12/29/2011

Case Name	Case No.	Topics and Issues	Author	Decided
State v. Williams	97005	An indictment based on the failure to report under an unlawfully imposed Adam Walsh Act registration requirement cannot serve as the basis of a reporting violation charge even if the offender would have the identical reporting obligation under Megan’s Law; the defendant’s argument that the indictment was unlawful was a facial challenge.	Blackmon	12/29/2011
State v. Harris	96887	The trial court did not err by failing to conduct a de novo resentencing hearing on remand because pending resentencing, the trial court decided State v. Fischer, in which the Supreme Court held a de novo resentencing hearing was no longer necessary; Crim.R. 32(A), which governs the delay in sentencing, does not apply to resentencing.	Blackmon	12/29/2011
Fields v. CSX Transp., Inc.	96831	asbestos; burden; R.C. 2307.91(DD); R.C. 2307.92; R.C. 2307.93; smoker; prima facie; administrative; final appealable order; evidence; relaxed; reliable; hearsay; Evid.R. 803(4); smoking history; purpose; Evid.R. 803(6); abuse of discretion	Gallagher	12/29/2011
Machshonba v. Cleveland Metro. Hous. Auth.	96811	forcible entry and detainer; service of process; R.C. 1923.04; R.C. 1923.06; jail; sovereign immunity; public housing; R.C. 2744.02(B)	Gallagher	12/29/2011
Ossco Properties, Ltd. v. United Commercial Property Group, L.L.C.	96790	In an action to recover the outstanding balance and interest of loans made to a limited liability company by one of its members, the member sufficiently demonstrated that it was entitled to repayment with the exception of an interest payment made to the member that implicates a conflict of interest provision in the operating agreement. The payment of interest was also not an ordinary business expense because no other interest payments were made and the operating agreement provided no schedule or indication when interest payments were due.	Celebrezze	12/29/2011
In re M.M.	96776	The state’s leave to file an appeal was improvidently granted when the only issue raised is the trial court’s decision to grant a pre-hearing motion in limine, which rendered the state’s proof with respect to the pending charge so weak in its entirety that any reasonable possibility of effective prosecution has been destroyed. The appropriate remedy was through taking an appeal as a matter of right pursuant to Juv.R. 22(F), and any decision rendered on this case would be purely advisory.	Gallagher	12/29/2011
E. Cleveland v. Zapo	96718	The trial court erred in accepting appellant’s plea without notifying her of the effect of that plea in compliance with Crim.R. 11(E). Since the trial court completely failed to notify the defendant of the effect of the plea to a petty offense with the appropriate language of Crim.R. 11(B), any prejudice analysis was unnecessary.	Gallagher	12/29/2011
In re T.S.	96657	The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imputed income to appellant pursuant to R.C. 3119.01(C); the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding appellee attorney fees.	Celebrezze	12/29/2011
State v. Lindstrom	96653	Juvenile courts have been granted exclusive original subject matter jurisdiction to determine the case concerning any child who is alleged to be delinquent. A court acquires personal jurisdiction over a party in one of three ways: (1) proper and effective service of process, (2) voluntary appearance by the party, or (3) limited acts by the party or his counsel that involuntarily submit him to the court’s jurisdiction. A summons may be issued instead of a warrant upon the request of the prosecuting attorney or where the issuance of a summons appears reasonably calculated to ensure the defendant’s appearance.	Stewart	12/29/2011
In re Carothers	96369	The filing of a voluntary dismissal, pursuant to Civ.R. 41, is not frivolous or fraudulent conduct even when done so in an attempt to avert an adverse judgment.	Stewart	12/29/2011
Cleveland v. McCarthy	96004	Defendant’s convictions vacated and the matter reversed where the trial court failed to comply with mandates of Crim.R. 5 and Crim.R. 10. Here, the court failed to advise the defendant of: (1) the numerous charges against him; (2) his right to counsel, before accepting his plea; and (3) that McCarthy need make no statement and that any statement made might be used against him. The court further failed to ensure that the defendant fully understood and was intelligently relinquishing his right to counsel.	Kilbane	12/29/2011