R. Kashmiry & Assocs., Inc. v. Ellis
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-01-26 · cited 1×
The case involved a dispute between R. Kashmiry & Associates (RKA), an insurance firm, and its former minority shareholder and employee Michael Ellis over the buyback of Ellis’s approximately 20% stake in RKA stock after his termination in 2014. The parties’ Shareholders’ Agreement required that, upon a triggering event such as termination, the stock be valued either by unanimous shareholder agreement within 90 days or by an appraiser who must give “great weight” to any prior valuation, including the $7,500 per share price at which Ellis had originally acquired his shares. The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s adoption of the appraiser’s lower valuation and remanded for a new determination, holding that the appraisal was untimely and had improperly disregarded the contract’s directive to weigh the prior $7,500 valuation; it affirmed the remainder of the judgment, including the injunction and expert testimony rulings, rendering portions of the cross-appeal moot.
business & regulatoryprocedure
State v. Hopkins
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-01-26 · cited 2×
In State v. Hopkins, Anthony Hopkins was convicted of aggravated murder and related charges after fatally shooting Frank Brown during an argument in the backseat of a car following a night at bars with a mutual acquaintance. Hopkins appealed, claiming the evidence failed to prove the "prior calculation and design" element required for aggravated murder, that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that his counsel was ineffective. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the ineffective-assistance claim as meritless due to invited error, since defense counsel had expressly agreed to dismiss a juror without further inquiry. However, the court held that the state presented no evidence of planning or premeditation, as the shooting arose spontaneously from an argument about stealing during the drive. It therefore modified the conviction to murder under R.C. 2903.02 and remanded the case for resentencing.
criminal law
State v. Leonard
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-01-26
In State v. Leonard, the defendant appealed after pleading guilty to burglary and receiving an eight-year sentence that included an order to pay the costs of prosecution, confinement, and supervision. The clerk promptly issued an execution for those costs, and Leonard argued this was improper because his appointment of counsel showed he was indigent and because the trial court had not made specific findings that he had failed to pay. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that Ohio law requires a defendant seeking relief from costs to file an affidavit of indigency before sentencing, and neither the appointment of counsel nor a presentence report substitutes for that statutory requirement. Because no affidavit was filed and the costs remained unpaid, the clerk’s execution was proper.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Davis
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-01-26
In State v. Davis, the defendant was convicted by a jury of fifth-degree felony marijuana trafficking after Youngstown police, responding to a report of drug activity, obtained his consent for a pat-down that recovered nine individually packaged bags of marijuana from his pocket; he was sentenced to twelve months in prison. On appeal, Davis challenged the denial of his motion to suppress and argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove trafficking. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of suppression, finding the pat-down lawful based on consent and officer safety concerns. However, it held the evidence insufficient to establish intent to sell or resell, noting the absence of other trafficking indicators and Davis's testimony that the marijuana was payment for a tattoo (supported by tattoo equipment found in his bag), while the multiple packages alone did not prove the element beyond a reasonable doubt. The court therefore modified the conviction to the lesser-included offense of marijuana possession, a minor misdemeanor, and remanded for resentencing.
criminal lawprocedure
Nicholson v. LoanMax, L.L.C.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-01-26 · cited 4×
The case involved plaintiff Kelly Nicholson, who sued LoanMax entities, the Bellaire Board of Education, and bus driver Judith Steele after she was injured stepping from a school bus into a pothole in a parking lot owned or maintained by the defendants. The Board and Steele moved for summary judgment on grounds of statutory immunity under Ohio’s Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act (R.C. Chapter 2744), but the trial court denied the motion. The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Board and Steele were entitled to immunity as a matter of law. Under the statute’s three-tier analysis, political subdivisions and their employees are generally immune from liability for personal injuries, and the court found that none of the statutory exceptions—such as the negligent operation of a motor vehicle exception in R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)—applied to remove that immunity.
torts & liability
In re M.A.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-01-22 · cited 2×
In re M.A. involved the Monroe County Department of Job and Family Services seeking permanent custody of three children (ages 5–8) after removing them from their maternal grandmother’s home in May 2015 on allegations of abuse and neglect; the children had been living there with their mother, who was later incarcerated, and an uncle diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia who refused medication and carried weapons. The juvenile court granted the agency permanent custody after finding the children had been in temporary custody for over 12 of 22 consecutive months and that this outcome served their best interests under the statutory factors. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the decision because the mother had substance-abuse issues, repeated job instability, and no suitable housing or income at the time of the hearing, while the grandmother’s home remained unsafe due to the uncle’s presence; the children had bonded with their foster family, expressed a desire to remain there, and showed improved well-being in foster care.
family law