Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Hill 109727Sufficiency of the evidence; Crim.R. 29; circumstantial evidence; App.R. 16(A); separate argument; App.R. 12(A)(2); manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court disregarded appellant’s assertions regarding evidence of mens rea because he did not present any supporting argument or authority regarding this issue in violation of App.R. 16(A).Celebrezze 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3028
Commonwealth Upscale Properties, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision 109783Notice of appeal; untimely; certified mail; board of revision; board of tax appeals; tax commissioner. Board of Tax appeals properly dismissed tax appeal as untimely.E.T. Gallagher 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3029
C.A.P. v. M.D.P. 109882Domestic violence civil protection order; menacing by stalking; child abuse. Trial court’s granting of a domestic violence civil protection order affirmed. Respondent’s argument that there was no “threat of force” or “fear of imminent serious physical harm” is not well-taken, because the protection order was not issued based on these elements. Rather, sufficient credible evidence in the record showed that the respondent committed menacing by stalking regarding the petitioner and child abuse regarding the parties’ minor child.Forbes 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3030
State v. Wisniewski 110092Involuntary manslaughter; corrupting another with drugs; drug trafficking; drug possession; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; jail-time credit. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The state presented evidence that the appellant sold heroin to the victim the day before the victim died as a result of a heroin overdose. Appellant was not entitled to jail-time credit for time served prior to sentencing on an unrelated case from a different county.Kilbane 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3031
State v. Tobias 110110Crim.R. 32(C); final appealable order; R.C. 2505.02; sentencing entry; void; voidable; res judicata. The trial court’s judgment denying appellant’s motion to provide a final, appealable sentencing order is affirmed. The sentencing entry contains the requisite information. The trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, the alleged sentencing error is voidable and the doctrine of res judicata applies to appellant’s collateral attack.Laster Mays 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3032
Berns Custom Homes, Inc. v. Johnson 110118Charging order; receiver; res judicata; legal professional association; partnership; corporation; statutory construction. The trial court erred in granting a charging order and appointing a receiver to administer the charging order in the absence of any legal authority authorizing the court to issue such orders. Res judicata is an affirmative defense and does not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.E.T. Gallagher 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3033
Pincus v. Dubyak 110135Civ.R. 12(C); judgment on pleadings; Civ.R. 15(A); amending pleadings; R.C. 2305.11(A); statute of limitations; R.C. 2305.19(A); savings statute; legal malpractice; attorney-client relationship; power of attorney. The trial court erred when it granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on the plaintiff’s claim for legal malpractice brought in her individual capacity. The trial court also abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaints. The plaintiff’s first and second amended complaints contained allegations to establish that an attorney-client relationship existed between her and the attorney, not just between the attorney and her husband pursuant to a power of attorney.Boyle 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3034
State v. Brown 110152Evid.R. 613; effective assistance of counsel; felonious assault; manifest weight. - Evidence of defendant’s prior stale conviction was admissible under Evid.R. 613, prior inconsistent conduct, when the defendant denied ever using a knife as a weapon. Defendant failed to demonstrate counsel was ineffective for failing to request an additional instruction on prior conviction; the record demonstrated that the trial court gave the jury two instructions. Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury was able to assess the credibility of the witnesses and determine whose testimony to believe or discount.Keough 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3035
T.R.H. v. A.D.H. 110213Child support; contempt of court; doctrine of laches; motion to show cause; attorney fees. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Husband violated the S.P.P. and was in contempt of court. The trial court did not abuse it discretion by finding that Wife’s motion to show cause was not barred by the doctrine of laches, because the Husband did not demonstrate he was prejudiced. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Husband’s show cause motion because Wife and Husband exchanged income information before trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Husband to pay Wife’s attorney fees, because Husband was found in contempt. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the child support order.Laster Mays 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3036
In re T.W. 110243Stipulation of evidence; authentication; manifest weight of evidence; serious youth offender disposition. The juvenile court did not err in admitting Instagram records in this case where the record reflects that T.W.’s trial counsel stipulated to those records. Further, the findings of guilt entered by the juvenile court were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where there was evidence that the juvenile participated in planning the robbery and further admitted to being in one of the stolen cars. The juvenile court did not err by imposing an SYO sentence simply because it had retained jurisdiction of cases by finding the juvenile to be amenable to the juvenile justice system.Sheehan 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3037
Shie v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. 110252Complaint for a prohibitory injunction; Civ.R. 65; Ohio Adult Parole Authority; exercise of postrelease control; postrelease control notifications; R.C. 2967.28; void; voidable; res judicata. Trial court did not err in granting motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for a prohibitory injunction. Although the sentencing journal entry in plaintiff’s criminal case did not include notice of the consequences of violating postrelease control, because any error in the imposition of postrelease control rendered that portion of the sentence voidable, not void, and plaintiff did not challenge the imposition of postrelease control in his direct appeal, the issue was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, five years of mandatory postrelease control was part of plaintiff’s sentence, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority was authorized to place plaintiff on postrelease control upon his release from prison and plaintiff Shie was not entitled to a prohibitory injunction enjoining the APA from exercising postrelease control over him.E.A. Gallagher 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3038
In re F.M. 110350Permanent custody; best interest; R.C. 2151.414(D); R.C. 2151.414(E); R.C. 2151.353; manifest weight; abuse of discretion. The juvenile court’s decision to grant permanent custody of children to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services was not against the weight of the evidence. The court’s judgment was based on competent credible evidence heard at the permanent custody hearing.Kilbane 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3039
Rayco Mfg., Inc. v. Murphy, Rogers, Sloss & Gambel 110354Charging lien; attorney fees; settlement; settlement authority; malpractice; abuse of discretion; res judicata; issue preclusion; equitable remedy. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee’s motion to enforce the charging lien. Appellee’s services and skill procured the settlement award based upon which appellee sought to enforce the charging lien. Celebrezze 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3040
In re Ez.D. 110447Standing; termination of parental rights; R.C. 2151.414; legal custodian; R.C. 2151.353(A)(3); failure to file motion. Because appellant is not the biological parent to any of the children, and failed to file a motion to request legal custody during the course of the proceedings, she was without standing to challenge the juvenile court’s award of custody to CCDCFS. Celebrezze 9/2/2021 2021-Ohio-3041
State v. Lucas 108436App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) 90-day period to file timely application, untimely filed, failure to establish good cause for untimely filing of application, successive application for reopening. The applicant has filed an App.R. 26(B) application for reopening beyond the 90-day period for filing a timely application per App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). The applicant has failed to establish good cause for the untimely filing of the application for reopening. In addition, there exists no right to file a second application for reopening under App.R. 26(B).Celebrezze 8/30/2021 2021-Ohio-3027