Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
Alman v. Alman 104951Abuse of discretion; order to sell real estate. Court lacked any basis for pretrial judgment entry ordering party to a divorce action to sell real estate and was, in any event, rendered moot by party's compliance with pretrial order to pay temporary spousal support.Stewart 11/22/2017
Intergroup Internatl. Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos. 105290Breach of contract; summary judgment; insurance coverage; declaratory judgment; motion to strike; Loc.R.21.1. The trial court's judgment granting summary judgment to defendant was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Summary judgment was proper regarding the 2014 claim because plaintiff did not offer any evidence in its affidavit to counter defendant's expert and there was no "collapse" as defined by the insurance policy. Summary judgment was not proper regarding the 2015 claim because genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether defendant should cover plaintiff's damage from the roof collapsing. Further, the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to defendant on its counterclaim for declaratory judgment because defendant simply asked the court to resolve the matter in its favor and failed to ask the court to declare the rights, status, obligations or other legal relations between the parties. We also find no error in the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to strike the expert's supplemental affidavit under Loc.R. 21.1 because the trial court had broad discretion regarding motions to strike and the supplemental affidavit was not substantially different in opinion than his earlier affidavit.Boyle 11/22/2017
State v. Moon 105331R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) and (b); postconviction petition. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's postconviction petition because appellant did not show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely to present the claim for relief, nor did he show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for a constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted.Laster Mays 11/22/2017
Harmon v. Cuyahoga Cty. 105574Workers' compensation claim; R.C. 4123.512(F); attorney fees; abuse of discretion; settlement; credibility. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to appellant pursuant to R.C. 4123.512(F). Appellant's right to continue participating in the workers' compensation fund was ultimately established upon the final determination of the trial court's proceedings. The trial court's award of attorney fees in the amount of $3,800 is supported by competent evidence in the record.Celebrezze 11/22/2017
In re B.D. 105650Legal custody; dependent; unsuitable; best interest; R.C. Chapter 2151; R.C. 2151.353(A); R.C. 2151.414(D); preponderance; manifest weight. Appellate court reversed decision of juvenile court that granted legal custody of child to foster parents where the preponderance of the evidence showed the child's best interest, as well as the purpose of R.C. Chapter 2151, is served by granting legal custody to his mother without restriction. Although no finding of parental unsuitability was required because the child had been adjudicated dependent, the juvenile court's best interest determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence.Gallagher 11/22/2017
In re C.S. 105700Anders brief; parental rights; permanent custody. Trial court did not err in awarding permanent custody of minor child to CCDCFS where mother and child tested positive for marijuana at the time of the child's birth, mother failed to comply with the case plan for reunification and failed to establish stable housing. Following an independent review under Anders, appointed counsel's motion to withdraw was granted and appeal was dismissed.Gallagher 11/22/2017
State ex rel. Beckwith v. Russo 106318Mandamus, petition for postconviction relief, moot. Relator has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus through which he seeks an order that requires respondent to render a judgment and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to a petition for postconviction relief. Attached to respondent's motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry that demonstrates that a ruling was rendered with regard to relator's petition for postconviction relief. Thus, relator's request for a writ of mandamus is moot. Relief is unwarranted because mandamus will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.Celebrezze 11/17/2017