Judith L. French

The case involved parents suing a licensed child care center and its owners and staff after their 10-month-old son suffered an acute subdural hematoma requiring emergency brain surgery while in the Explorers classroom. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the negligence claims, and the appellate court affirmed that judgment. Plaintiffs could not produce evidence linking the injury to any act or omission by the center during the child's attendance, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the evidence showed the precipitating event was equally likely to have occurred before the child arrived at the facility.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the State appealing a trial court's decision to sentence Omar Murphy to community control instead of prison for failing to notify the sheriff of an address change, a violation of R.C. 2950.05. Murphy had been convicted of rape in 2002 and was required to register as a sex offender. The court decided to affirm the community control sentence, reasoning that under stare decisis and prior holdings like State v. Milby, the enhanced mandatory three-year prison penalties from the 2007 Adam Walsh Act amendments do not apply to individuals classified as sex offenders before the law's effective date in 2008.

criminal law

In this case, American Tax Funding, LLC purchased tax certificates creating a first lien on Clara D. Whitlow's property for delinquent taxes and filed a foreclosure action seeking sale of the property and satisfaction of the amounts due. After the trial court granted summary judgment and an order of foreclosure, the property failed to sell at auction, leading ATF to obtain an order forfeiting the property to its assignee. Whitlow appealed, challenging the summary judgment, standing, due process, consideration of her answer, and denial of a stay on a writ of restitution. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that many issues had been litigated or decided in a prior appeal, that ATF had properly documented its claims, and that the trial court committed no reversible error in its procedures or rulings.

taxespropertyprocedure

In State v. Lott, the State of Ohio appealed a trial court's imposition of an 18-month prison sentence on defendant Lamarc Antonio Lott for his second conviction of failing to notify the sheriff of an address change under R.C. 2950.05, a third-degree felony. Lott had been convicted of rape in 2004 and was subject to sex-offender registration requirements; the State argued that a 2007 statutory amendment required a mandatory three-year term. The Court of Appeals held that the enhanced penalties under the Adam Walsh Act amendments could not be applied to offenders who were classified before the 2008 effective date of the changes, following its prior decision in State v. Milby and the doctrine of stare decisis. The court therefore affirmed the 18-month sentence.

criminal law

This case arose from a foreclosure action in which Fifth Third Mortgage Company sought to foreclose on John Rankin's real property after he defaulted on a mortgage; the trial court granted summary judgment and ordered a sheriff's sale, which Rankin (the high bidder) challenged on appeal from the confirmation entry. Rankin argued that the sale should not have been confirmed because Fifth Third failed to strictly comply with the statutory notice and filing requirements under R.C. 2329.26(A)(1) and R.C. 2329.27(B)(1), allegedly violating due process. The court of appeals denied Fifth Third's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot and affirmed the trial court's confirmation of the sale. It held that any noncompliance with the notice-filing provision did not prejudice Rankin, who had actual notice of the sale date, time, and place and participated as the successful bidder, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in confirming the sale.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a mortgage foreclosure action filed by Fifth Third Mortgage Company against John Rankin in the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas. After obtaining a judgment and decree of foreclosure, the property was sold at a sheriff's sale where Rankin was the successful bidder but failed to pay the balance due within thirty days of confirmation. While an appeal of the confirmation order was pending, the trial court issued an order finding Rankin in contempt, vacating the sale and confirmation entry, and forfeiting his deposit. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order during the pendency of the appeal, rendering it void, and therefore dismissed the appeal while vacating the order.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned Dominic Martucci's appeal from the Akron Civil Service Commission's removal of his name from the eligibility list for appointment as a police officer because his age exceeded the 31-year maximum set by a city ordinance. Martucci had passed the written exam and physical test but was notified he would turn 32 before any possible appointment, rendering him ineligible under the ordinance. The trial court affirmed the commission's denial of his appeal, and the court of appeals upheld that decision, concluding that the municipal ordinance was consistent with state law on police hiring qualifications and that the commission's action was not arbitrary. The court found no abuse of discretion in affirming the removal from the eligibility list.

labor & employment

The case involved defendant Tylondia Watson's convictions for felonious assault with firearm specifications and carrying a concealed weapon after an eyewitness identified her as the shooter during an altercation outside a restaurant. Watson appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek suppression of the pretrial and in-court identifications based on a single driver's license photo and prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments regarding her avoidance of police. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive or unreliable under the circumstances, so a suppression motion would have failed, and that the prosecutor's rebuttal comment was proper because defense counsel had opened the door by arguing Watson had nothing to hide.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Professionals Guild of Ohio, as bargaining representative for certain Butler County employees, seeking a writ of mandamus to order the Ohio State Employment Relations Board (SERB) to vacate its dismissal of unfair labor practice charges against the county. The charges alleged that Butler County unilaterally ended a past practice allowing employees to bank compensatory or flex time across pay periods, in violation of collective bargaining obligations. The court denied the writ, holding that SERB did not abuse its discretion in finding no probable cause because evidence of a binding, mutually accepted past practice was equivocal, the collective bargaining agreement was silent on the issue, and the county's revised policy still permitted flex time within pay periods while addressing prior accumulations. The magistrate's decision, adopted by the court, also found SERB had adequately investigated the charges and properly denied reconsideration.

labor & employment

This case involved an Ohio employer seeking a writ of mandamus to vacate the Industrial Commission's award of temporary total disability compensation to a worker injured in 2002, for two closed periods in 2006-2007. The Tenth District Court of Appeals adopted the magistrate's findings and granted the writ in part, ordering the commission to shorten the second award period. The court reasoned that only Dr. Paley's October 2006 C-84 report provided sufficient evidence to support TTD up to October 28, 2006, while Dr. Reddy's later report could not retroactively support an earlier period and no other evidence justified extending compensation through April 2007.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a construction subcontract for drywall work at an Ohio State University project, where subcontractor Maghie Savage, Inc. sought additional compensation from prime contractor P.J. Dick Inc. for labor inefficiencies allegedly caused by delays from another subcontractor and resulting poor site conditions. The trial court granted a directed verdict to P.J. Dick and summary judgment to Blakley Corporation, and the appeals court affirmed those rulings. The core reasoning was that the subcontract's Article 9 notice provisions required timely written claims detailing impacts within two business days, which Maghie Savage failed to provide in its January-March 2004 letters, barring recovery regardless of any underlying merit to the claims. The court also upheld evidentiary exclusions as within the trial court's discretion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Juan L. Smith's appeal of his convictions in Franklin County Common Pleas Court for assault, having a weapon while under disability, and two counts of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, arising from a December 2006 armed robbery at Nabby's Carryout involving the store staff and a customer. Smith challenged the sufficiency and weight of the identification evidence from witnesses, the jury instructions on robbery, and the calculation of jail-time credit. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence supported the verdicts, the instructions were proper, and there was no error in the credit determination.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Kevin Sayler, who was convicted after a bench trial of harassment with a bodily substance under R.C. 2921.38 for spitting on a police sergeant while detained in a paddy wagon following his arrest. Sayler appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings on video footage and testimony about a prior use-of-force incident with another officer, that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because he spat reflexively while injured and choking, and that other procedural errors occurred. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court's credibility determinations were supported by the record, including officer testimony that the spitting preceded any use of tear gas and that Sayler's injuries did not prevent him from speaking or breathing, and that the remaining assignments of error lacked merit. The court overruled all six assignments of error and affirmed the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute between general contractor Complete General Construction Company and subcontractor Kard Welding, Inc. over a quote Kard provided for structural steel work on an Ohio Department of Transportation highway project. Complete General used the quote to prepare its successful bid to ODOT but later could not reach agreement with Kard on contract terms, including payment and liability for shop drawings; Kard had also submitted a revised quote correcting a pricing error that Complete General did not receive until after the bid. Complete General sued for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and detrimental reliance after hiring another subcontractor at a higher price. The trial court ruled for Kard, and the appeals court affirmed, holding that no contract was formed because Complete General never issued a purchase order or accepted the quote and that promissory estoppel did not apply because Complete General continued negotiating with other subcontractors after winning the prime contract.

business & regulatory

The case concerned Keydon Management Company's appeal of the Ohio Liquor Control Commission's denial of its liquor permit renewal for a Dayton business, which the Division of Liquor Control had rejected for two reasons under R.C. 4303.292: the premises' location would cause substantial interference with public decency, sobriety, peace, or good order, and the business had been operated with disregard for state laws and local ordinances. After hearings featuring testimony from police officers about roughly 250 dispatches, dozens of crime reports involving assaults, drugs, firearms, and gangs, plus neighborhood complaints about noise, trash, and safety issues, the commission upheld the denial. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed, and the Tenth District Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supported the commission's findings and that the evidence showed a direct link between the permit holder's operations and the documented problems, distinguishing prior cases.

business & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs appealing the trial court's sua sponte dismissal of their 2007 complaint against MetLife, which sought a correct copy of a group life insurance policy, a declaration that the policy terminated on December 31, 1992, and monetary damages, based on allegations of false information and breach related to coverage for the plaintiffs. The trial court dismissed the complaint on grounds of res judicata from a prior 2005 action dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding that res judicata did not apply because the prior dismissal was not on the merits and that the trial court erred by dismissing without providing notice and an opportunity to respond, absent a showing that the complaint was frivolous.

procedurecriminal law

The case involved a workers' compensation claimant who sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Industrial Commission of Ohio to pay for home exercise equipment, including an Apollo Universal Weight Machine, after a 2004 industrial injury. The commission denied the request under a 2005 policy that generally barred payment for unsupervised home exercise equipment outside of approved rehab programs. The court adopted the magistrate's findings and denied the writ, holding that the commission did not abuse its discretion. The core reasoning was that statutes in effect on the injury date govern vested rights, while bureau policies on medical equipment and reconditioning do not create permanent entitlements that later policies cannot alter.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who sued her obstetrician and clinic for wrongful pregnancy after a tubal ligation performed in 2004 failed, leading to additional pregnancies and births in 2006 and 2007; the complaint alleged negligence in the initial sterilization procedure, lack of post-procedure testing, and inadequate information about risks. The trial court dismissed the action on statute of limitations grounds, finding that the claim accrued upon the birth of the third child in August 2006. The appeals court reversed, holding that under R.C. 2305.113(A) and applicable precedent, a medical malpractice claim accrues upon the later of discovery of the injury or termination of the physician-patient relationship, and the complaint filed in April 2008 was timely because the relationship ended in February 2008. The court also confirmed that the complaint stated only a wrongful pregnancy claim arising from the initial procedure and did not include separate negligence claims regarding later refusals to perform additional procedures.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Adam M. Saleh's appeal from his convictions in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas for murder, attempted rape, kidnapping, and tampering with evidence in the death of Julie Popovich. The charges arose from events on or near August 12, 2005, when Popovich was last seen leaving a bar with Saleh, and her body was later found in a field with signs consistent with sexual assault. The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence from witness identifications, physical evidence, and Saleh's statements, and holding that the kidnapping and attempted rape offenses did not merge because they involved separate animus under R.C. 2941.25, whether committed near the bar or in the field. The court also rejected arguments based on double jeopardy and other evidentiary and procedural claims.

criminal law

In State v. O'Keefe, the defendant appealed his convictions and sentences from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to one count of second-degree felonious assault and one count of third-degree robbery arising from an October 2007 altercation outside a bar, during which he and co-defendants assaulted victims including one rendered unconscious, followed by use of a stolen credit card. The trial court imposed a four-year prison term for the assault, a consecutive four-year term for the robbery, and a concurrent sentence for an unrelated theft, rejecting the defendant's request for community control. The defendant argued on appeal that the sentences were contrary to law under Ohio sentencing statutes and inconsistent with the lighter sentences given to co-defendants, particularly one who received community control. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the sentences fell within the statutory range, were supported by the defendant's extensive prior criminal record including multiple theft convictions and prior failures on community control as shown in the PSI, and were justified by the particularly violent conduct toward one victim, distinguishing it from co-defendants' roles.

criminal law