01/05/2023
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re RY.T. | 111311 | Legal custody; manifest weight of the evidence; abuse of discretion. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in overruling mother’s objections to the decision of the magistrate or in adopting the magistrate’s decision. Mother did not provide a transcript to support her objections, therefore the juvenile court was required to adopt the factual findings of the magistrate and was limited to reviewing the magistrate’s conclusions of law. Although mother provided a transcript of proceedings to the court of appeals, the appellate court was precluded from reviewing evidence that was not presented to the juvenile court and limited to determining whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it overruled mother’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision. The juvenile court did not err in adopting the decision of the magistrate that granted legal custody to a family member. | Groves | 1/5/2023 | 2023-Ohio-12 |
| C.L. v. Weiler | 111474 | Civil stalking protection order; contempt; no-contact order. While the terms of the civil stalking protection order prohibited respondent-appellant from any written contact with the petitioner, appellant sent multiple mailings to the petitioner directly in connection with a lawsuit appellant filed against the petitioner, among them a copy of the summons and complaint, even though the petitioner was served with the summons and complaint by the clerk’s office upon appellant’s request and in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court found appellant in contempt for violating the civil stalking protection order by sending correspondence and documents to the petitioner. Because the record contains competent credible evidence to support the trial court’s determination, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellant in contempt. | Sheehan | 1/5/2023 | 2023-Ohio-13 |
| State v. Gilcrease | 111893 | R.C. 2953.73; postconviction DNA testing; reasons; abuse of discretion. The trial court’s failure to provide an explanation for its rejection of appellant’s application for postconviction DNA testing under R.C. 2953.73(D) is contrary to law and constitutes an abuse of discretion. | Groves | 1/5/2023 | 2023-Ohio-14 |
| Gilbert v. Watson | 111919 | Habeas corpus, revocation of parole, R.C. 2725.03, territorial jurisdiction, R.C. 2725.04(D), commitment papers, verification, R.C. 2969.25, affidavit of prior actions, and prison cashier’s certified statement. This court denied a habeas corpus petition claiming improper parole revocation for lack of territorial jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2725.03. The petition was also defective. The petitioner did not attach commitment papers nor verify the petition as required by R.C. 2725.04. He also failed to attach an affidavit of prior actions or a prison cashier’s certified statement as required by R.C. 2969.25. | Groves | 1/3/2023 | 2023-Ohio-15 |