Anthony Orlando Calabrese jr

This case involved relator Dru Pottinger seeking a writ of prohibition against the Cleveland Municipal Court, a judge, and the Cleveland Animal Protective League to prevent them from exercising jurisdiction over eight dogs seized on animal neglect and cruelty allegations in underlying municipal court cases. The relator argued that his indictment on related charges in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court transferred exclusive jurisdiction to that court and divested the municipal court of authority, including over care bonds or custody orders. The court denied the writ, holding that R.C. 959.132 forfeiture and care proceedings are civil in nature and separate from the criminal case, so the jurisdictional-priority rule does not apply and the municipal court retained authority to set bonds and determine custody. The court also found that any apparent clerical issues with case numbers did not void the orders and that the Animal Protective League was not exercising judicial authority.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the administration of the estate of Charles W. Buckner Sr., who died intestate in 2022. Charles Buckner Jr. was appointed administrator over objections from one of the decedent's children, Carolyn Hasan, who filed numerous motions and appeals challenging the appointment and related proceedings. The probate court authorized the sale of estate real estate under R.C. 2127.04(B), found Hasan guilty under R.C. 2109.50 and 2109.52 for conveying and possessing estate funds, and awarded attorney fees. Hasan appealed these rulings to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, raising arguments including challenges to jurisdiction based on sovereign-citizen theories. The appellate court affirmed the judgments in full, concluding that Hasan failed to demonstrate any merit to her claims or procedural errors by the trial court.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved homeowners who contracted with a construction company to replace their roof but faced issues when the work was halted due to the company's lack of local registration, missing permits, and failure to obtain architectural approval. The homeowners sued for breach of contract, violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, negligence, and unjust enrichment after the company left the job without refunding the deposit and a new contractor had to complete a different roof. After a trial with an advisory jury, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the homeowners, including attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the appellants failed to provide the trial transcript and exhibits, preventing meaningful review of the lower court's decisions, including the fee award.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a father's appeal of a juvenile court judgment that established his child support obligations for minor child K.L.D. after the Office of Child Support Services intervened to seek a support order following prior custody proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, finding that the juvenile court had improperly calculated support by imputing income to the unemployed father without evidence of his actual or potential income. It also noted issues with service of the support motion at an updated address without explanation. The court affirmed the provisions on health insurance and medical support because no order required the father to obtain private insurance at that time. The decision centered on the need for accurate income evidence and compliance with support statutes.

family lawprocedure

Jared Rainey filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo to compel Judge William L. Vodrey to issue a ruling on a motion for jail-time credit in Rainey's underlying criminal case, State v. Rainey. The court granted the judge's motion to dismiss the complaint. The request was moot because the judge had already ruled on the motion in April 2023. Any errors in calculating jail-time credit must be addressed through direct appeal rather than an extraordinary writ. The complaint was also dismissed for failing to meet the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C).

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Graves, the defendant was charged with murder and felonious assault after a physical altercation that led to his wife's death from a brain bleed; he entered a negotiated plea to involuntary manslaughter, a third-degree felony, and requested a presentence investigation report before sentencing. The trial court denied the request, proceeded directly to sentencing, and imposed a 36-month prison term. Graves appealed, arguing that the denial prevented proper consideration of sentencing factors and community control options. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under Crim.R. 32.2 and R.C. 2951.03 a presentence investigation report is required only when community control or probation is imposed, not when a prison term is ordered, and that the record contained sufficient facts for the court to apply the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

criminal lawprocedure