07/06/2017


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
Derrig-Heacox v. Heacox 104557Magistrate's decision; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate's decision where it was shown by evidence and appellant's testimony that monies received by appellant were for the purpose of bouses due to appellant.Jones 7/6/2017
Esplandiu v. Esplandiu 104750Civ.R. 60(B); abuse of discretion; reasonable time; hearing on motion; bare allegations. Trial court did not abuse discretion when it denied Civ.R. 60(B) motion as untimely where movant provided no facts showing basis for relief or when movant discovered basis for entitlement to relief. Because motion and affidavit did not contain sufficient factual basis showing entitlement to relief, evidentiary hearing not required.Stewart 7/6/2017
Cty. Med., Inc v. Dept. of Dev. Disabilities 104921Administrative appeal; supplement record; R.C. 119.12(K); diligent search; newly discovered evidence; R.C. 2506.03; affidavit; newly created evidence; preponderance; substantial; reliable; probable; substitute judgment; revocation; agency certificate; certification standards; nonfeasance; harsh; excessive. Trial court did not supplement record with affidavit and recommendation letters, where affidavit was created after the hearing, and appellant failed to demonstrate that it could not have discovered recommendation letters despite reasonable efforts before the hearing. Agency's decision to revoke appellant's operating certificate was supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that appellant repeatedly violated agency rules and standards that affect the safety and welfare of agency clients. Although revocation of appellant's operating certificate is a harsh consequence, neither the trial court nor the appellate court may substitute its judgment for that of the agency if the agency decision is supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.Gallagher 7/6/2017
Dlugolinski v. Frances 104995Civ.R. 60(B); Civ.R. 55(A); default judgment; relief from judgment; counterclaim; abuse of discretion; neglect; excusable neglect; notice. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment based on excusable neglect where the underlying neglect consists of a party: (1) failing to respond to a counterclaim after receiving notice; (2) failing to respond to a motion for default judgment after receiving notice; and (3) failing to appear at the hearing on the motion for default judgment when docket notes date and time for hearing.Stewart 7/6/2017
State v. James 105019Prison terms; felony; misdemeanor; consecutive sentence; R.C. 2929.41. Court did not violate the terms of R.C. 2929.41 because it imposed a definite prison term for a single offense.Stewart 7/6/2017
Koach v. Shaker Hts. 105024Trial court; conclusions of fact; administrative appeal; transcript; record; R.C. 2506.03(A)(5); R.C. 2506.03(B); hearing; evidence; meaningful review; letter; error of law; notice; sidewalk violation; affirm. The trial court did not err as a matter of law by denying appellant's motion to supplement the administrative record pursuant to R.C. 2506.03(A)(5) and 2506.03(B). The Board filed with the transcript conclusions of fact supporting its final order, adjudication, or decision in the form of a letter to appellants signed by the chairman of the Board on behalf of the Board. The trial court did not err as a matter of law when it determined, without accepting additional evidence, that the Board's decision was not illegal, arbitrary, or unreasonable, and was supported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record.Gallagher 7/6/2017
Leight v. Osteosymbionics, L.L.C. 105101Emergency motion to appoint a receiver; ex parte; notice; evidentiary hearing; R.C. 2735.01; standing; damages; bond; abuse of discretion; irreparable harm; imminent danger of insolvency.Boyle 7/6/2017
State v. M.G. 105192R.C.2953.32(b)/application to seal the record; hearing; conceded error. Appellant was entitled to be heard on his application to seal his record of conviction.Jones 7/6/2017
State ex rel. Miller v. Saffold 105715Mandamus; jail-time credit; and mootness. Mandamus to compel judge to rule on motion for jail-time credit was rendered moot by the judge granting 126 days of jail-time credit.McCormack 7/6/2017
Lewis v. Pinkney 105748Habeas corpus, failure to attach commitment papers per R.C. 2725.04(D), failure to attach sworn affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal filed in previous five years in state or federal court per R.C. 2969.25(A), moot. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is defective because: (1) failure to attach commitment papers to petition per R.C. 2725.04(D); (2) failure to attach sworn affidavit of description of each civil action/appeal filed in previous five years per R.C. 2969.25(A). In addition, the petition is moot because the petitioner was released from jail.Stewart 7/6/2017
State ex rel. Knuckles v. Court of Common Pleas Judge 105754Mandamus; procedendo; postconviction relief petition; and mootness. Mandamus and/or procedendo action to compel a ruling on a postconviction relief petition was rendered moot by the court dismissing the petition.Blackmon 7/6/2017
State v. Oberacker 81093App.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. None of the reasons asserted by applicant, such as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, ignorance of the law, lack of notice of the court's decision, and duress, constitute good cause to allow an application filed more than 16 years beyond the deadline. Failure to comply with the ten-page limitation set forth in App.R. 26(B)(4) provides another independent reason for denying the application.Jones 7/5/2017
State v. McCrimon 87617App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, untimely filed, good cause for untimely filing, failure of counsel to anticipate new developments in the law, App.R. 26(B)(2)(d) sworn statement of the basis for the claim that appellate counsel's representation was deficient. App.R. 26(B) requires that an appellant must establish a showing of good cause if the application for reopening is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment subject to reopening. Herein, the appellant is attempting to reopen an appeal that was journalized more than ten years ago and has failed to establish any good cause for the untimely filing of the application for reopening. In addition, appellate counsel is not ineffective for failing to anticipate new developments in the law. Finally, the appellant failed to comply with App.R. 26(B)(2)(d), which requires the attachment of a sworn statement to the application, which establishes the basis for the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.McCormack 7/3/2017