09/30/2021


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
WebCite
Walworth v. Khoury 109898Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C) evidence; negligence; premises liability; open and obvious danger; attendant circumstances. Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant. Plaintiff failed to establish a negligence claim based on him tripping over his fiancée’s shoes that she left near the top of the stairs.Forbes 9/30/2021 2021-Ohio-3458
Cleveland v. Cornely 110088Community-control sanctions; violation; R.C. 2929.25(D)(1); motion to show cause; contempt; abuse of discretion. The trial court erred in holding a community-control violation hearing on appellant’s wife’s motion to show cause, because she was not one of the specified people under R.C. 2929.25(D)(1). Further, the court’s finding that appellant violated his community-control sanctions when he contacted his wife in violation of the court’s no-contact order was arbitrary and unreasonable. Appellant’s counsel sent a notice to appellant’s wife’s counsel, which was an approved manner of communication. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in finding that appellant violated his community-control sanctions.Forbes 9/30/2021 2021-Ohio-3459
State v. A.G. 110132R.C. 2953.31; eligible offender; offense of violence. The trial court erred in determining that the appellee was an eligible offender under R.C. 2953.31(a)(1), where the appellee was statutorily barred from being designated as an eligible offender. The appellee had been convicted of an offense of violence that bars the appellee from sealing their record of convictions.Laster Mays 9/30/2021 2021-Ohio-3460
Deering v. Beatty 110158Motion to compel; discovery; medical records; in camera inspection; reversible error. Where the medical records were extensive and of a sensitive nature, it was error where the trial court failed to order an in camera inspection to determine which medical records were relevant.Jones 9/30/2021 2021-Ohio-3461
Cleveland v. Tarulli 110188Selective diversion program; SIP; completion of program; R.C. 2981.04, R.C. 2981.02; forfeiture; strictly construed; failure to comply with statutory requirements; forfeiture specification; proper notice. Because forfeiture was not a term of defendant’s participation in the court’s SIP, the trial court erred in denying in part defendant’s motion for return of his firearm because the city failed to comply with the statutory requirement to provide notice of the forfeiture claim.Kilbane 9/30/2021 2021-Ohio-3462
In re A.B. 110409Permanent custody; R.C. 2151.414, manifest weight of evidence; best interest of the child; consideration of placement with family members. The juvenile court’s decision granting permanent custody of the child to the agency is affirmed. The trial court considered all factors in R.C. 2151.414 to determine the best interests of the child and the decision to award permanent custody was supported by competent, credible evidence. The decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record demonstrated that the court considered placement with relatives in assessing the best interests of the child but found such placement not to be suitable.Sheehan 9/30/2021 2021-Ohio-3463
State v. Barnes 109609R.C. 2945.37(B); competence to stand trial; hearing; R.C. 2945.371; evaluation of defendant’s mental condition at relevant time; sanity at the time of the act. Appellant’s convictions are reversed and remanded. Appellant requested a psychiatric examination prior to trial relating to competence to stand trial, sanity at the time of the act, and qualification for the mental health docket. The record does not support that the report was filed, a hearing conducted, or that stipulations to competence were entered in the record. The statute is clear that the court “shall” hold a hearing when the defendant’s competence to stand trial is raised before trial begins. R.C. 2945.37(B). The error was not harmless. The defendant did not testify in his own defense, was not subject to cross-examination, and the record reveals sufficient indicia of incompetence to require a hearing.Laster Mays 9/30/2021 2021-Ohio-3469
State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd 110759Writ of procedendo; writ of mandamus; delay in ruling; Ohio Sup.R. 40; R.C. 2701.02; undue delay. A request for writ of procedendo was granted where respondent unduly delayed in ruling on matters submitted for determination over 120 days prior to the filing of the action and failed to timely attend to other matters filed after the hearing was conducted. Because the ruling fully disposed of the action, a request for writ of mandamus was denied as moot.Keough 9/28/2021 2021-Ohio-3467
State v. Morton 109200App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, manifest weight, consecutive sentences of incarceration, R.C. 2929.14(C). The applicant has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the failure of appellate counsel to argue two proposed assignments of error on appeal that include the issues of convictions against the manifest weight of the evidence and record does not support imposition of consecutive sentences of incarceration. The appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences of incarceration were supported by the record. Application for reopening is denied.Jones 9/27/2021 2021-Ohio-3468
State ex rel. Copeland v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 110667Writ of mandamus; writ of prohibition; summary judgment; default judgment; Civ.R. 56; Civ.R. 55; Civ.R. 8; Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-03(E)(1); aggregation; indefinite sentences; consecutive sentences; parole eligibility; subject-matter jurisdiction; personal jurisdiction; void judgment. The application for writs of mandamus and prohibition were denied where relator failed to demonstrate that his indefinite sentences were improperly aggregated when those sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.Boyle 9/24/2021 2021-Ohio-3464
Grundstein v. Russo 110719R.C. 2323.52; motion for leave to proceed; vexatious litigator; writ of prohibition; writ of mandamus. Vexatious litigator’s motion for leave to proceed to file an action for writs of prohibition and mandamus was denied where there were significant omissions and misstatements made in the complaint/motion for leave to plead such that this court was not assured that the action was not an abuse of process and that there were reasonable grounds for the action.Kilbane 9/24/2021 2021-Ohio-3465
Miller-El v. State 110727Complaint for writ of mandamus, R.C. 2969.25(A), R.C. 2969.25(C), Civ.R. 10(A), improper caption, adequate remedy. The complaint for a writ of mandamus is procedurally defective because the relator has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) that requires a sworn affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court, the relator has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) since he has not filed a statement setting forth his inmate account balance for each of the preceding six months as certified by the institutional cashier, the relator has failed to include the addresses of all parties as required by Civ.R. 10(A), and the caption of the complaint is defective because it is not brought in the name of the state on relation of the person applying for the original action. Finally, the relator possesses an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through an appeal from the criminal action in which he entered a plea of guilty.E.T. Gallagher 9/24/2021 2021-Ohio-3466