Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
Carney v. Olmsted Operator, L.L.C. 110427Probate; common pleas; jurisdiction; guardianship; visitation; motion to dismiss; subject-matter jurisdiction; exclusive jurisdiction. Affirmed common pleas court’s dismissal of an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The complaint filed in the common pleas court raised claims pertaining to visitation rights. At the time the complaint was filed, guardianship proceedings were pending in the probate court, which had exclusive jurisdiction over all matters touching the guardianship, including visitation.S. Gallagher 5/12/2022 2022-Ohio-1585
In re L.T. 110676Legal custody; manifest weight; objections to the magistrate’s decision; abuse of discretion. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal custody to Mother, where there was competent credible evidence supporting the decision. Further, Mother was not required to file a statement of understanding under R.C. 2151.353 to obtain legal custody. When addressing objections to the decision of a magistrate, the juvenile court’s review is de novo. The juvenile court has the discretion to agree or disagree with the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and does not simply function as a court of review looking for error. Failure to object to or request changes to the case plan before the juvenile court, waives any objection to case plan goals on appeal.Groves 5/12/2022 2022-Ohio-1586
State v. Hyche 110709Presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea; motion to continue sentencing hearing. While a presentence motion to withdraw the guilty plea is to be treated liberally, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine the circumstances justifying such a motion. Our review of the record does not indicate the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The trial court also acted within its discretion in denying the motion to continue filed on the same day of the sentencing hearing.Sheehan 5/12/2022 2022-Ohio-1587
State v. Boyd 110809Reagan Tokes Law; constitutionality. State has right to appeal sentence that did not impose indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law. The Reagan Tokes Law has been found en banc in State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470, to be constitutional. The sentence is reversed and cause remanded.E.T. Gallagher 5/12/2022 2022-Ohio-1588
McClendon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Sheriff's Office 110863Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of appellee when appellee met its initial burden demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and appellant never responded to the motion for summary judgment.O'Sullivan 5/12/2022 2022-Ohio-1589
State v. Perry 110901Reagan Tokes Act. Appellant’s sentence under the Reagan Tokes Act is affirmed pursuant to this court’s en banc decision in State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470.Groves 5/12/2022 2022-Ohio-1590
State v. Bullitt 110985Subject-matter jurisdiction; personal jurisdiction; void; voidable; res judicata; petition for postconviction relief. Trial court properly dismissed defendant’s petition for postconviction relief as barred by res judicata where the judgment was voidable, and the defendant failed to raise his challenge to the judgment in direct appeal.E.T. Gallagher 5/12/2022 2022-Ohio-1591
In re L.C. 111053Permanent custody; necessity of expert testimony for parent’s mental health; ineffective assistance of counsel; admissibility of electronic print media. Our review of the record reflects the trial court engaged in the required analysis and its findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and (E) are supported by clear and convincing evidence contained in the record. No expert testimony is required for the finding regarding appellant parent’s mental health. Counsel’s performance was not defective for not objecting to the admission of electronic print media that were properly authenticated by witness testimony.Sheehan 5/12/2022 2022-Ohio-1592
Albert v. Patton 111054Accelerated appeal; refiled case; R.C. 2305.10(A); Sup.R. 36.017; Civ.R. 41; Civ.R. 12; Civ.R. 8; R.C. 2305.19; savings statute. Plaintiff’s allegation of refiling a previously dismissed action, especially coupled with the trial court’s administrative transfer of the refiled action to the original judge, was sufficient to overcome defendant’s motion to dismiss in which the defendant claimed that the refiling violated the one-year period under R.C. 2305.19.S. Gallagher 5/12/2022 2022-Ohio-1593