08/17/2023
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Turner | 111808 | Juvenile consecutive sentences; subject-matter jurisdiction. The state concedes that the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant to consecutive sentences that exceeded the statutory limit. The trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the appellant as to the charges of attempted murder and having weapons while under a disability. | Laster Mays | 8/17/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2874 |
| Zele v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. | 111957 | Motion to enforce settlement agreement; evidentiary hearing. Where factual disputes existed as to what, if anything, appellant agreed to with respect to settlement and what, if any, authority appellant’s counsel had to negotiate and/or agree to a settlement on her behalf, trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to enforce settlement agreement without conducting an evidentiary hearing. | E.A. Gallagher | 8/17/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2875 |
| Starlion Electronics Distrib., L.L.C. v. Zoran Med., L.L.C. | 112133 | Contract; personal guaranty; consideration; unconscionability; substantive unconscionability; procedural unconscionability; doctrine of impossibility. Personal guarantor held individually liable for her company’s contractual obligations where the agreement was supported by consideration, was not unconscionable, and was not barred by the doctrine of impossibility. | E.T. Gallagher | 8/17/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2876 |
| State v. Pascale | 112154 | Harmless error; R.C. 2929.19(A); consecutive sentences; Reagan Tokes Law; R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). The trial court committed harmless error when it sentenced the appellant to consecutive sentences for her misdemeanor conviction and felony convictions. The appellant did not demonstrate that the error affected the outcome of proceedings or sentence. The trial court did not err when it permitted the social worker to make statements at the sentencing hearing because it had broad discretion under R.C. 2929.19(A) to consider any information relevant to the imposition of a sentence. The record fully supports the imposition of consecutive sentences. The appellant’s sentence in according to the Reagan Tokes Law has been ruled constitutional. The trial court did not fail to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) because it stated all required notices to the appellant. | Laster Mays | 8/17/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2877 |
| Wright v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. | 112175 | Summary judgment; FELA; pecuniary damages. The trial court did not err in granting the appellee’s motion for summary judgment because the appellant’s FELA claim failed to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial with regard to her pecuniary damages. | Laster Mays | 8/17/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2878 |
| State v. Walton | 112235 | Reconsideration; Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw guilty plea after conviction affirmed on direct appeal; jurisdiction. This court sua sponte reconsiders it decision in this case. After reconsideration, the opinion as announced by this court on July 6, 2023, State v. Walton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112235, 2023-Ohio-2307, is hereby vacated and substituted with this opinion. The holding in State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 378 N.E.2d 162 (1978), does not bar the trial court’s jurisdiction over posttrial motions permitted by the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure after a defendant’s appeal and an affirmance of the conviction. The holding in State ex rel. Davis v. Janas, 160 Ohio St.3d 187, 2020-Ohio-1462, 155 N.E.3d 822, makes clear that a defendant can seek relief from a final judgment via a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw guilty plea. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant’s Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court’s judgment is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded. | Ryan | 8/17/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2879 |
| Apple Ohio, L.L.C. v. Rose Italian Kitchen Solon, L.L.C. | 112281 | Summary judgment; contract; sublease; guaranty; de novo; language; mitigate; duty to mitigate; lease; commercial; landlord; tenant; damages; relet; reasonable efforts; trier of fact. The trial court’s decision to award summary judgment against the appellants was reversed in part, and the case was remanded because a genuine issue of material fact remained on the issue of whether a commercial landlord used reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages, which is a question for the trier of fact. Reasonably construed, the sublease provision incorporating the “applicable law” included the duty to mitigate and there was no contrary provision obviating that duty. Summary judgment on the claims was otherwise affirmed. | S. Gallagher | 8/17/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2880 |
| Turner v. Kelsey | 112820 | Complaint for prohibition not signed per Civ.R. 11, failure to deposit $175 per Loc.App.R. 45(C) and 3(A), failure to state a claim for relief, vexatious litigator per Loc.App.R. 23. The complaint for prohibition is procedurally defective because the relator failed to sign the complaint and the relator failed to pay the deposit of $175 as required by Loc.App.R. 45(C) and 3(A). In addition, the relator has failed to state a claim for prohibition. Finally, the relator has been declared a vexatious litigator pursuant to Loc.App.R. 23. | Forbes | 8/15/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2881 |