John A. Connor

This case involved a receiver appointed over two Ohio companies in financial distress after a shipwreck recovery project, who moved to repudiate an exclusive marketing contract with California Gold Marketing Group for gold recovered from the S.S. Central America. The trial court granted the motion based on the receiver's interpretation of the 1999 Agreement. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because the contract language, including Recital C, did not support the claim that the receivership entities lacked any control over marketing of the "Down Treasure." The court further found that related provisions from the 1998 Agreement, such as indemnification and fiduciary duties, were incorporated by reference and remained operative.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Durdin, the defendant appealed his convictions after a jury trial for kidnapping, rape, aggravated robbery, domestic violence, having a weapon while under disability, and attached firearm and sexually violent predator specifications arising from an alleged incident with his ex-wife. The appellate court held that the trial court improperly admitted the victim's out-of-court statements to a sexual assault nurse examiner, violating the Confrontation Clause because the victim did not testify and the statements were testimonial. The court also found insufficient evidence to support the aggravated robbery conviction and the three-year firearm specifications attached to the rape and aggravated robbery charges, leading to reversal in part and remand.

criminal lawcivil rightsguns

In State v. Netter, the defendant, who had pleaded guilty in 2000 to aggravated murder with a firearm specification in exchange for dismissal of other charges including a death penalty specification, filed a 2012 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence more than eleven years later. He argued that Crim.R. 11(C)(3) and R.C. 2945.06 required a three-judge panel to examine witnesses, determine guilt, and impose sentence for aggravated murder, rendering his judgment void due to the single judge's acceptance of the plea. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that any such procedural error would render the judgment voidable rather than void, so the claim had to be raised on direct appeal and was now barred by res judicata when presented in a postconviction motion.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is the third appeal in consolidated legal malpractice actions brought by plaintiff Robert Hillman against defendant William Edwards. After prior rulings upholding summary judgment for the defendant following allowance of an untimely answer, the plaintiff filed successive motions for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). The trial court denied the second such motion, and the court of appeals affirmed, concluding that res judicata barred relitigation of issues already decided or that could have been raised earlier, including challenges to the denial of the first 60(B) motion or the lack of an evidentiary hearing. The court held that the plaintiff's filings contained only conclusory statements insufficient to warrant relief or a hearing.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Bradford, the defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon after Columbus police officers, while surveilling a house for an arrest warrant, approached him on a sidewalk, observed him holding an open bottle of vodka, and conducted a pat-down that revealed a gun in his jacket pocket. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence from the search, finding it lawful, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court held that the initial stop was justified by reasonable suspicion arising from the open container violation under local code and the defendant's evasive movements and nervousness. It further concluded that the pat-down was supported by additional reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed, based on his visible shaking, prior behavior suggesting possible flight, and audible sigh when asked if he had anything on him, consistent with Terry v. Ohio standards for a limited search.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a negligence claim by the executor of a deceased resident's estate against an assisted living facility and its employees, alleging failure to properly control a wheelchair that led to the resident's fall and injury. After prior appeals clarified that the initial dismissal was based on capacity to sue rather than standing or jurisdiction, the trial court again dismissed parts of the case, including claims against one employee for improper service. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the complaint should not have been dismissed for lack of capacity since it does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction, but that service on the newly named defendant was invalid because it did not comply with the specific requirements of Civ.R. 15(D) for substituting unknown parties. The decision remanded the case for further proceedings on the surviving claims.

proceduretorts & liability