.jpg?width=900)
Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Adbuleh
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021-12-21 · cited 2×
The case involved Abdullahi M. Abduleh, who was charged with aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and robbery after an alleged November 2018 altercation with his uncle. After Abduleh was found incompetent to stand trial and ordered to undergo restoration treatment, the trial court held a hearing under R.C. 2945.39(A)(2) to decide whether to retain jurisdiction and commit him to Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's retention of jurisdiction and commitment order. It held that clear and convincing evidence showed Abduleh had committed the charged offenses and that he suffered from a severe mental illness creating a substantial risk of physical harm to others, making him subject to involuntary treatment. The appellate court also upheld the admission of the uncle's recorded police statement under the recorded-recollection hearsay exception, finding it sufficiently reliable based on the uncle's partial corroborating testimony.
criminal lawprocedurehealthcare
State v. Thompson
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021-12-21 · cited 2×
This case involves David A. Thompson's appeal from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas' revocation of his judicial release and community control, and the reimposition of a prison sentence, following his 2010 convictions on multiple felony counts (including theft, forgery, and related offenses) arising from his actions as a church pastor. The trial court had originally imposed a split sentence of prison time on some counts followed by consecutive community control on others, granted judicial release in 2015, and later revoked it in 2019 after finding Thompson violated community control by failing to pay adequate restitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the trial court's conclusion that Thompson's underemployment and insufficient restitution payments were willful under the Bearden standard, as he failed to document job-search efforts or pursue better employment despite later obtaining a UPS job. However, the court sustained an assignment of error regarding the improper structure of consecutive community control after a prison term, rendering several other claims moot, and remanded for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
Gysegem v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021-12-21 · cited 6×
The case involved a medical negligence and loss of consortium lawsuit brought by John Timothy Gysegem and his wife against Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. The plaintiffs alleged that during a February 2015 laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis, the surgeon failed to remove an appendicolith identified on a pre-operative CT scan, which later caused post-operative complications including fever, jaundice, and fluid collections requiring further procedures. After a bench trial, the Court of Claims entered judgment for the defendant, finding no breach of the standard of care. On appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court properly admitted and credited habit evidence under Evid.R. 406 and expert testimony from the defense showing that the surgeon followed his routine practice of removing debris from the abscess cavity, and that the plaintiffs' challenges to that evidence and the sufficiency of the proof were without merit.
torts & liabilityhealthcare
In re Flynn
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021-12-16 · cited 5×
In re Flynn involved a great-aunt, Paula Sauer, who sought to intervene in the parents' dissolution proceeding and obtain court-ordered visitation or companionship time with their minor child under R.C. 3109.051 after the parents' shared parenting plan barred such contact with the father's family. The trial court denied both her motion to intervene and her request for visitation following a hearing at which she was the only witness. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court had properly weighed all statutory best-interest factors in R.C. 3109.051(D), including according special weight to the fit parents' wishes, the two-year gap since the appellant last saw the child, and the unclear details surrounding the family rift that ended contact. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and concluded that the factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
family law
State ex rel. Parker v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. Bd.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021-12-14
The case involved Peter Parker’s appeal from a trial court decision denying his request for a writ of mandamus to compel the State Teachers Retirement System Board of Ohio (STRB) to approve his 2017 application for disability benefits based on multiple sclerosis. Parker had previously received STRS disability benefits, worked briefly in covered employment as a substitute teacher for one day in 2016, and claimed his condition prevented him from performing that role. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that STRB’s decision was supported by “some evidence,” including an independent medical examiner’s opinion that Parker was not incapacitated from his most recent STRS-covered job duties for twelve continuous months, as well as the subsequent review by the Medical Review Board under R.C. 3307.62. The court found the examiner’s report was not equivocal and that STRB had followed the required statutory procedures for evaluating the application and appeal.
labor & employmentprocedure
State v. Arroyo-Garcia
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021-12-09
In State v. Arroyo-Garcia, the defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his 2019 pro se motion to vacate his 2015 convictions for cocaine trafficking, which he claimed were void because they violated double jeopardy. The trial court had treated the motion as an untimely and successive petition for postconviction relief and denied it for lack of jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.23(A). The Court of Appeals denied the state's request to dismiss the appeal as untimely, overruled the defendant's assignment of error, and modified the judgment to reflect a dismissal rather than a denial on the merits. The court reasoned that the motion raised only legal arguments without new facts, newly recognized retroactive rights, or evidence that would meet the statutory exceptions for successive petitions, and that a guilty plea further barred relief under the statute.
criminal lawprocedure