11/18/2021


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
WebCite
State v. Riemer 110314Purposes and principles of felony sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; seriousness and recidivism factors; R.C. 2929.12. The trial court properly considered the statutory principles and factors of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when it sentenced defendant to a five-year community control sanction. The trial court was not required to make findings or give reasons supporting the statutory factors when it imposed defendant’s sentence.Boyle 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4122
Leeds v. Westman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. 110348Summary Judgment; rebuttal expert report; affidavits of undisclosed witnesses; Civ.R. 52; newly filed evidence; economic necessity; reduction in force; disparate-treatment age discrimination; disparate-impact age discrimination. - Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant-employer on discharged employee-plaintiff’s disparate-treatment and disparate-impact age discrimination claims where the plaintiff did not demonstrate a prima facie case of age discrimination because she did not show she was replaced by a substantially younger person or that similarly situated employees were treated differently, and did not provide a statistically relevant analysis to show that the reduction in force caused an adverse impact on employees over 40. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the plaintiff’s untimely filed rebuttal expert report and the affidavits of undisclosed witnesses; and it did not abuse its discretion in striking evidence filed with the plaintiff’s inappropriately filed Civ.R. 52 motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law.Keough 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4123
State ex rel. Ohio Atty. Gen. v. Peterson 110361 & 110386R.C. 9.39; public officials; strict liability; R.C. 2305.11(A); penalty; statute of limitations; laches; Civ.R. 56; summary judgment. The one-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.11(A) does not apply against the state’s R.C. 9.39 claim for public official strict liability. R.C. 9.39 does not impose a penalty within the meaning of R.C. 2305.11(A), and R.C. 2305.11(A) is a generally worded statute of limitations that does not apply to the state. The trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the doctrine of laches does not apply against the state’s claim in this case.Boyle 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4124
In re KA.R. 110504Permanent custody; dependency; best interest of the child; juvenile court; manifest weight. Juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to Division of Children and Family Services where children had been in custody over two years and Mother had not made significant progress on case plan. Juvenile court was not required to grant request for extension of temporary custody where there was no evidence that extension would be in best interest of children and children’s stability could be achieved with placement with children services.Groves 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4125
In re R.A. 110541Juv.R. 40(D), failure to object to magistrate’s decision; plain error analysis; R.C. 2151.353(G); expiration of temporary custody orders; R.C. 2151.415(D); extension of temporary custody orders; R.C. 2151.414; permanent custody; best interest of the child. The juvenile court’s termination of parental rights and award of permanent custody to the agency is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. A party may not assign as error on appeal the juvenile court’s adoption of any legal conclusions or findings of fact where the party has failed to object to the legal conclusions or findings of fact. No objections were filed in this case. There was no error, plain or otherwise, in the trial court’s decision.Laster Mays 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4126
State v. Griffin 110474, 110475, 110476Crim.R. 52(B); plain error; R.C. 2929.144; Reagan Tokes Act; qualifying felony; indefinite prison term. The trial court committed plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) when it imposed an indefinite prison term on defendant because none of the offenses to which defendant pled guilty was a qualifying felony as defined by R.C. 2929.144.Boyle 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4128
State v. Brown 109979Sierah’s Law; violent offender database; R.C. 2903.41-2903.44; notice; retroactive application; principal offender; double jeopardy; separation-of-powers doctrine. Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to vacate violent offender database enrollment requirements. Under Sierah’s Law, R.C. 2903.41-2903.44, violent offender database enrollment requirements are mandatory for violent offenders who are principal offenders. Defendant did not establish that Sierah’s Law was unconstitutionally retroactive or that it violated constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy or the separation-of-powers doctrine.E.A. Gallagher 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4130
Bohan v. McDonald Hopkins, L.L.C. 110060Legal malpractice; attorney-client relationship; express; by implication; corporate representation; individual representation. Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant attorney and his law firm on plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claims where there was no evidence of an attorney-client relationship relative to the transaction in which plaintiffs claim they were harmed.E.T. Gallagher 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4131
Sharp v. Shaker Hts. 110260Summary judgment; negligence. Plaintiff presented no evidence that defendant had actual or constructive notice of a protruding metal piece of a sign post that was left in the sidewalk. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s negligence claim.Forbes 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4132
State v. Collins 110289Felony sentencing; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); findings; R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I); contrary to law. We review felony sentences under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence, or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing if it “clearly and convincingly finds” that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D), 2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(I), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Appellant argues that the trial court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence is not supported by the record. However, our review indicates that the trial court engaged in the proper analysis, as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and the record contains evidence to support the trial court’s findings. Specifically, after detailing the litany of offenses in Collins’ criminal history, the trial court made the findings that it was imposing consecutive sentences “to protect the public from future crime, and that [consecutive sentences are] not disproportionate to the seriousness of [Collins’] conduct, and the danger [Collins poses] to the public through [his] numerous arrests.” R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court also found that Collins was under a sanction for a prior offense when at least one of the cases was committed. In addition to making the finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a), the trial court also found, pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c), that consecutive sentences were necessary based on Collins’ criminal history. Here, it is clear that the trial court complied with the statute for imposing consecutive sentences and engaged in the proper analysis. Upon review, we find that the record clearly and convincingly supports the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).Groves 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4133
In re A.B. 110292Legal custody; parenting; case plan services; R.C. 2151.353; temporary custody; continuing jurisdiction; disposition; best interest; children; permanent custody; law of the case; res judicata; preponderance of the evidence; discretion; manifest weight; evidence; Juv.R. 34(B)(2); R.C. 2151.35(B)(2); abuse of discretion. Neither res judicata, collateral estoppel, nor the law of the case precluded the juvenile court from rendering a disposition of legal custody following the reversal of a disposition of permanent custody to the agency. The juvenile court acted within its discretion in determining a disposition of legal custody is in the best interest of each child as supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and its decisions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The juvenile court was permitted to consider all material and relevant evidence in rendering its disposition. Nothing in the record shows that the juvenile court relied on improper evidence, no abuse of discretion occurred, and no material prejudice was shown.S. Gallagher 11/18/2021 2021-Ohio-4134
Dunston v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas 110712R.C. 2963.30 Interstate Agreement on Detainers, mandamus, parole violation, R.C. 2969.25, poverty affidavit, and R.C. 2731.04. The court denied a mandamus action seeking to dismiss a parole detainer pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, because that act does not apply to parole detainers. The relator also failed to attach the required poverty affidavit and prison cashier’s statement pursuant to R.C. 2969.25, as well as improperly captioning his case pursuant to R.C. 2731.04.Celebrezze 11/12/2021 2021-Ohio-4127
State v. Van Horn 98751App.R. 26(B) application to reopen, ineffective assistance of counsel, timeliness, good cause, ignorance of the law, and eight-year delay. The court denied an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen as untimely by more than eight years. Ignorance of the law does not provide good cause.Kilbane 11/12/2021 2021-Ohio-4129
State ex rel. Gray v. Miday 110646Procedendo, R.C. 2953.21, petition for postconviction relief, findings of fact and conclusions of law, pending appeal as jurisdictional impediment to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The relator has filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo to compel the respondent-judge to render findings of facts and conclusions of law regarding a timely filed petition for postconviction relief. The respondent-judge argues that findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot be rendered because the relator has filed an appeal that remains pending. However, the jurisdictional impediment has been removed because the appeal filed by the relator has been decided. Relator granted a writ of procedendo, and the respondent-judge is required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.S. Gallagher 11/12/2021 2021-Ohio-4138