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
Beachwood v. Preston
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-18
In *Beachwood v. Preston*, the City of Beachwood charged Jazmane Preston with three traffic offenses—expired license plates, failure to display two headlights, and driving under a financial responsibility suspension—after a traffic stop. Preston, appearing pro se, filed multiple motions arguing that the ordinances were unconstitutional as applied, that her “automobile” was distinct from a “motor vehicle,” and that she had not been properly informed of the charges or afforded due process; the municipal court denied the motions, entered a not-guilty plea on her behalf, and convicted her after trial. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in entering the not-guilty plea and ruling on Preston’s filings, that Preston’s constitutional and statutory arguments lacked legal support or were contradicted by the record, and that sufficient evidence supported each conviction, including proof that her license remained suspended despite her later submission of insurance documents.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Mann
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-11
The case involved Michael L. Mann’s convictions on multiple counts of rape, kidnapping, and related offenses, plus sexually violent predator specifications, arising from a pattern in which he lured women through online ads with false promises of high-paying work at poker events and then sexually assaulted them. After a jury trial on the underlying charges and a bench trial on the specifications, Mann was convicted and sentenced to 132 years to life. On appeal, he argued that the trial court should have removed Juror No. 18 for cause because she said she could not be fair and impartial due to emotional discomfort with the case, and that the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because some victims delayed reporting and physical evidence was limited for certain counts. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in retaining the juror, whose stated concerns were based on general emotional response rather than bias or personal connection to sexual assault, and that the victims’ consistent testimony about Mann’s modus operandi, combined with corroborating details such as DNA and search history, was sufficient to support the convictions even without immediate reports or physical evidence in every case.
criminal lawprocedure
Aurora Smile Ctr., L.L.C. v. Schmidt
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-11
In April 2024, Cleveland Smile dental practices and their owners sued former associate dentist Dr. Corey Schmidt for breach of his employment agreement and telecommunications harassment, alleging he sent harassing messages, posted fake negative reviews, and contacted a prospective employee after his termination. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, issued a two-year injunction, and awarded $59,295.09 in attorney fees after Schmidt did not oppose the motion or respond to requests for admissions, which were deemed admitted and established the contract violations and harassment. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the admitted facts conclusively proved the claims, the employment contract authorized injunctive relief and fee recovery, and Schmidt waived any challenges to the fee award by failing to raise them despite being given the opportunity in the trial court.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Loomis v. O'Neill Healthcare - Middleburg Hts.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-04
In Loomis v. O’Neill Healthcare – Middleburg Heights, Jeffrey Loomis sued a nursing home and related parties over claims including wrongful death, violation of residents’ rights, and negligence arising from his wife Terri’s care and death following a fall at the facility. The defendants moved to stay the lawsuit and compel arbitration under a March 2021 arbitration agreement that Terri had allegedly signed upon returning to the home. The trial court denied the motion, finding the agreement lacked a valid signature and was unconscionable; the Court of Appeals affirmed that result. Although the appellate court determined Terri had signed the document, it held the agreement unenforceable because it was procedurally unconscionable—given Terri’s documented severe physical and cognitive impairments after two prior strokes that prevented her from understanding or consenting to its terms—and substantively unconscionable because it failed to meet statutory requirements under R.C. 2711.23 and 2711.24, including a proper 30-day cancellation right for the patient or her representative and confirmation that the patient could make a rational decision.
healthcareproceduretorts & liability
In re A.M.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-28
The case involved an appeal by mother T.M. from a Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court judgment granting permanent custody of her three minor children to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services, terminating her parental rights. The agency had removed the children after alleging neglect and dependency stemming from the mother’s unstable housing, mental health issues, substance abuse, and failure to meet the children’s medical needs, then developed a case plan requiring evaluations, treatment, stable housing, and income. After a trial showing the mother had been discharged from multiple substance-abuse programs for noncompliance, tested positive for drugs, continued using marijuana, lacked suitable housing or employment, and made only partial recent progress on services, the juvenile court found the children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (E) factors and that permanent custody served their best interests. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court’s findings on both prongs of the permanent-custody statute despite the mother’s visitation bond with the children and a guardian ad litem’s recommendation for a custody extension.
family law
State v. Overman
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-28
In State v. Overman, Timothy Overman appealed his 60-month aggregate prison sentence after pleading guilty to breaking and entering, attempted aggravated theft, and vandalism for burglarizing a Westlake veterinary clinic and adjacent jewelry store, stealing over $396,000 in merchandise, and causing $35,000 in damage. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the individual sentences on each count, finding they were within statutory ranges and that the trial court had properly considered the purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, including viewing Overman’s refusal to identify an accomplice as evidence of lack of remorse rather than an improper penalty. However, the court reversed the imposition of consecutive sentences, holding that the trial court failed to make the required statutory finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) that consecutive terms were not disproportionate to the seriousness of Overman’s conduct and the danger he posed to the public, despite making findings on the other required elements. The case was remanded for a limited resentencing hearing to address only the consecutive-sentence findings.
criminal lawprocedure