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
Willow Bend Apts. v. Koster
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-25
In Willow Bend Apartments v. Koster, a landlord filed a forcible entry and detainer action in Franklin County Municipal Court to evict tenant Warren Koster for failing to submit income recertification paperwork required by the lease, resulting in a magistrate’s decision and trial court judgment granting restitution of the premises. Koster appealed and raised issues including federal regulations, retaliation, defective notices, and counterclaims. The Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot because Koster had vacated the property, as shown by an executed writ of restitution restoring possession to the landlord on April 28, 2026, and by Koster’s own statements in a later bond motion. The court explained that eviction appeals become moot once the tenant leaves, since the sole purpose of such actions is to resolve the right to immediate possession and no further relief remains available.
propertyprocedure
Bolden v. Carmona
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-02
In Bolden v. Carmona, Jacqueline Carmona appealed a November 2024 Franklin County Domestic Relations Court judgment that adopted a magistrate’s decision denying her motion to hold her ex-husband, Terry Bolden, in contempt for alleged violations of their 2022 divorce decree. The decree required Bolden to pay $1,300 monthly spousal support for 36 months and addressed the division of the marital home; Carmona claimed he missed payments, interfered with the home transfer, and mishandled joint funds. The magistrate found that Bolden had offset some payments by covering mortgage amounts Carmona failed to pay, resulting in an overpayment, and that other claims lacked clear and convincing proof, so it denied the contempt motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Carmona waived her arguments by failing to file timely objections to the magistrate’s decision under Civ.R. 53 and by not providing a transcript of the hearing, requiring the court to presume the lower proceedings were valid absent plain error, which she did not argue.
family lawprocedure
In re Estate of Rogers
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-02
The case involved Jodi A. Howell’s appeal from a Franklin County Probate Court judgment denying her 2025 motion for a formal accounting of her father Ira J. Rogers’s intestate estate, which was administered by her sister Danna Rogers. After years of proceedings that included an inventory, partial and final accounts, fee approvals, and asset sales—all approved by the probate court without timely objections—the court treated Howell’s motion as a request to vacate the settled final account under R.C. 2109.35. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that Howell had not established any statutory grounds to reopen the account: she alleged no newly discovered fraud within the one-year limit, was a participating party rather than a non-party, and was not the fiduciary. The court concluded that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the motion.
family lawpropertyprocedure
State v. Hipps
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-21
In State v. Hipps, defendant Ismayl Hipps was convicted by a jury of two counts of murder with firearm specifications, and by the court of having weapons under disability, after Anthony Davis was fatally shot in the face at a Columbus sober-living house where both men lived. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denied Hipps’s motion for a mistrial after a detective testified about information that Hipps had displayed a gun to a neighbor while trying to resolve a separate dispute involving Davis; the court then imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 21 years. On appeal, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even if the detective’s testimony was inadmissible hearsay, it did not deprive Hipps of a fair trial because the jury could still convict him of felony murder based on his actions after taking the gun from Davis. The court further concluded that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence—including ballistic and DNA matches linking the recovered handgun to Hipps, witness accounts of the altercation, and recorded jail calls in which Hipps admitted shooting the gun and referenced self-defense—and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
criminal lawgunsprocedure
State v. Pippins
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-19
In State v. Pippins, defendant Keith J. Pippins appealed the trial court's denial of his 2025 petition for postconviction relief, which sought to vacate his 2015 convictions on multiple drug-related charges and grant a new trial. The petition relied on an affidavit from Juror No. 7 alleging she felt pressured by other jurors, was confused about the charges, and observed racial bias and improper external information during deliberations. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the petition was filed well beyond the 365-day statutory deadline after the direct appeal and that Pippins failed to demonstrate he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the juror's information earlier, as the record showed known concerns with that juror at trial and no attempts to contact her in the intervening decade. Because Pippins did not establish an exception to the timeliness requirement under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition's merits, rendering issues of res judicata and the lack of an evidentiary hearing moot or non-prejudicial.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Gordon
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-19
In State v. Gordon, defendant Michael L. Gordon appealed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas' December 2023 denial of his November and December 2023 petitions for postconviction relief, in which he challenged his 2003 convictions for felonious assault, kidnapping, and two counts of involuntary manslaughter based on claims of newly discovered evidence. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court reasoned that the petitions were both untimely and successive under R.C. 2953.23(A), as Gordon did not show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts about alleged breaches of a proffer agreement and federal sentencing promises earlier (or that a new retroactive right applied), and that res judicata independently barred the claims.
criminal lawprocedure