.jpg?width=900)
Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Webb v. Morning View Delaware, Inc.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-25
Phillip Webb sued Morning View Delaware, Inc. (a nursing home) and related entities, alleging negligence, medical negligence, corporate negligence, and wrongful death after his mother Roxie Webb died while in their care. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the survivorship claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations for medical claims under R.C. 2305.113(A) and that Webb’s three notice-of-claim letters did not extend the deadline because the defendants never received them. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the 180-day extension under R.C. 2305.113(B) begins when the notice is sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, as required by the 2019 statutory amendment, rather than when it is actually received. The court also held that wrongful death claims are governed by the two-year limitations period in R.C. 2125.02(F)(1), not the one-year medical-claim limit. The decision rested on the plain language of the amended statute and the principle that remedial limitations provisions should be liberally construed to allow cases to proceed on the merits.
healthcareproceduretorts & liability
State v. Whitehouse
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-16
The case involved Corey Whitehouse, who was convicted by a jury in Muskingum County Common Pleas Court of multiple drug offenses—including trafficking and possession of cocaine and fentanyl, illegal manufacture of drugs, and several counts of child endangering—stemming from a controlled buy arranged by a confidential informant and a subsequent search of his home where the transactions occurred in the presence of his minor children. He received an aggregate sentence of 24 to 29½ years, with 19 years mandatory. On appeal, Whitehouse argued ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his attorney failed to review all discovery materials (including cell phone text extractions), pursued an entrapment defense inconsistently with its legal requirements, and did not object to hearsay statements in the texts. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that even assuming deficient performance, Whitehouse failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome under the Strickland standard, given the substantial independent evidence of guilt such as the video of the transaction, witness testimony, and his own admissions of long-term drug sales.
criminal lawprocedure
Eberly v. Eberly
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-15
In this divorce case, Carolyn Eberly (Wife) and Ronald Eberly (Husband) disputed the terms of spousal support, a contempt motion over cancellation of insurance on a vehicle, and the classification of certain assets as marital or separate property after a 33-year marriage. The trial court granted the divorce, ordered Wife to pay Husband $5,500 per month in modifiable spousal support for 13 years (terminating on death, remarriage, or further order), denied the contempt motion, classified Oakwood, LLC as Wife’s separate property, and deemed a Chase checking account marital property subject to equal division. On appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly considered all statutory factors under R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) in setting support without abusing its discretion, correctly interpreted the temporary order as not prohibiting the insurance cancellation, and relied on competent evidence showing the LLC was inherited separate property not converted by commingling or Husband’s limited involvement. The court found no requirement for income equalization or indefinite support in this case given the parties’ substantial assets, incomes, and retirement divisions.
family lawproperty
Forge Fire & Co. v. Lincoln Center Mfg.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-15
Forge Fire & Company sued Lincoln Center Manufacturing and related parties in Richland County Common Pleas Court for breach of a manufacturing agreement, tortious interference, and to pierce the corporate veil. Defendants moved to transfer venue to Morrow County and sought attorney fees, which the trial court initially granted; after procedural rulings on jurisdiction and reconsideration, the court upheld the transfer, found Richland County an improper venue under Civ.R. 3(D), determined that Forge Fire had acted deliberately in filing there, and awarded fees. Forge Fire objected to the magistrate’s decision recommending these outcomes and appealed after the trial court adopted it. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Forge Fire’s failure to file a transcript of the magistrate’s hearing (and submission of an inadequate pre-hearing affidavit) required acceptance of the magistrate’s factual findings, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the law to those findings.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
State v. Minnich
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-11
In State v. Minnich, defendant Case Minnich appealed his convictions and sentencing in the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court after pleading guilty to grand theft of a motor vehicle and attempted tampering with evidence, for which the trial court imposed consecutive 18-month prison terms totaling 36 months. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court properly made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentences—namely, that they were necessary to protect the public or punish the offender, not disproportionate to the conduct or danger posed, and supported by the defendant's criminal history. The appellate court applied the deferential review standard from State v. Glover, examined the record of Minnich's extensive adult and juvenile theft-related record, recent prison release, bond revocation, and pending charges, and found no clear and convincing evidence that the trial court's findings lacked support.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Steele
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-09
In State v. Steele, defendant Paul A. Steele appealed his conviction and 150-day jail sentence for first-degree misdemeanor domestic violence, arguing that his guilty plea was invalid because the trial court failed to ensure it was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 and due process requirements. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Knox County Common Pleas Court's judgment. The court held that, for this petty misdemeanor offense, the trial court was required only to substantially comply with non-constitutional plea advisements. A review of the plea hearing transcript showed the court adequately explained that a guilty plea constituted a complete admission of guilt and confirmed Steele's waiver of a presentence investigation before proceeding directly to sentencing, with no prejudice demonstrated from any alleged deficiencies.
criminal lawprocedure