07/25/2024
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation |
| State v. Jones | 2023-0572 | Ohio Const., art. IV, § 2(B)(2)—R.C. 2505.03(A)—This court has jurisdiction to review court of appeals’ judgment under Article IV, Section 2(B)(2) of Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2505.03(A)—App.R. 12—Court of appeals did not affirm, modify, or reverse trial court’s judgment as required by App.R. 12(A)(1)(a)—Court of appeals did not decide all assignments of error raised on appeal as required by App.R. 12(A)(1)(c)—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause remanded. | Stewart, J. | Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2719 |
| 07/25/2024 Case Announcements | Merit decisions with opinions. | |||
| State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost | 2023-0270 | Final, appealable order—Provisional remedy—Court of appeals’ order denying protection order regarding discovery in public-records mandamus case meets provisional-remedy requirement and is appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) because order determines the action and prevents a judgment and appealing party would not be able to obtain effective relief through appeal following final judgment—Motion to dismiss denied and oral argument ordered. | DeWine, J. | Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2786 |
| Berkheimer v. REKM, L.L.C. | 2023-0293 | Civil law—Negligence—Suppliers of food—In negligence cases involving an injurious substance in food, the correct analysis is that adopted in Allen v. Grafton—No breach of duty occurs when consumer could have reasonably expected and guarded against presence of injurious substance in food, and what consumer could have reasonably expected is informed by whether the injurious substance in the food is foreign to or natural to the food—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. | Deters, J. | Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2787 |
| Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brown | 2024-0487 | Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by neglecting a client’s legal matter, failing to reasonably communicate, and failing to protect the client’s interests upon termination of her representation—Conditionally stayed six-month suspension. | Per Curiam | Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2789 |
| Disciplinary Counsel v. Kaiser | 2024-0171 | Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance), 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment), and 8.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter)—One-year suspension imposed, fully stayed on conditions. | Per Curiam | Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2788 |