Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
Javorsky v. Javorsky 103896Arbitration, nonsignatory, third-party beneficiary, estoppel. Although the defendant is a nonsignatory to the account agreement that contains an arbitration provision, the defendant is a claimed third-party beneficiary who received a benefit under the agreement. Therefore, the defendant is bound to the arbitration agreement under an estoppel theory.Keough 1/26/2017
Seyfried v. O'Brien 104212Arbitration; automobile purchase; consumer; agreement to arbitration. Where a consumer signed an arbitration agreement concerning the purchase of an automobile but moments later omitted his signature below a clause acknowledging the arbitration agreement in the purchase contract, the omission of the signature is not fatal to the consumer's consent to arbitration.McCormack 1/26/2017
State v. White 104224Plea Coercion. Appellant's plea was not coerced by the trial court's participation in the plea bargaining process where, during the course of plea discussions on the record, the trial court referenced another defendant who had proceeded to trial under the same charges, was found guilty and received a significant prison sentence. The trial court's reference merely demonstrated by way of example the potential pitfalls of an unfavorable outcome if appellant had elected to proceed to trial. The trial court offered no opinion of the strength or weakness of appellant's case and the court's conduct did not lead appellant to believe he could not get a fair trial.Gallagher 1/26/2017
State v. Jones 104233Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight of Evidence; Burglary; R.C. 2911.12(A)(2); R.C. 2911.12(A)(3); Likely to be present; Consecutive Sentences. Evidence was insufficient to support defendant's conviction for burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) where the state failed to demonstrate that the victim was likely to be present; evidence was sufficient to support conviction of lesser included offense of burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(3); convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences where it made the appropriate factual findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and incorporated those findings in its journal entry of sentencing.Keough 1/26/2017
State v. Robinson 104382Motion to suppress; Fourth Amendment; investigatory stop; totality of the circumstances; high-crime area; manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to suppress. Based on a totality of the circumstances, police had a reasonable articulated suspicion that defendant may have been armed and dangerous such that they could further investigate. Moreover, police could have entered defendant's front yard to talk to him, just as any person off the street can enter someone's yard, approach the person's front door, and knock on it. Defendant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence such that defendant should have been granted a new trial.Boyle 1/26/2017
State v. Hart 104387Abduction; consecutive sentences; disproportionate; findings; support; clear and convincing. Imposition of consecutive sentences was upheld where the trial court engaged in the correct analysis, the findings were supported by the record, and the sentences were not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.Gallagher 1/26/2017
State v. Stover 104388Domestic violence; R.C. 2919.25(A); knowingly; physical harm; stipulation; prior conviction; sufficient evidence; manifest weight. The defense counsel sufficiently stipulated to appellant's prior conviction for attempted domestic violence, and the state provided sufficient evidence to support a conviction for domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). As the requisite culpability is knowingly, appellant's purpose in pushing his mother was irrelevant. Furthermore, the state did not need to show appellant's mother had a tangible injury in order to support this conviction. The conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.McCormack 1/26/2017
State v. Elder 104392Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight of Evidence; Sentencing Factors; Court Costs. Defendant's conviction for shooting a firearm on or near prohibited premises was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where overwhelming circumstantial evidence demonstrated that he shot a firearm in the air; statement in journal entry that trial court considered all required factors of the law, and defendant's sentence was consistent with the purpose of R.C. 2929.11 was sufficient to demonstrate that trial court considered the required sentencing factors; trial court improperly imposed court costs in its journal entry of sentencing where it did not impose those costs during sentencing.Keough 1/26/2017
In re J.B. 104411Juv.R. 40(D)(2)(b) and Civ.R. 53(D)(2)(b)/motion to set aside magistrate's decision; Juv.R. 22(F)/appeal as right; motion to suppress; untimely objection. An evidentiary hearing was heard; the magistrate applied the facts to the law and reached a determination. The magistrate's ruling, thus, was a decision and the trial court was required to conduct an independent review, determining that the magistrate had properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law.Jones 1/26/2017
State v. Costello 104456R.C. 2929.12; R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a); sentencing factors; failure to comply; maximum sentence. The trial court properly considered the factors under R.C. 2929.12 and R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a) when deciding whether to sentence defendant to three years for a third-degree felony failure to comply. Defendant's maximum sentence for failure to comply was supported by the record.Boyle 1/26/2017
State v. Sword 104477Consecutive sentences; presentence report. Trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences; length of overall sentence was not erroneous; trial court was not required to incorporate the conclusions of the presentence report in imposing sentence.Blackmon 1/26/2017
State v. McCall 104479 Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence; rape. Defendant's convictions for rape were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim testified that she was awakened by the defendant's conduct during each act of rape.Keough 1/26/2017
State v. Clark 104555R.C. 2929.12; court costs. The trial court did not err when it did not make explicit findings under R.C. 2929.12. It was evident from the record that the trial court considered the relevant statutory factors when sentencing defendant. The trial court did err, however, when it imposed costs on defendant without informing defendant at the sentencing hearing that it was doing so.Boyle 1/26/2017
Vega v. Thomas 104647Civil Stalking Protection Order; CSPO; Temporary Protection Order; domestic violence; neighbors; police reports; sufficiency; manifest weight. The trial court did not err in issuing a civil stalking protection order against the defendant where the petitioner presented sufficient evidence for which the court could find that the elements of the offense of menacing by stalking were met. Further, the court's order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence, although questionable at times, could reasonably be viewed as supporting the order.Stewart 1/26/2017
In re M.B.J. 104834Guardian ad litem; objectivity; Sup.R. 48(D)(2); Sup.R. 48(D)(13); investigation; home visits; manifest weight; visitation; residential parent; legal custodian; best interests of the child. Trial court's decision not to remove guardian ad litem was not an abuse of discretion where complaining party failed to cooperate with guardian ad litem's investigation. Trial court's judgment designating Father as the residential parent and legal custodian of child was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where both parents loved and cared for the child but Father was more likely than Mother to comply with court orders and protect Mother's rights to visitation.Gallagher 1/26/2017
State ex rel. Berryhill v. Khouri 105090Mandamus, procedendo, pending motion to reopen judgment per Civ.R. 60, Civ.R. 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law. The relator has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and seeks an order to compel the trial court to render a ruling on a pending Civ.R. 60 "motion to reopen judgment," and to also issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. When a relator demonstrates a trial court has unnecessarily delayed in ruling on a motion or has otherwise refused to issue a judgment, a complaint for a writ of procedendo is the most appropriate remedy. However, a complaint for mandamus may be substituted for procedendo to effect the same result. Herein, the relator is entitled to a ruling with regard to his pending Civ.R. 60 motion. However, the relator is not entitled to findings of fact and conclusions of law, per Civ.R. 52, when the trial court renders a ruling with regard to the pending Civ.R. 60.Gallagher 1/25/2017
State ex rel. Patituce & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Cleveland 104837Relator's request for statutory damages is denied where the respondent provided a response to the public records within a reasonable time and produced the records.Jones 1/20/2017
Martin v. Buchanan 105063Writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus, R.C. 2937.40(B), adequate remedies at law. Relator was not entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring the respondent judge to issue a final, appealable order where the court had scheduled hearings to address the finality and validity of the order but relator had failed to appear for the hearing. Relator was not entitled to a writ of prohibition precluding the court from applying the bond for fines and costs where the depositor expressly agreed in writing that the monies could be applied to those purposes.Keough 1/20/2017