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

In Hancock v. Crook, plaintiff Kevyn Hancock appealed a Franklin County Domestic Relations court judgment that adopted a magistrate's decision denying his request to modify an existing administrative child support and medical support order for his minor child and to reallocate the yearly dependency exemption. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. Because Hancock filed no objections to the magistrate's decision within the time allowed by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b), appellate review was limited to plain error; the court found none, as the magistrate had determined that Hancock failed to show a ten-percent or greater change in circumstances or that reallocation would yield greater tax savings, and any alleged errors did not undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

family lawprocedure

Ugicom Enterprises, an Ohio company that subcontracts cable installation work for Time Warner, filed for a writ of mandamus after the Bureau of Workers' Compensation reclassified its cable installers as employees rather than independent contractors following an audit, resulting in over $346,000 in retroactive premiums. The case centered on whether the BWC correctly applied the statutory test in R.C. 4123.01(A)(1)(c) or should have used the common-law right-to-control test to determine worker status for payroll reporting purposes. The magistrate found the statutory test inapplicable because it applies only to construction contracts, and under the common-law test the installers qualified as independent contractors given their control over work methods, schedules, equipment, and lack of supervision. The court adopted this analysis and issued the writ directing the BWC to vacate its order and reclassify the workers accordingly.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Ramona E. Holmes, who filed an original action in mandamus seeking to overturn the Industrial Commission of Ohio's denial of her application for working wage loss compensation after a 2010 work-related shoulder injury allowed for tendonitis, impingement syndrome, and rotator cuff tear. The Tenth District Court of Appeals denied the writ, adopting the magistrate's decision in full after no objections were filed. The court held that Holmes's medical evidence was inconsistent and equivocal and that she had not submitted adequate proof of a good-faith search for suitable, comparably paying employment as required by Ohio Adm.Code 4125-1-01(C) and (D), including documentation of positions sought and their alignment with physical restrictions.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Moorer, defendant Sherman L. Moorer was stopped by Columbus police officers after they observed him and another man jaywalking in an area known for drug and violent crimes; when questioned, Moorer admitted to having a gun in his pocket, leading to his arrest and indictment for carrying a concealed weapon under R.C. 2923.12(A)(2). Moorer moved to suppress the firearm as the product of an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to obtain video evidence or allow him to testify at the suppression hearing. The trial court denied the motion, accepted Moorer's no-contest plea, and convicted him. On appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the officers had reasonable suspicion based on the observed jaywalking and the high-crime area to justify the stop and questioning, that the admission of the weapon provided probable cause for the search, and that the record contained no evidence supporting the ineffective-assistance claims.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In State v. Price, defendant Maurice T. Price appealed his convictions in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on one count of attempted aggravated burglary with a firearm specification and ten counts of aggravated robbery with multiple firearm specifications, arising from four armed robberies committed on three dates in 2011 and 2012. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in full, including the imposition of consecutive sentences. The court found that the trial judge had made the necessary statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) regarding the seriousness of the offenses and the need to protect the public, even without using precise statutory language, and that the record supported those findings based on the facts of the multiple gunpoint robberies. However, the appellate court remanded the case solely for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the sentencing judgment to incorporate those findings.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved James Chambers appealing his conviction for felonious assault with a firearm specification after a jury found him guilty of shooting a gun through the floor of his apartment, which grazed a 13-year-old girl in the apartment below. The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence and that the manifest weight of the evidence supported the verdict. The core reasoning was based on physical evidence like bullet holes, shell casings, DNA on the gun found in his apartment, and witness identifications linking Chambers to the shooting.

criminal lawguns

In Marotto v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., plaintiffs sued the Ohio State University Medical Center and Dr. David Bell for injuries during the birth of their child at the medical center. Dr. Bell, who was on call from his private practice group, sought immunity as a state employee under Ohio law, claiming his role as an auxiliary faculty member supervising residents entitled him to protection. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Claims' denial of immunity, holding that Dr. Bell was not a state employee because his primary employment was with a private group, he received no compensation from the university for medical services, and his faculty appointment did not constitute a personal services contract obligating him to provide medical care to the patient.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved Erik D. Bliss, a licensed chiropractor, who was convicted in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas of fraud, tampering with records, and theft by deception for submitting false bills to the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC) for treatments not performed or not meeting BWC requirements. An undercover BWC investigator posed as a patient over 50 visits, recording short treatment sessions and unperformed services like evaluations and therapeutic exercises, leading to over $3,600 in fraudulent charges identified from a total of more than $5,000 billed. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence from videotapes, treatment notes, billing records, and witness testimony was sufficient to prove knowing deception and that the verdicts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

criminal lawhealthcare

The case involved the Ohio Department of Youth Services' removal of employee Tim Mahaffey from his position as Operations Administrator after he authorized the release of a youth offender from custody without confirming all pending charges or obtaining proper parole documentation, an error that led to a bench warrant. Mahaffey appealed his termination to the State Personnel Board of Review, raising a disparate treatment claim, but DYS argued he served in the unclassified civil service and thus SPBR lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 124.34. SPBR proceeded without holding a duties hearing to assess Mahaffey's actual responsibilities, and the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the board's order in Mahaffey's favor. The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the administrative record lacked sufficient evidence to determine classified or unclassified status and that SPBR was required to conduct an evidentiary duties hearing before addressing the merits of the disciplinary appeal, rendering the jurisdictional question dispositive and the other issues moot. The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with that requirement.

labor & employment

In this case, a mother sued the City of Columbus and a former school resource officer on behalf of her minor daughter, alleging negligent supervision and retention by the City along with battery, assault, and related claims against the officer stemming from his alleged sexual misconduct toward the student. The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment based on statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.02, dismissed the City from the case, and noted that claims against the officer remained pending without including Civ.R. 54(B) certification. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, determining that the order was final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) as to the City but not appealable because it resolved fewer than all parties in a multi-party action and lacked the required "no just reason for delay" language. The court rejected arguments that the officer's incarceration or potential emotional harm to the minor rendered the order immediately appealable.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Capital One Bank suing James Ryan for an unpaid credit card balance of $3,949.94 after he defaulted on payments. Ryan moved to dismiss and later for summary judgment, claiming Capital One was not the real party in interest due to references to Capital One Services, LLC on statements, and challenging the evidence of the debt. The trial court granted summary judgment to Capital One, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Capital One owned the account with Services, LLC acting only as its agent, and that Ryan failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Harris, the defendant was indicted on multiple charges including murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, and weapons-related offenses stemming from a 2013 shooting incident in Columbus, Ohio, that resulted in one death and one injury. He entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to murder with a firearm specification and felonious assault, after which the trial court accepted the pleas following a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and imposed the recommended sentence of 18 years to life. On appeal, the defendant argued that his pleas were invalid because the trial court failed to inform him that probation was unavailable and did not ensure he understood the nature and elements of the charges, and he also raised ineffective assistance of counsel. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the record showed the defendant entered his pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, with no evidence of dissatisfaction with counsel or misunderstanding of the proceedings. The court reasoned that the plea colloquy and signed forms satisfied the requirements of Crim.R. 11, and any dissatisfaction expressed was with the plea offer itself rather than the representation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a dispute over Ohio's public school funding formula from fiscal years 2005-2007, in which city school districts alleged that the Ohio Department of Education improperly calculated Average Daily Membership by using community school monthly counts instead of the districts' single October count, leading to underfunding. The districts and individual plaintiffs sued the State Board of Education and related entities, and the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that the districts' claims could proceed because they adequately alleged standing and injury from the funding practices, while the individual plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed for lack of standing due to failure to allege specific, particularized harm beyond that suffered by the general public. The core reasoning centered on pleading standards, the distinction between general taxpayer grievances and concrete injuries, and the statutory requirements for school foundation funding under R.C. 3317.03.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, JPMorgan Chase Bank sued Todd and Carrie Allton to foreclose on a mortgage securing a promissory note after the Alltons defaulted on payments, seeking a judgment for the outstanding balance plus interest and costs; the bank also addressed a related lien by a condominium association. The trial court granted Chase's unopposed motion for summary judgment, entering a foreclosure decree and dismissing the Alltons' counterclaim. On appeal, the Alltons argued that Chase had filed a fraudulent affidavit of assignment and that a prior court judgment on the same property deprived the trial court of jurisdiction under res judicata principles. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Alltons' propositions of law were factually unsupported by the record—which contained no evidence of a prior foreclosure judgment against them—and legally flawed, as any prior claims would have been permissive rather than compulsory.

propertyprocedure