of losses and injuries, is permissible. Lastly, the jurys award is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.
- In re L.B., (Ohio 2014)
Trial court did not err in overruling Crim.R. 29 motion and adjudicating juvenile to have been delinquent. Act of cutting off Electronically Monitored House Arrest ankle bracelet and throwing it in the river prevented juveniles probation officer from performing her duty to monitor the juveniles compliance with the terms of the house arrest for fourteen hours. This act would have constituted the offense of Vandalism, in violation of R.C. 2909.05(B)(1)(b), had the juvenile been an adult. Affirmed.
- Roberts v. Erie Ins. Group, (Ohio 2014)
On remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, Roberts v. Erie Ins. Group, 136 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2013-Ohio-3790, 993 N.E.2d 774, reversing and remanding our judgment in Roberts v. Erie Ins. Group, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2012 CA 46, 2013-Ohio-718, we consider evidentiary arguments that were not addressed in our prior Opinion. Plaintiffs argument that she was prejudiced by the trial courts improper admission of an exhibit which summarized unauthenticated medical expenses is without merit. Even assuming that the documents were hearsay, were unauthenticated, and that the reasonableness of the expenses was not established by expert testimony, the exhibits did not suggest that plaintiff had not incurred any medical expenses. Judgment affirmed.
- Parallel Homes, L.L.C. v. Stephens, (Ohio 2014)
PROCEDURE/RULES: In an action for eviction and money damages filed by a landlord, the trial court erred in granting judgment to the tenant on the tenants pro se counterclaim for property damage where the tenant failed to include a certificate of service on the landlords attorney of record as required by Civ.R. 5.
- State v. Slaughter, (Ohio 2014)
The trial court did not err in failing to include its consecutive-sentence findings in the sentencing entry, as Ohio law does not require such findings to be stated in the entry. In addition, the fact that Appellants felony murder conviction is based on the predicate offense of felonious assault does not render the conviction unconstitutional under Ohio law. As a further matter, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to permit the State to cross-examine the Appellants girlfriend as a witness of the court, because she did not want to testify against the Appellant, her testimony was beneficial to ascertaining the truth of the matter, and there was an indication that her testimony would contradict her prior statements to police. Defense counsel was also not ineffective ...
- Said v. Admr., Bur. of Workers' Comp., (Ohio 2014)
JURISDICTION/VENUE PROCEDURE/RULES: The trial court did not have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement where the court had unconditionally dismissed the action and the entry of dismissal did not contain the terms of the settlement agreement or specifically retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. (Lamp v. Goettle, Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-040461, 2005-Ohio-1877, followed.) The trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the judgment entry of dismissal because his argument that there was no meeting of the minds on the settlement agreement did not fall within any of the grounds for relief in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (4), and he did not show the exceptional circumstances necessary to afford relief from judgment unde...
- Sugarcreek Twp. v. Centerville, (Ohio 2014)
Contrary to appellant-cross appellee Sugarcreek Townships argument, we see no justiciable controversy in this declaratory judgment action regarding whether appellee-cross appellant City of Centerville may enact a tax-increment financing plan or TIF exempting more than 75 percent of the value of improvements to annexed land for a period exceeding ten years. The Ohio Supreme Court had no occasion to resolve that issue in Sugarcreek Twp. v. Centerville, 133 Ohio St.3d 467, 2012-Ohio-4649, 979 N.E.2d 261 (Sugarcreek III), and the trial court did not decide it on remand below. The trial court erred, however, insofar as it relied on this courts opinion in Sugarcreek Twp. v. Centerville, 184 Ohio App.3d 480, 2009-Ohio-4794, 921 N.E.2d 655 (Sugarcreek I) to declare that Centerville can...
- Harrison v. Winchester Place Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., (Ohio 2013)
Trial court's judgment staying proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.02 affirmed. Arbitration agreement is substantively conscionable and otherwise valid and enforceable because: agreement was a separate document, admission was not contingent upon signing, it contained a warning...
- State v. Arnold, (Ohio 2013)
The trial court did not err in overruling Appellants motion to dismiss the death penalty specification. The fact that the jury deadlocked in the penalty phase of Appellants prior trial did not constitute an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes. The trial court also did not abuse its...
- Hubbard Family Trust v. TNT Land Holdings, L.L.C., (Ohio 2014)
Trial court properly denied motions for summary judgment, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and directed verdict, but erred when it fialed to award damages for the defendant's liability....
- State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5677
- State v. Schmitz, (Ohio 2012)
menacing by stalking retaliation identity fraud juror misconduct voir...
- Hacker v. Roddy, (Ohio 2013)
The trial court's decision to grant appellees' motion for a new trial was not an abuse of discretion when the jurys verdict could not be reconciled with any rational interpretation of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct on the issue of comparative...
- Lindsay v. Lindsay, (Ohio 2013)
For purposes of Civ.R. 54(B), the court shall not enter final judgment as to a claim for divorce, dissolution of marriage, annulment, or legal separation unless one of the following applies: The judgment also divides the property of the parties, determines the appropriateness of an order of...
- Moore v. Moore, (Ohio 2013)
DOMESTIC RELATIONS - divorce; separate and marital property; R.C. 1305.171(B); appreciation; spousal support; R.C. 3105.18; attorney fees; R.C. 3105.73(A); during the marriage; R.C. 3105.171(A)(2)...
- Brogan v. Coughlin Servs., Inc., (Ohio 2014)
Trial court did not err in finding appellees not personally liable in appellant's action for unpaid rent and breach of guaranties....
- State v. Choice, (Ohio 2013)
Trial court did not err in overruling defendants challenges to three prospective jurors for cause. Although each prospective juror had expressed some reservations during voir dire concerning his or her ability to be fair and impartial, when the trial court, at the end of the voir dire, told the...