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
Oliver v. Groedel
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023-01-26 · cited 2×
In this case, Christine Oliver (formerly Lucarell) sued her former attorneys Caryn Groedel and A. Scott Fromson, seeking a declaratory judgment that they were not entitled to additional attorney fees from her successful employment lawsuit against Nationwide Insurance, which had produced a multi-million-dollar judgment including compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest under a 40% contingency agreement. The trial court awarded Groedel $195,030.60 in fees from the judgment, and all parties appealed. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the fee award to Groedel on a quantum meruit basis for work performed but rejected her claim to fees from the Nationwide settlement itself; it also rejected Fromson’s claim to fees and Oliver’s challenges to the award. The court remanded solely for the trial court to determine whether Groedel was additionally entitled to fees from the prejudgment interest award.
labor & employmentprocedure
Chartier v. Rice Drilling D., L.L.C.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023-01-23
In Chartier v. Rice Drilling D., L.L.C., heirs of Anna Carpenter (appellants) claimed ownership of severed oil and gas rights under 135.771 acres in Belmont County based on 1940 deeds from Carpenter to her children, while current surface owners John and Jennifer Chartier (appellees) sought to quiet title to those rights. The Belmont County Common Pleas Court granted summary judgment to the Chartiers on claims under the Dormant Minerals Act, Declaratory Judgment Act, and Marketable Title Act, vesting them with 100% of the mineral interests. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Marketable Title Act extinguished the appellants’ interests through unbroken chains of title deeds from 1948 onward that contained no preserved exceptions or reservations benefiting the appellants’ predecessors, rendering further analysis of the Dormant Minerals Act unnecessary.
property
James v. New Middletown
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022-12-27
In James v. New Middletown, a property owner sued the Village of New Middletown for negligence after repeated basement flooding at his rental property, alleging that the village failed to maintain its storm sewer system after pipes installed by neighboring property owners became blocked by roots. The trial court denied the village’s motion for summary judgment, finding a factual dispute over whether governmental immunity under R.C. 2744.02 was lost because sewer maintenance is a proprietary function that could involve employee negligence. On appeal, the Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the village was entitled to immunity and granting it summary judgment. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to establish the first element of negligence—a duty owed by the village—because he presented no evidence that the village owned or maintained the relevant pipes before the flooding or had actual or constructive notice of the blockage. Without proof of negligence, the statutory exception to political subdivision immunity did not apply.
propertyproceduretorts & liability
State v. Voltz
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022-11-30 · cited 1×
In State v. Voltz, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of seven counts of rape, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and two counts of pandering obscenity, based on testimony from his former stepchildren and their childhood friend alleging sexual abuse when they were young children between 1998 and 2010; he received an aggregate life sentence. On appeal, the Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and the overall judgment but reversed in part on the seventh assignment of error. The court held that the trial court had improperly applied the Adam Walsh Act’s sex-offender registration requirements to five counts whose offense dates (as found by the jury) fell before the Act’s January 1, 2008 effective date, which instead required application of Megan’s Law, and remanded solely for resentencing on those registration obligations.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Vanfossen
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022-10-27 · cited 2×
In State v. Vanfossen, the defendant was convicted following a bench trial of four counts of gross sexual imposition based on allegations that he inappropriately touched three minors during and after a Memorial Day party in Carroll County. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms totaling 96 months and classified him as a Tier II sex offender. On appeal, the Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, vacated the sentence, and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the defendant’s jury-trial waiver was invalid because the trial court failed to strictly comply with R.C. 2945.05 by personally addressing him in open court to confirm the waiver; statements by counsel alone were insufficient to satisfy the statute’s requirements. The remaining assignments of error were deemed moot.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Matland
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022-10-20
In 2009, Rudolph Matland pleaded guilty to several felonies and received an eight-year sentence that included five years of mandatory post-release control, though the sentencing entry omitted details about violations and penalties. After his release, Matland was convicted of escape for violating post-release control and later moved to terminate that supervision, arguing the original PRC imposition was defective and void under pre-2020 precedent. The trial court denied the motion, and the Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that, under the Ohio Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Harper and State v. Henderson, any error in the PRC notification rendered the sentence voidable rather than void, so the claim was barred by res judicata because it was not raised on direct appeal; those rulings apply retroactively to final sentences.
criminal lawprocedure