The case concerned Cuthbert Greenhouses' declaratory judgment action against Taylor Township, seeking to determine whether the township's zoning regulation prohibiting common access driveways for residential lots conflicted with Union County access management regulations and was therefore void. Cuthbert had divided its 172-acre property into multiple tracts but had not applied for any zoning permits or indicated plans to build dwellings. The trial court found no conflict between the regulations and upheld the township's rules. The appeals court reversed, concluding that the action was not justiciable because no real controversy existed, as it was unclear whether the township regulation would even apply given the absence of dwellings or permit applications, and remanded for dismissal.
The case involved James Hazlett's appeal from his conviction in Logan County Common Pleas Court for gross sexual imposition based on an allegation that he inappropriately touched his granddaughter. Hazlett had confessed during a police interview after signing a Miranda waiver, and the trial court denied his motion to suppress the statement, finding that his comment about needing an attorney was not an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel and that officers did not improperly pressure him. At trial, the jury convicted him primarily on the basis of the confession and the victim's testimony, but the appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony from the victim's mother under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, as the statement was made hours later after reflection and was not harmless given that the case turned on credibility determinations between Hazlett and the victim. The court remanded for further proceedings.
The case concerned the interpretation of Richard Ditto's will, which granted his wife Pollie a life estate in his one-half interest in certain land with the power to sell and consume the property during widowhood but prohibited gifting, along with a remainder clause upon her death. After Pollie sold the land and later died, her grandchildren (the appellants) sued to recover unconsumed sale proceeds that Pollie had attempted to dispose of through her own will, challenging the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court reversed, holding that the will language created only a life estate and that any identifiable unconsumed proceeds passed under Richard's will rather than Pollie's, as the will did not authorize her to devise the remainder.
The case involved defendant Vernon C. Leugers, Jr., who was convicted after a negotiated guilty plea to multiple felony counts of gross sexual imposition, attempted pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, and disseminating matter harmful to a juvenile, and who later sought to withdraw that plea post-sentencing. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw, finding that res judicata barred the claims and that Leugers had not shown the required manifest injustice under Crim. R. 32.1. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the record showed Leugers understood the charges and penalties when pleading guilty, that his claims of ineffective assistance and other errors lacked supporting evidence, and that no hearing was required because the allegations did not establish manifest injustice. The court also found the res judicata argument moot given the absence of manifest injustice.
The case concerned whether a county's public construction project was subject to Ohio's prevailing wage requirements under R.C. 4115.03 et seq. The court held that the project did not trigger those requirements because informal contractor proposals reasonably estimated its cost below the statutory threshold amount. The concurring opinion reasoned that the statute does not define 'fairly estimated' or mandate use of prevailing wage rates in the initial cost projection, and nothing in the record showed the cost would exceed the threshold even if those rates were applied. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's ruling that the county was not required to comply with the prevailing wage law.
In this case, an incarcerated plaintiff sued his sister and brother-in-law for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims including fraud, theft, and conversion, alleging misuse of a power of attorney granted in 2003. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff did not appear for a scheduled jury trial via telephone, despite prior orders allowing telephonic participation. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying various pretrial motions such as those for summary judgment hearings, contempt sanctions for discovery violations, or writs, and that local rules provided sufficient notice that failure to appear could result in dismissal.
_(cropped).jpg?width=900)