William Hoffman

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

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

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 & 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

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

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

In State v. Maxwell, Robert Maxwell was convicted after a bench trial in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas on one count of sexual battery under R.C. 2907.03(A)(3), one count of strangulation, and one count of domestic violence, based on an incident in which he engaged in non-consensual sexual acts with his wife while she was impaired by a sleeping pill and later grabbed her by the neck. Maxwell appealed, arguing that the convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. The court held that the victim’s testimony—that she had just fallen asleep after taking medication when Maxwell forced oral sex on her and that he later strangled her—provided sufficient evidence that Maxwell knew she was submitting due to unawareness, and that the trial court, as fact-finder, was entitled to credit her account over Maxwell’s conflicting testimony. The acquittal on a separate sexual battery count did not undermine the remaining convictions, as the evidence and credibility determinations supported the verdicts.

criminal law

In the case In re A.B., the Muskingum County Juvenile Court awarded legal custody of the child to his paternal grandparents after the child was removed from his father's home in Ohio due to bruising and other concerns that led to a dependency finding (with abuse allegations dismissed), and the mother, whose whereabouts were initially unknown, appealed that decision. The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court held that Ohio had temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because the child was present in the state and faced mistreatment, the mother's stipulation to dependency supported the court's authority, and no competing custody orders existed from Delaware. It further found that the agency made reasonable efforts at reunification through home studies, background checks, and visitation options, even though the mother had only limited contact and did not consistently use available opportunities. Finally, the court concluded the custody award served the child's best interest, as the child was thriving with the grandparents, receiving needed ADHD treatment and counseling, and bonded with a half-sibling also placed there.

family law

In State v. Simerly, Jessica Simerly appealed her convictions after pleading guilty to attempted engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and related theft, breaking and entering, and possessing criminal tools offenses, all stemming from the theft of tools and equipment from an elderly victim's rural property over several days in June 2025, along with the trial court's imposition of an aggregate 48-month sentence and $23,800 in joint-and-several restitution. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the restitution order but reversed in part and remanded, holding that the offenses were allied offenses of similar import that should merge for sentencing based on the State's concession. On restitution, the court found no abuse of discretion because the victim's testimony at the hearing—detailing specific confirmed losses such as welders, a plasma cutter, a trailer, and a rare engine block, while excluding unverified items and using conservative valuations—was deemed credible and supported by competent evidence.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

In State v. Engler, the defendant was charged with menacing by stalking after following and recording two women in Massillon, Ohio, but entered a guilty plea to an amended charge of criminal mischief, a third-degree misdemeanor. The Massillon Municipal Court accepted the plea after a brief exchange in which Engler confirmed signing and understanding a waiver-of-rights form, then sentenced him to a $100 fine and 60 days in jail with all but four days suspended. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case, vacating the guilty plea. The court held that the trial court violated Crim. R. 11(E), which requires it to inform a defendant pleading guilty to a petty misdemeanor of the plea's effect—that it is a complete admission of guilt—before acceptance. Neither the court's colloquy nor the signed form conveyed this information, constituting a complete failure to comply that relieved Engler of any need to show prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In Patterson v. Jordan, a divorced couple disputed the reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities for their two minor children after the mother filed motions for emergency custody and modification of a prior shared parenting plan, citing prior substantiated abuse concerns and the father's refusal to cooperate with a guardian ad litem. The Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas overruled the father's objections and adopted the magistrate’s recommendation to terminate shared parenting, award sole custody to the mother, and limit the father to therapeutic visits at the children’s counselors’ discretion; the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Ohio custody law under R.C. 3109.04 requires decisions based on the children’s best interests rather than a finding of parental unfitness when both parties are fit parents, that the father’s rights were not terminated because he could pursue visits through counseling, and that his challenges to procedural due process and the guardian ad litem’s compliance with Sup.R. 48 lacked merit or were undermined by his own non-cooperation and failure to cite specific record errors.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Hess, defendant Kortlan J. Hess was indicted on 15 drug-related felony counts, including aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine and fentanyl, possession of cocaine and other controlled substances, trafficking in cocaine and ketamine, and having weapons while under disability, along with forfeiture specifications. After initially pleading not guilty, he entered a guilty plea to the indictment, and the Licking County Court of Common Pleas sentenced him to an aggregate term of 15 to 19 years in prison, ordering multiple sentences to run consecutively after making the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Hess appealed, arguing that the consecutive-sentence findings were unsupported by the record because he had only a limited criminal history consisting of a single prior adult conviction. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the presentence investigation report and other record evidence—including extensive juvenile adjudications, multiple adult felony convictions for assault and firearms offenses, prior prison terms between 2016 and 2025, and supervision revocations—supported the trial court’s statutory findings that consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct.

criminal lawguns

In State v. Stiffler, defendant Lee Stiffler was charged with failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and resisting arrest after a traffic stop in New Philadelphia, Ohio; he entered no-contest pleas and received two years of community control but appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, claiming the stop, detention, and request for field sobriety tests lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court held that the initial stop was lawful because the officer could not read the temporary tag due to its placement in the rear window and the vehicle's tint, creating reasonable suspicion of a violation. It further concluded that the officer developed additional reasonable suspicion of impairment—based on the totality of circumstances including the car mounting a curb, slurred speech, agitation, and repeated failure to produce the registration despite multiple prompts—justifying extended detention for field sobriety testing.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Phelps, the defendant appealed the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court’s dismissal of his September 2025 petition for post-conviction relief, which alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury and ineffective assistance of trial counsel in connection with his 2020 guilty pleas to twelve counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)(a) because it was filed more than three years after the trial transcript was filed in Phelps’s direct appeal, and it failed to satisfy the narrow exceptions in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1) for late filings by demonstrating either unavoidable prevention from discovering the factual basis for the claims or that constitutional error clearly prevented a reasonable factfinder from finding guilt. Because the petition did not meet those jurisdictional requirements, the trial court had no obligation to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law or to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Baffoe, Samuel Baffoe appealed his conviction for menacing by stalking, a first-degree misdemeanor, following a bench trial in Delaware Municipal Court. Baffoe had repeatedly refused to enter a plea, denied being the defendant or using his last name on religious grounds, claimed he was appearing specially and subject to involuntary servitude, interrupted proceedings, and stated he did not feel competent due to recent health issues, prompting questions about whether the trial court should have ordered a competency evaluation or allowed self-representation. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding without a competency hearing because Baffoe’s statements and conduct showed he understood the charges and proceedings, standby counsel had been appointed without raising concerns, and no observable signs of incompetency appeared in the record.

criminal lawprocedurereligious liberty

In State v. Redmond, Tonya Redmond was convicted after a jury trial in Stark County Common Pleas Court of felonious assault with a firearm specification for shooting a 62-year-old man with whom she had lived for several years. The victim testified that during an argument over music volume on April 26, 2025, he saw Redmond aim the gun at him before she fired, striking him in the face; police recovered the gun from her pocket, and her statements to officers referenced ongoing conflicts with the victim. Redmond testified at trial that the shooting was accidental while she fumbled with a light switch, but this account conflicted with her prior statements to police and with the location of the shell casing shown in photographs. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the aggregate sentence of seven to nine years, holding that the jury did not lose its way in rejecting the accidental-shooting claim because the evidence of motive, the victim’s account, and the physical evidence supported a knowing act.

criminal lawguns

In State v. Phelps, defendant Robert Phelps appealed from a Fairfield County Common Pleas Court order that appeared to overrule a motion for judicial release, though the underlying issue was his separate motion asking the trial judge to recuse himself from his 2020 drug trafficking and corrupt activity case. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that the appeal was wholly frivolous and moved to withdraw. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal. The court reasoned that it lacked authority under R.C. 2701.03 to review a trial court’s recusal decision, that any order denying judicial release is not a final appealable order, and that the trial court had implicitly overruled the recusal motion by continuing to decide other pending matters.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Mahadev Logistics suing Columbus Truck & Equipment Centers for negligence and breach of bailment after leaving a truck at the defendant’s repair facility; the truck was stolen, later recovered damaged by police, and stored at a third-party site with accruing fees, leading the plaintiff to seek over $115,000 in damages including repairs, missing parts, towing/storage, and lost profits. The trial court granted default judgment on liability but awarded only $1,447.94 in extra repair costs, denying most other claims. On appeal, the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the liability ruling but reversed in part on damages, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for missing parts and limited towing/storage costs incurred before notification of recovery, while lost-profit claims failed for lack of reasonable certainty and post-notification storage was the plaintiff’s responsibility. The matter was remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with those findings.

torts & liabilityproperty

In State v. Stone, defendant Adam Stone, a licensed attorney, was convicted after pleading guilty to telecommunications fraud and attempted impersonation of a peace officer. He had defrauded clients by falsely claiming to be pursuing an official investigation and prosecution into their son’s death, impersonating a special prosecutor and another attorney, providing fabricated updates, and collecting fees for nonexistent legal work. The trial court imposed consecutive prison terms of 36 months and 18 months. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the offenses did not merge as allied offenses because they were based on separate and distinct conduct, even though they involved similar import and the same animus.

criminal lawprocedure

In Back v. Taulbee, the case involved a dispute over a child support order between unmarried parents Heidi Back and Shawn Taulbee, who share two minor children in Taulbee’s legal custody. After the Richland County Child Support Enforcement Agency moved to establish support, a magistrate ordered Back, as the obligor, to pay $221.50 per month based on imputed minimum-wage income, which the trial court adopted over Back’s objections. Back appealed, arguing that the trial court and CSEA attorney denied her a full opportunity to present evidence and testimony, in violation of judicial conduct rules and Ohio Administrative Code provisions. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that Back received an adequate chance to be heard—including a direct invitation at the hearing’s end to add any further information—but declined to do so.

family lawprocedure