06/27/2024
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Castro | 113285 | Firearm specification sentence; sentence contrary to law. The trial court erred when it ordered the appellee’s firearm specification sentence to run concurrently to other sentences from the same indictment, making the sentence contrary to law. | Laster Mays | 6/27/2024 | 2024-Ohio-2453 |
| State v. McAlpine | 113242, 113751 | Competency to stand trial; R.C. 2945.37(G); abuse of discretion; rape; R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); general verdict; furthermore clause; bench trial; Crim.R. 23(C); R.C. 2907.02(B); “force or threat of force”; R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(c); R.C. 2901.01(A)(1); “force”; sufficiency; manifest weight. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found McAlpine was competent to stand trial. In addition, a general finding of guilt in a bench trial is all that is required under Crim.R. 23(C) and that finding encompasses the furthermore clause. We find that there was sufficient evidence of “force or threat of force” as it pertains to H.H. Finally, McAlpine’s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Boyle | 6/27/2024 | 2024-Ohio-2455 |
| Jay Realty v. J.P.S. Properties Diversified, Inc. | 112554 | Nunc pro tunc; motion for summary judgment; deed; restrictive covenant; quiet title action; declaratory judgment; doctrine of merger by ownership; self-termination provision; plain and unambiguous language; additional authority; App.R. 21(I); new assignment of error on appeal. The trial court erroneously issued a nunc pro tunc entry to change its ruling on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Further, the Use Restriction in dispute was not subject to the doctrine of merger by ownership and had not terminated pursuant to the self-termination provision. Therefore, the trial court erred when it granted plaintiff-appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the quiet title claim. Relying on the terms of the Use Restriction, which were plain and unambiguous, the trial court erroneously determined the restriction did not apply to the uses proposed by the plaintiff-appellee and thereby granted summary judgment on the declaratory judgment issue. At the court of appeals, the defendant-appellant was precluded from arguing a new assignment of error that was not raised in the appellate brief and from introducing new documents — not case law — that were erroneously referenced as additional authorities under App.R. 21(I). | Kilbane | 6/27/2024 | 2024-Ohio-2458 |
| Rennell v. Rennell | 113256 | Motion to strike; final appealable order; motion to intervene; Civ.R. 24(A); Civ.R. 75(B). | Forbes | 6/27/2024 | 2024-Ohio-2454 |
| Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Unknown Successor Trustee(s) of the Talmage | 113081 | Foreclosure order; final order; confirmation order; Civ.R. 60(B) motion; authority to modify judgment; sua sponte. Trial court has no authority to sua sponte modify its final appealable order that is neither void nor subject to a Civ.R. 60(B) motion. | Forbes | 6/27/2024 | 2024-Ohio-2457 |
| State v. Tinsley | 113474 | GSI; sentence; contrary to law; R.C. 2929.11 factors. Judgment affirmed. Because the defendant’s sentence is within the statutory range and the trial court considered the statutory factors when imposing her sentence, we cannot say that the defendant’s sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Boyle | 6/27/2024 | 2024-Ohio-2450 |
| State v. Hinzman | 113291 | Evid.R. 103(C)(3); parole revocation; substantial evidence; due process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing witnesses to testify about a surveillance video not entered into evidence as the rules of evidence do not apply to proceedings revoking probation in accordance with Evid.R. 103(C)(3). The trial court did not err in finding the appellant to be a parole violator as there is substantial evidence that the appellant violated his parole by smoking contraband. The trial court did not violate the appellant’s due process rights. | Laster Mays | 6/27/2024 | 2024-Ohio-2452 |
| Great Lakes Petroleum Co., Inc. v. JBI Scrap Processors, Inc. | 113410 | Civ.R. 12(B)(6); Civ.R. 10(C); personal guaranty. The trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant in his individual capacity is affirmed. The defendant satisfied the formality required to show that he intended to sign the guaranty as an agent of a company rather than be personally liable for its debts. | Sheehan | 6/27/2024 | 2024-Ohio-2451 |
| Alami v. Khalid | 113140 | Settlement agreement; default judgment; Civ.R. 6(C)(1); may; permissive; mandatory; damages; reasonable certainty; manifest weight; harmless error. Trial court properly overruled oral motion for default judgment where defendants appeared in the action, defendants did not waive any defenses, and plaintiff failed to provide written notice of intent to seek default judgment. Trial court properly denied motion to enforcement settlement agreement even though it made a minor error of law in interpreting the contract because plaintiff failed to prove damages with reasonable certainty. | E.T. Gallagher | 6/27/2024 | 2024-Ohio-2456 |
| State ex rel. Z.N. v. Jones | 113702 | Prohibition, Domestic Relations Court, R.C. 2301.03 - Jurisdiction of Domestic Relations Courts; R.C. 3109.051 – Order Granting Parenting Time, Companionship, or Visitation Rights. The principles governing prohibition are well established. Prohibition requires that the relator demonstrate (1) the respondent against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and (3) there is no adequate remedy at law. Prohibition will not lie unless it clearly appears that the trial court has no jurisdiction of the cause that it is attempting to adjudicate, or the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction. Prohibition will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, to serve the purpose of appeal, or to correct mistakes of the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, it should be used with great caution and not issue in a doubtful case. Herein, the domestic relations judge unquestionably possesses subject-matter jurisdiction over the underling action for divorce pursuant to R.C. 2301.03. In Cuyahoga County, domestic relations judges have all the powers relating to all divorce, dissolution, alimony, and annulments cases. In addition, Ohio specifically recognizes the rights of nonparents to companionship or visitation with a minor child. Complaint for writ of prohibition is dismissed. | Sheehan | 6/24/2024 | 2024-Ohio-2449 |