Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
L.H. v. Sun Secured Financing, L.L.C.
Ohio Supreme Court · 2026-06-17
This case involved a minor child who suffered a dog bite at a playground in a manufactured-home community, leading to a lawsuit against the community's owner, Sun Secured Financing, under Ohio's dog-bite statute, R.C. 955.28(B). The plaintiff claimed Sun was a 'harborer' of the dog and thus strictly liable for the injuries, while Sun argued it was not. The trial court granted summary judgment to Sun, but the court of appeals reversed, finding Sun qualified as a harborer. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate judgment and reinstated the trial court's ruling, reasoning that harboring requires sheltering, protecting, or exercising control over the dog, which Sun did not do as the animal remained under its resident owner's control despite Sun's general policies permitting leashed dogs in common areas.
torts & liabilityproperty
Disciplinary Counsel v. Harvey
Ohio Supreme Court · 2026-06-04
This case involved disciplinary proceedings against Ohio attorney Nathan Todd Harvey, who was appointed as fiduciary for a probate estate in 2020 and stole more than $225,000 from it by using estate funds for personal expenses shortly after opening an account for the estate. Harvey was convicted of felony theft by deception, leading to an interim suspension, and the disciplinary board found violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct based on his misappropriation, false statements, and other misconduct. The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the board's recommendation of indefinite suspension with mental-health conditions and instead imposed permanent disbarment, citing the attorney's dishonest motive, pattern of multiple offenses, failure to make restitution, lack of acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and insufficient mitigating evidence. The court emphasized that permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction for such misappropriation of client or estate funds under its precedents.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Hill
Ohio Supreme Court · 2026-04-23
The case concerned whether a capital defendant could collaterally attack a prior trial court judgment denying his petition for postconviction relief by filing a motion under Civ.R. 60(B). The Supreme Court of Ohio held that such motions are not allowed, ruling that R.C. 2953.21 supplies the exclusive statutory mechanism for bringing collateral challenges to the validity of a conviction or sentence in a criminal case. The court explained that the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to these special statutory proceedings when the rules are clearly inapplicable, and the legislature had designated postconviction relief as the sole remedy. As a result, the court reversed the Eleventh District Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings on the defendant's remaining assignment of error.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. McAlpin
Ohio Supreme Court · 2026-01-21 · cited 10×
In State v. McAlpin, the defendant, who had been convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death, filed an untimely motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence without first obtaining leave of court under Crim.R. 33(B). The trial court denied the motion, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial on different grounds, ruling that the failure to obtain leave to file the untimely motion provided a sufficient reason to deny it regardless of the merits. The court remanded the case to the trial court to address the defendant's separate pending motion for leave to file a new-trial motion.
criminal lawprocedure
Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze
Ohio Supreme Court · 2026-01-13 · cited 1×
This case involved disciplinary proceedings against Leslie Ann Celebrezze, a former judge on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division, for misconduct including improperly assigning high-stakes divorce cases to herself in violation of random assignment rules, pressuring colleagues to transfer cases to her, and repeatedly appointing or recommending her personal friend and romantic partner as a receiver or mediator without disclosing the relationship. The Board of Professional Conduct found violations of multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules of Professional Conduct related to impartiality, ex parte communications, conflicts of interest, and dishonesty. The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the board's findings and imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law with one year conditionally stayed on the condition of no further misconduct. The court reasoned that the combination of case-assignment manipulation and undisclosed conflicts undermined public confidence in the judiciary's fairness and impartiality, warranting the sanction to address the harm caused.
procedurefamily law
State v. Gowdy
Ohio Supreme Court · 2025-12-17 · cited 6×
In State v. Gowdy, the defendant was charged with two counts of felonious assault after an altercation captured on video, and he requested a self-defense jury instruction before trial. The trial court made statements questioning whether the evidence would support self-defense and noted the burden on the defendant, after which Gowdy entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge following a Crim.R. 11 colloquy. Gowdy appealed, arguing that the court's misstatements of Ohio's self-defense law under R.C. 2901.05(B) and its pretrial comment on the instruction rendered his plea unknowing, unintelligent, or involuntary. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) validates the plea even if the court's ancillary legal comments or premature ruling were erroneous, as they did not affect the voluntariness or understanding of the plea process.
criminal lawprocedure