03/30/2017


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
Reid v. MetroHealth Sys., Inc. 104015Hearing Officer; Subpoenas; Due Process; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Credibility. Where the officer issued a subpoena to obtain evidence relevant to determining whether claimant was terminated for just cause, and the claimant had an opportunity at the hearing to present evidence that he was entitled to unemployment benefits, there was no denial of due process in the hearing officer's failure to issue all of the claimant's requested subpoenas; the Commission's decision that claimant was terminated for just cause was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.Keough 3/30/2017
State v. Smith 104263Postsentence motion to withdraw guilty plea; Crim.R. 32.1; manifest injustice; abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. Appellant did not demonstrate that he suffered a manifest injustice from the trial court's denial of his postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.Kilbane 3/30/2017
Moore v. Cleveland 104466, 104471, 104527, 104529Political subdivision immunity; employee; summary judgment; R.C. 2744.03(A)(6); public duty; duty; traditional tort; special relation; wanton; reckless; perverse disregard; known risk; rape; investigation; known offender. Trial court's decision to grant summary judgment on the basis of immunity for employees of a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) was reversed only as to the investigating detective because, from the evidence in the record, reasonable minds could conclude that she acted in a reckless manner in conducting a rape investigation involving a known offender and acted with a perverse disregard of a known risk. As to the remaining employees, there was no evidence that they acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. Unless the Ohio Supreme Court determines otherwise, traditional tort concepts of "duty" will not be considered under the immunity analysis, which is to be conducted in conformance with the express legislative mandate in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b).Gallagher 3/30/2017
Gibson v. Shephard 104513Landlord-tenant dispute; removal of property from storage locker; negligence; direct evidence; circumstantial evidence; preponderance of the evidence; abuse of discretion; damages; R.C. 5321.04(A)(7); R.C. 5321.05(B); R.C. 5321.01(F); dwelling unit; harmless error; C.C.O. 375.06; leased premises. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting magistrate's decision awarding tenant damages for appellants' unauthorized access of, and removal of her personal property from, a storage locker appellants provided for her use. Trial court did not err in concluding that tenant proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that appellants removed tenant's belongings from the storage locker and that tenant proved her damages. Although trial court erred in determining that appellants violated R.C. 5321.04(A)(7), this error was harmless because tenant was not awarded any relief based upon a violation of R.C. 5321.04(A)(7). Storage locker was properly considered part of the leased premises for purposes of finding violation of C.C.O. 375.06.Gallagher 3/30/2017
Hashash v. Food Mart Plus, Inc. 104552Writ of restitution; motion for temporary restraining order; request for declaratory judgment; settlement agreement; motion to enforce settlement agreement. The trial court did not error when it denied appellant's motion for temporary restraining order and declaratory judgment and, instead, granted a writ of restitution in favor of appellees. The parties had entered into a settlement agreement and appellant agreed, among other things, to move out by May 22, 2016. When it failed to do so, the trial court properly enforced the terms of the settlement agreement.Boyle 3/30/2017
Danckaert v. Cuyahoga Community College Found. 104600Education; Procedural Due Process The trial court erred in awarding the defendants summary judgment in plaintiff's academic dispute where the record demonstrated that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the parties modified the terms of their agreement and whether defendants breached the modified agreement and whether plaintiff's dismissal from program was arbitrary and capricious.Blackmon 3/30/2017
U.S. Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Sanders 104607Order of foreclosure; confirmation of sale; R.C. 2329.31; final and appealable order; sale of property; R.C. 2329.45; appraisal; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it confirmed a sheriff's sale upon a foreclosed property. There are two judgments appealable in foreclosure actions: the order of foreclosure and the confirmation of sale. Since appellant only appealed the confirmation of sale order, she was barred from raising arguments regarding the finality and appealability of the foreclosure order. Further, since the property has been sold and the confirmation order carried out, there exists no relief that can be afforded to appellant. Moreover, appellant failed to object to the appraisal prior to the sale of the property. Even so, there was no evidence to support appellant's claim that the appraised value of the property was improper.Boyle 3/30/2017
Chrysler Group, L.L.C. v. Dixon 104628Bankruptcy; failure to disclose; judicial estoppel; equitable estoppel; trustee in bankruptcy; bankruptcy estate; standing; summary judgment. Trial court properly concluded that defendant's counterclaims were barred by the doctrines of judicial estoppel and equitable estoppel and that defendant lacked standing to prosecute counterclaims where defendant failed to disclose counterclaims as contingent assets in prior litigation in the bankruptcy court.Gallagher 3/30/2017
State v. Primeau 104657Untimely petition for postconviction relief. The trial court did not err when it denied appellant's petition for postconviction relief as appellant did not meet the threshold requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).Boyle 3/30/2017
Moore v. Naiman 104715Declaratory judgment; injunctive relief; conclusory allegations; no viable cause of action; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); motion to dismiss; de novo. The trial court did not err when it granted appellee's motion to dismiss appellant's complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Presuming all factual allegations as true, appellant could set forth no viable cause of action against appellee.Boyle 3/30/2017
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Health v. Petro 104882 Contempt, hearing, R.C. 2705.03, R.C. 2705.05. The trial court did not conduct a contempt hearing as required by R.C. 2705.03 and 2705.05 prior to finding appellant in contempt, thus depriving appellant due process of law.Keough 3/30/2017
Cleveland v. Tarver 105522R.C. 2945.38; involuntary medicated; petty offense. The trial court erred by ordering that the appellant be medicated in order to render her competent to stand trial. Pursuant to Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, the government's strong interest in prosecuting defendants for serious crimes supports the involuntary medication of a defendant. Appellant, however, was charged with petty theft for stealing a pack of cigarettes. Because appellant was not charged with a serious crime, the government's interest in prosecuting the appellant did not outweigh appellant's right to be free from being forcibly medicated.Kilbane 3/30/2017