William G. Batchelder

In Buzek v. Fife, home buyers sued the seller after discovering water in the basement immediately after purchase, alleging misrepresentation on the required residential property disclosure form regarding both water issues and structural integrity of the foundation. The trial court, after a bench trial, held the seller liable for misrepresentation only as to the structural issue and awarded damages. On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the disclosure form treats water leakage and structural problems as separate and independent items under R.C. 5302.30(C), and that significant water entry does not automatically constitute a material structural defect. The court found no evidence or legal basis to equate the two and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that distinction. The topics addressed are property disclosure requirements, tort claims for misrepresentation, and appellate review of trial court findings.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Meek v. Tom Sexton & Associates, Inc., a former employee sued his employer for unpaid sales commissions under Ohio Revised Code § 1335.11, claiming he qualified as a sales representative entitled to recovery. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The court reasoned that the statute's definition of "sales representative" explicitly excludes employees of the principal, and the undisputed facts showed the plaintiff was an employee paid a base salary plus commissions, with benefits, taxes withheld, and other employee indicators. The plaintiff therefore could not recover commissions under that specific provision.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

Jason Fisher was indicted and tried on multiple drug-related charges, including illegal manufacture and possession of cocaine and marijuana, after police executed a search warrant at his apartment based on an informant's tip that was corroborated by a controlled buy. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and that nighttime execution was unjustified, and later challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting his convictions on the possession counts. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, dismissed some charges, and the jury convicted Fisher of possessing cocaine and marijuana. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause from the four corners of the affidavit and that the evidence of drugs in plain view near Fisher, combined with proof of his occupancy, was sufficient to support the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Gerald T. Sheaffer's convictions in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on charges of illegal manufacture of drugs, aggravated possession of drugs, and illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs. He received concurrent non-minimum prison sentences and appealed, claiming that the sentences violated his constitutional right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington. The appellate court affirmed the sentences. It reasoned that the Blakely decision does not apply to Ohio's statutory sentencing scheme, as established by prior precedent in the district.

criminal law

This case involved Preferred Capital, an Ohio-based company, filing breach-of-lease complaints in Ohio against multiple out-of-state business renters for defaulting on equipment rental agreements originally entered with NorVergence and later assigned to Preferred Capital. The trial court dismissed the suits for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the forum-selection clause was unenforceable because it failed to specify a particular venue in advance and was therefore unreasonable and unjust. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the clause was valid and enforceable in these commercial contracts and thus conferred jurisdiction on Ohio courts without requiring a separate minimum-contacts analysis.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved William Cottrill, who was injured in his employer's parking lot by a co-worker's negligent driving. Cottrill sought uninsured motorist benefits from his insurer, Wayne Mutual, after the co-worker's insurer denied liability under the fellow servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment to Wayne Mutual, finding that the co-worker was not an uninsured motorist under Ohio law because he had insurance coverage, even though immune from liability via R.C. 4123.741. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statutory definition of uninsured motorist does not include those with fellow servant immunity and rejecting the public policy argument that the insurer should pay benefits it did not contract to provide.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned a juvenile court proceeding in which the Summit County Court of Common Pleas awarded legal custody of six-year-old S.J. to the child's godmother, Vivian Powers, after declaring the child dependent and following hearings involving the biological mother Ella Morris, the father, and Children Services Board. The mother appealed, arguing among other things that the magistrate had improperly excluded the full Minnesota Interstate Compact Report. The court of appeals reversed the custody order and remanded the case. It held that Evid. R. 106, the rule of completeness, applies to all parties regardless of the order of proof and that the magistrate's refusal to admit the complete report after excerpts had been used by the guardian ad litem was clearly erroneous and required reversal.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned Telxon Corp. and Symbol Technologies' appeal of a jury verdict awarding over $218 million to Smart Media of Delaware and William Dupre on claims of breach of contract and various torts stemming from 1996-1997 negotiations over a proposed joint venture to develop and market the Smart Handle shopping-cart device. The parties had discussed but never signed a written agreement for Telxon to invest millions and provide engineering support, after which relations ended and SMI pursued other partners; Dupre alleged he left his prior job in reliance on verbal promises. The trial court entered judgment on the jury award, and the appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding certain findings on agreements and liability while addressing challenges to damages calculations such as lost profits and mitigation.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned Stace Development's application for a zoning variance to construct homes on three lots served by a shared driveway, which the local zoning inspector denied under a township resolution prohibiting shared driveways. The Wellington Township Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the denial after applying the stricter "unnecessary hardship" test for a use variance rather than the "practical difficulties" test for an area variance. The Lorain County Court of Common Pleas reversed and remanded, concluding that the wrong standard had been used and ordering the board to apply the area variance test. On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the common pleas court had authority under R.C. Chapter 2506 to remand the matter for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, Michael Roper was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery with firearm specifications after multiple trials, following an initial mistrial and two additional mistrials. Years later, he moved for a new trial based on newly discovered police reports identifying other potential suspects, which he claimed had not been disclosed during discovery. The trial court granted leave to file the delayed motion but denied the new trial request, finding that the reports were not material under due process standards because they did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome. On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence consisted only of unsubstantiated allegations that would not undermine confidence in the verdict, especially given the eyewitness identifications and physical evidence presented at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jackie Robinson, who was convicted of theft and passing bad checks after depositing a fraudulent check into a newly opened bank account and withdrawing the funds before the check was returned as invalid. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive maximum terms of one year for each count and ordered restitution. On appeal, Robinson challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting his convictions as well as the legality of his sentence. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence adequate and the verdicts not against the manifest weight, and upheld the sentence after determining that the trial court made the required findings under Ohio sentencing statutes.

criminal law

Lydia Wochna sued Judge James L. Kimbler for money damages, claiming that during an in-chambers conference in a prior civil case he coerced her into settling by threatening to exclude evidence and issues from the jury, in violation of her constitutional rights. The trial court dismissed the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) on grounds of judicial immunity, and the court of appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the judge's conduct qualified as judicial action because encouraging settlement is a normal function performed by judges and the parties dealt with him in his judicial capacity, even if the statements were made off the record or allegedly motivated by malice. The decision emphasized that judicial immunity applies broadly to acts within a judge's jurisdiction and that Wochna had chosen to settle rather than proceed to trial and appeal.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Palmer, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop, arguing that the stop was a pretext to allow a canine unit to search for drugs, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the traffic stop was justified by an observed illegal turn and that the brief duration of the encounter, with the canine alerting within minutes while the officer processed the driver's information, did not constitute an unconstitutional prolongation. The reasoning relied on the fact that the canine sniff occurred during the time needed for the traffic stop and was permissible under precedents like Illinois v. Caballes, which allow such sniffs without additional suspicion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kurt Sauer appealing his sentences for obstructing official business and disorderly conduct, misdemeanors to which he pled guilty under a plea agreement that dismissed original felony and misdemeanor charges of importuning and sexual imposition arising from alleged sexual contact with a minor student on school property. The trial court imposed consecutive jail terms (with most suspended), probation, a condition of no contact with anyone under age 18, and surrender of his teaching certificate. Sauer argued the no-contact condition was unconstitutionally overbroad, violated due process and rights to association, travel, and jury trial under Blakely, and that the teaching certificate requirement was unreasonable. The appellate court affirmed, finding the conditions satisfied the Jones test for probation conditions because they were reasonably related to the offense and rehabilitation, not unduly restrictive, and that the Blakely claim was waived for failure to raise it below.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case Hartman v. Hartman concerned a dispute over whether a cohabitation clause in a divorce decree could terminate the husband's payments to the wife. The court concurred in the outcome of the primary opinion but rejected its rationale for defining cohabitation. The core reasoning was that the payments had been explicitly designated as a property settlement in the parties' agreement and court order, rendering the cohabitation clause surplusage and inapplicable.

family lawproperty

This case involved a dispute between divorced parents over parenting time and visitation rights with their minor son after the mother moved to suspend the father's time under their 2003 shared parenting agreement. The trial court ruled on visitation matters after reviewing reports but without interviewing the child or appointing a guardian ad litem despite the mother's requests. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that R.C. 3109.04(B) mandates such an interview upon request and appointment of a guardian ad litem, and that failure to follow these procedures constitutes reversible error. The remaining assignments of error concerning counseling, unsupervised visitation, and tax dependency were not addressed as moot, and the case was remanded.

family law

The case concerned Robert Parrish's challenge to an order requiring him to repay $9,325 in unemployment benefits he had received after the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services initially approved a second application he filed in 2002. Parrish was later found ineligible because he had not worked the required number of weeks in the prior year, and a hearing officer denied his requests to subpoena witnesses who might have shown the approval resulted from agency error, ruling such evidence irrelevant. The Lorain County Court of Common Pleas reversed the repayment order and remanded for further proceedings, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the refusal to issue the subpoenas was unreasonable because evidence of a possible typographical or clerical error could excuse repayment under R.C. 4141.35(B)(1)(a).

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a father's appeal of a juvenile court decision awarding legal custody of his minor child A.A. to a maternal aunt in Texas rather than to the father himself. The trial court had previously terminated parental rights but that order was reversed on appeal, leading to competing motions for legal custody. The appellate court affirmed the award of legal custody to the aunt, finding it was in the child's best interest based on evidence that the child was thriving academically and socially in a stable home environment with the aunt and her fiancé. In contrast, the father had not remedied the prior issues of unstable housing and employment, ongoing drug use, and a history of violence that led to the child's removal, and he failed to provide verifiable evidence of change. The decision emphasized that legal custody to a relative does not terminate parental rights and is guided by the child's best interests.

family law

This case involved an incarcerated father who filed a petition for visitation rights with his two children after his former wife stopped allowing visits following their divorce. The trial court denied the petition after considering testimony and statutory best-interest factors, and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The court reasoned that incarceration for a term of years is an extraordinary circumstance creating an inference of harm from prison visits, shifting the burden to the father to prove visitation would benefit the children, which he did not meet with sufficient non-family evidence. It also overruled a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding no prejudice from tactical decisions or unobjected testimony. The ruling applied Ohio Revised Code provisions on parenting time and child welfare considerations such as health, safety, and adjustment.

family law

Southern Electric Supply sued Patrick Electric Co. and Thomas Patrick to recover $42,579.42 in unpaid invoices plus interest, relying on a 1996 credit application and personal guaranty signed by Thomas Patrick. Patrick denied liability, claiming the 1996 agreement did not apply to later accounts opened after 1998 and that some amounts had already been recovered through a separate settlement with Patrick's customer. The trial court granted summary judgment to Southern after finding no genuine issues of material fact, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that Southern had established its prima facie case with the agreement, invoices, and deposition testimony, while Patrick's opposing affidavit contained only inadmissible speculation and hearsay rather than facts based on personal knowledge, as required under Civ.R. 56.

business & regulatoryprocedure