Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Ohio Court of Appeals
Chlebina v. Landmark Partners
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-29
The case involved a discovery dispute in an underlying lawsuit where the Chlebinas sued Landmark over alleged breaches of a 2001 settlement agreement concerning oil and gas drilling rights on their property. Landmark appealed the trial court's order compelling a non-party witness to answer five deposition questions, arguing that the information was either irrelevant or contained protected trade secrets. The Ninth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in part, holding that challenges based on relevance and proportionality under Civ.R. 26(B)(1) did not qualify as final appealable orders. It reversed in part, concluding that specific portions of the witness's answers (numbered 6 and 7 to question a, and the full answer to question c) satisfied the statutory definition of trade secrets under R.C. 1333.61(D) based on evidence of their economic value and the companies' secrecy measures, which the trial court had failed to consider. The matter was remanded for the trial court to implement an appropriate protective order.
procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory
Akron v. Schaffer
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-29
The case involved Joshua Schaffer’s conviction for criminal trespass under Akron City Code 131.08(B)(1) after he entered Summa Hospital on August 19, 2024, refused to check in at the access desk, and declined multiple orders to leave despite claiming patient status. The Akron Municipal Court denied his motions to dismiss (including on speedy-trial grounds), struck his pro se filings after counsel was appointed, and imposed a suspended sentence and community service following a jury trial. On appeal, the Ninth District affirmed the conviction, holding that the City’s evidence was sufficient to show Schaffer lacked privilege once security personnel revoked it. It reversed in part on the speedy-trial claim, ruling that under State v. Hill, pro se motions filed while represented by counsel still toll time under R.C. 2945.72(E) for a reasonable period, but the trial court had failed to determine what constituted a reasonable tolling period here; the manifest-weight challenge was deemed moot. The matter was remanded for that limited calculation.
criminal lawprocedure
Johnson v. Smith
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-27
Clarence Johnson, then 77, fell on an uneven public sidewalk abutting Nic Smith’s property in Macedonia, Ohio, and sued Smith for negligence and negligence per se (based on a city ordinance requiring abutting owners to keep sidewalks in repair) plus loss of consortium. The trial court granted Smith summary judgment, finding the sidewalk defect insubstantial, no duty owed, and no causation shown. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of the Johnsons’ expert report (irrelevant to the ordinance cited) but reversed on the negligence per se claim, holding that evidence—including Johnson’s later deposition testimony identifying the raised sidewalk, the neighbor’s affidavit (admissible as an excited utterance) describing the two-to-three-inch height difference and Johnson’s statement at the scene, and photos—created a genuine issue of material fact on causation; it remanded for the trial court to properly analyze duty, breach, and the statutory claim under the ordinance.
torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure
Hudson v. Ravida
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-27
The case involved Anthony Ravida’s conviction in Stow Municipal Court for a third-degree misdemeanor under Hudson’s zoning code after he erected a fence on his property that violated the conditions of his AHBR-approved permit regarding setbacks and wire mesh lining. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, sustaining Ravida’s claim that the trial court failed to secure a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel before allowing him to proceed pro se at the bench trial. The court held that the brief colloquy at trial was insufficient under Crim.R. 44 and precedents such as State v. Gibson and Von Moltke v. Gillies because it did not address the complexities of the zoning violation, possible defenses, or Ravida’s education and legal sophistication, and therefore reversed the conviction on that ground. It overruled Ravida’s sufficiency challenge, finding that the City presented evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude he acted recklessly in disregarding the permit conditions, and declined to reach his remaining assignments of error as moot or premature.
criminal lawpropertyprocedure
State v. Depina
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-27
Dwayne Depina was indicted in 2023 on rape and kidnapping charges stemming from 2007 events; after his motion to dismiss for preindictment delay was denied, he entered an Alford plea to reduced charges of gross sexual imposition and abduction, plus community-control violations in other cases, and received consecutive prison terms totaling three years. On appeal, he challenged the validity of his plea, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and contested the consecutive sentences. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the plea-related rulings, holding that the trial court’s Crim.R. 11 colloquy adequately informed Depina of the rights waived—including appellate rights—and that counsel’s advice to accept the favorable plea agreement did not render the plea involuntary. It reversed on the sentencing issue, concluding that the trial court failed to make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the hearing or in the judgment entry, and remanded for the court to make those findings.
criminal lawprocedure
Anthony v. Woolbright
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-26
In this partition action, Camille Howard (who acquired a 25% interest in Elyria property from S. Wentworth Anthony) sued Robert and Linda Woolbright over their 75% co-ownership, seeking partition, an accounting of rents and profits, and claims of fraud or undue influence (later dismissed), while disputing the property's $50,000 appraisal and attempting to add a waste claim due to alleged neglect. After years of litigation, the trial court approved the commissioner's report, denied Howard's requests for a jury trial on the accounting claim and to amend her complaint, granted only a one-day continuance despite her counsel's documented medical emergency, and ultimately transferred title to Woolbright following his election to purchase. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by granting an unreasonably short continuance after recognizing the valid medical basis, while overruling challenges to the denial of a jury trial (as the accounting claim is equitable) and the amendment (due to undue delay after the 2023 commissioner report), and finding other assignments moot.
propertyprocedure