03/16/2017


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
Kaplan Trucking Co. v. Grizzly Falls Inc. 104148R.C. 3929.06, statutory subrogation; R.C. 3929.27, solicitor agent of company, cargo insurance, statutory and common law agency, implied, apparent and express authority, estoppel, breach of insurance contract. The trial court's grant of appellees' insurer's motion for summary judgment denying coverage of appellant's cargo insurance claim is reversed and remanded. There are genuine issues of material fact as to the interpretation of the notice provision of the insurance contract, the agency relationship between the parties, and the sufficiency of notice thereto, and the appellant's entitlement as a judgment credit under statutory subrogation provision R.C. 3929.06, to recover a judgment against the appellees' insurer where the insured failed to satisfy a judgment obtained by appellant.Laster Mays 3/16/2017
Hurricane Dev., L.L.C. v. Fourtounis 104196Objections to magistrate's decision; quiet title; deed; trial court sustained objections; manifest weight of the evidence; abuse of discretion. Judgment is reversed for a new trial. While the trial court has the authority to reject the magistrate's decision, the trial court abused its discretion in doing so. Based on the evidence presented at trial and the long-standing proposition that the trier of fact is in the best position to take into account inconsistencies, along with the witnesses' manner and demeanor, and determine whether the witnesses' testimonies are credible, the trial court's judgment in favor of Hurricane is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, judgment is reversed and remanded for a new trial before the trial court.Kilbane 3/16/2017
Satterfield v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. 104211Class action; certification; predominance; standing; abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when granting plaintiff's motion for class action certification. Plaintiff had standing to bring class action. Plaintiff demonstrated that the common liability issues predominate over individual claims of class members and satisfied the predominance requirement for class certification. Plaintiff also satisfied the remaining requirements for class action certification. The trial court conducted a thoughtful and detailed, 19-page analysis into whether the prerequisites for class certification under Civ.R. 23 and found that the requirements were satisfied.Kilbane 3/16/2017
Shaker Hts. v. El-Bey 104236Shaker Heights Codified Ordinances 1135.09; failure to display license plates; sovereign citizen; sovereign nation; R.C. 1901.02; R.C.1901.20(A)(1); jurisdiction - Defendant's claim that he was a citizen of United Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Mu'ur nation and not a United States or Ohio citizen did not preclude his conviction for failure to display license plates in violation of Shaker Heights Codified Ordinances 1135.09. Defendant was subject to the laws of Shaker Heights when traveling through the city, and the municipal court had both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over defendant for committing an act within the city that violated that ordinance.Gallagher 3/16/2017
Tadross v. Tadross 104372Civ.R. 3(A); Civ.R. 4.5; failure of commencement; Hague Convention. Service of summons to person residing in Egypt was ineffective because it was not made through that country's designated central authority for service under the Hague Convention. The failure of service of summons meant that the action failed to commence and should have been dismissed.Stewart 3/16/2017
State v. Anderson 104460Felonious assault; rape; manifest weight; joinder test; simple and direct evidence. Appellant committed a series of similar crimes of violence against women he was in a relationship with, all seemingly motivated by jealousy. His convictions of felonious assault, rape, and several other offense in four separate cases, which were tried at a joint trial, are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because the evidence in these four cases are "simple and direct," the state met the "joinder test," and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defense counsel's motion for severance.McCormack 3/16/2017
State v. Webster 104484Consecutive sentences, jointly recommended sentence, R.C. 2953.08(D). Appellant's challenge to his consecutive sentences was barred by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) because his jointly recommended sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement included nonmandatory consecutive sentences.Gallagher 3/16/2017
State v. Ward 104493 & 104495Motion to withdraw guilty plea; consecutive sentences; hybrid representation. Court did not err by not granting pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Record supports findings for consecutive sentences.Stewart 3/16/2017
State v. Ramos 104550Ineffective assistance of counsel; guilty plea; waiver; statute of limitations; preindictment delay. Defendant's guilty plea constituted a waiver of the right to complain on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of an indictment on grounds of statute of limitations and preindictment delay.Stewart 3/16/2017
Saeed v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth. 104617Pro se litigant; motion to dismiss; failure to state a claim; fraud; particularity; summary judgment; time barred; statute of limitations; R.C. 2305.19(A); savings statute. Trial court's decision to grant motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss of the defendants was affirmed. Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failed to plead fraud with particularity against one of the defendants. The personal injury claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and, to the extent the savings statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), could be applied, appellant failed to refile her complaint within the required one-year time period. Pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures, and are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.Gallagher 3/16/2017
Keller & Kehoe, L.L.P. v. Blaeuer 104678Default Judgment; Prejudgment Interest. Trial court erred in failing to award plaintiff prejudgment interest as part of default judgment in a breach of contract case.Gallagher 3/16/2017
State v Asadi-Ousley 104714 & 105103Petition for postconviction relief; R.C. 2953.21; motion for relief from judgment; Civ.R. 60(B); request for final disposition; R.C. 2941.401; right to speedy trial; ineffective assistance of counsel - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's petition for postconviction relief or motion for relief from judgment based on an alleged violation of defendant's speedy trial rights under R.C. 2941.401. Under the plain language of R.C. 2941.401, where defendant filed request for final disposition before he was indicted, 180-day speedy trial period could not have begun to run until the date of his indictment. There was no violation of defendant's speedy trial rights under R.C. 2941.401 because less than 180 days elapsed between the date of defendant's indictment and the date trial commenced. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss defendant's indictment based on an alleged violation of R.C. 2941.401 where motion would not have been successful.Gallagher 3/16/2017
State v. Torres 104905Sentence; prison time; carrying a concealed a weapon; fourth-degree felony; R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a); R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b); firearm under control. Judgment affirmed. The trial court approached sentencing with the belief that an explicit firearm finding under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(i) was unnecessary in light of defendant's plea to carrying concealed weapons. By pleading guilty to carrying concealed weapons, a defendant admits to having a firearm under his control at the time of the offense for the purposes of R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b).Kilbane 3/16/2017
State v. Mullin 105042Jail-time credit; community based correction facility. Trial court erred in failing to give jail-time credit for time spent at a community based control facility.Gallagher 3/16/2017
In re J.H. 105055Anders; Permanent Custody; R.C. 2151.414. Appellant's counsel was permitted to withdraw from case and appeal was dismissed where record demonstrated that Appellant does not have custody of any of her seven children, four reside with her mother, two children are in the permanent custody of CCDCFS, and Appellant did not support father's motion for legal custody.Blackmon 3/16/2017
Taylor v. Villanueva 105362Procedendo; motion to calculate jail-time credit; mootness; R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C). Procedendo action to compel ruling on a motion to calculate jail-time credit was rendered moot by the judge issuing a ruling. Respondent also entitled to summary judgment on the grounds that relator failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C). Relator failed to include an affidavit containing a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court and failed to file a prison cashier's statement.Gallagher 3/14/2017
State v. Robinson 85207App.R. 26(B); untimely; no good cause. Applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to file his application to reopen under App.R. 26(B) within the 90-day deadline. Applicant's claim that appellate counsel was ineffective did not constitute "good cause" to allow an application filed 10 years beyond the deadline.McCormack 3/8/2017