Kathleen Ann Keough

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

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

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

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

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

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

In In re N.R., the father appealed the juvenile court’s dismissal of his August 2025 complaint to adopt a 2024 administrative child support order as a judicial order and his motion for relief from judgment, in which he claimed improper service at a nonexistent address, due process violations, lack of jurisdiction, and related constitutional challenges to the order requiring him to pay roughly $1,226 monthly in support. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment adopting the magistrate’s decision granting dismissal. The court held that the father failed to file objections to the magistrate’s decision or submit a transcript, did not raise several constitutional arguments in the juvenile court, and had received the administrative order in time to file objections, meaning any service or notice issues could have been raised then rather than in a later motion for relief.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Patterson, the defendant appealed his bench-trial convictions for carrying a concealed weapon and unlawful possession of a dangerous ordnance (a felony with a firearm specification) after Cleveland police recovered from his waistband a Glock 19X fitted with a purple conversion switch that rendered it fully automatic, along with an extended magazine containing 34 rounds. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. It held that any defect in the indictment—which charged possession of a “firearm” rather than specifically an “automatic firearm”—was waived for failure to object before trial and did not deny Patterson notice because the attendant specification expressly alleged an automatic firearm. On the sufficiency and weight challenges, the court concluded that circumstantial evidence, including the switch’s visible color and placement on the slide, the gun’s loaded and extended-magazine condition, Patterson’s initial denials of possessing anything, and his lack of reaction when officers identified the switch, permitted the trial court to infer that he knowingly possessed a dangerous ordnance.

gunscriminal law

In State v. Peterson, defendant De’Ane Peterson appealed his guilty pleas and 10-year aggregate prison sentence across three Cuyahoga County cases involving drug trafficking, weapons charges, failure to comply with police, obstructing official business, and child endangering. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full. It held that the pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered under Crim.R. 11 because the court explained the rights waived, the packaged nature of the pleas, the mandatory prison terms, and the forfeiture conditions. The court further ruled that counsel was not ineffective and that the consecutive sentences were not contrary to law or cruel and unusual, as they were separately imposed on each count and justified by Peterson’s failure to appear for sentencing, commission of new offenses while cases were pending, and criminal history.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Burge, the defendant appealed his convictions and sentence after pleading guilty in Cuyahoga County to 39 counts—including theft, felonious assault, robbery, and weapons offenses with firearm specifications—stemming from multiple incidents between December 2023 and March 2024, as well as the trial court’s denial of his post-sentence pro se motion to withdraw the plea. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in full. The court held that Burge’s plea was knowing and voluntary, as the record showed a thorough Crim.R. 11 colloquy in which he repeatedly confirmed his understanding of the charges, penalties, consecutive sentences, and the agreed ten-year sentencing floor with the possibility of a higher term. It further found no manifest injustice under Crim.R. 32.1 that would permit withdrawal of the plea after sentencing, noting that Burge’s claims of coercion, threats, and dissatisfaction with counsel were contradicted by the record of the proceedings, and that no hearing on the motion was required because the allegations, even if accepted as true, did not demonstrate an extraordinary flaw in the plea process.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Alexandria Kung and her insurer, State Farm, over the valuation of two stolen items—an oracle bone and a hand-painted silk tapestry—covered under a personal articles policy. After Kung sued for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging untimely and improper claims handling, the trial court ordered an appraisal per the policy; an umpire completed the process, State Farm paid the appraised amount of $5,000 for the bone, and the court granted summary judgment to State Farm. Kung then filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, claiming lack of notice after her counsel withdrew, fraud or improper influence on the umpire, and disputes over the appraisal’s fairness and finality. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Kung’s challenges to the appraisal and summary judgment ruling were not proper grounds for 60(B) relief and should have been raised in a direct appeal instead.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Stewart v. Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc., plaintiff James Stewart filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Farmers breached its auto insurance policies by using a third-party valuation service to apply an unlisted “condition adjustment” that reduced total-loss payouts below the policy’s required “actual cash value.” The trial court granted class certification, but the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that Stewart’s individual claims became moot once the policy’s binding appraisal process was invoked, an award was issued, and Farmers paid the resulting amount; because no live controversy remained for Stewart at the time of certification, the entire action—including the class claims—had to be dismissed. The appellate court therefore remanded with instructions to dismiss.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In State v. Becks, the defendant appealed after the trial court denied her presentence request to withdraw her guilty plea to attempted child endangering, claiming her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because she felt pressured into the plea and a conflict of interest existed that required new counsel. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence of one year of community control. The court held that Becks failed to meet the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance, as the record showed no evidence that counsel’s interests were adverse to hers, that counsel coerced the plea, or that counsel performed deficiently; instead, counsel actively advocated for withdrawal of the plea while the plea colloquy confirmed Becks had understood the rights she waived and expressed satisfaction with her representation. The court declined to follow contrary precedent from another appellate district and found that no new counsel was required.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Humphries, the defendant was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence following a jury trial on charges stemming from a 2020 domestic incident that led to his 2025 indictment on felony grand theft, misdemeanor unauthorized use of a vehicle, and misdemeanor domestic violence. Humphries appealed after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss, arguing preindictment delay and other grounds, and the State conceded reversible error on appeal. The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the statute-of-limitations defense under R.C. 2901.13(A)(1)(b), which bars prosecution of non-minor misdemeanors more than two years after the offense; the court found the 2025 charge for the 2020 incident was time-barred and that raising the issue would have created a reasonable probability of dismissal. The court separately concluded that the preindictment-delay claim lacked merit because Humphries did not demonstrate actual prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In Marcinkevicius v. Galloway, the administrator of Gary Bryenton’s estate filed a complaint to appoint a successor trustee after the trust’s designated successor, Robert Galloway, declined the role and the will directed the residuary estate to the trust. Barbara Bryenton, the decedent’s widow, sought to appoint herself and daughter Elisabeth as co-trustees under the trust’s removal and appointment provisions, while daughter Susan requested an institutional trustee due to family conflicts. The probate court appointed a neutral successor trustee, and Barbara appealed, claiming the appointment violated the trust terms and rested on an insufficient record. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Elisabeth’s appointment did not comply with the trust’s requirement that a daughter’s appointee be a bank or trust company, that the record showed fairness concerns arising from the volatile relationship between Barbara, Elisabeth, and Susan, and that the court properly exercised its discretion based on the uncontested record after the parties declined to present evidence.

propertyprocedurefamily law

R.S. filed a petition for a domestic violence civil protection order against her brother G.S., alleging he had threatened to kill her during a phone call about money from their late mother’s estate, attempted to enter her home the prior year, and had a history of alcohol abuse and firearm ownership that made her fear for her safety. After an ex parte order and a full hearing, the trial court issued the DVCPO. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals vacated the order, holding that R.S.’s testimony alone was insufficient to establish she faced an imminent danger of domestic violence under R.C. 3113.31. The court noted that G.S. introduced evidence impeaching her account, including a police report and proof of his financial support for her, and that she provided no corroborating texts, exhibits, or direct connection between his gun ownership and any threats. The case was remanded to notify previously served entities that the order was no longer in effect.

family lawprocedureguns

This case involved MAZCleveland, LLC and Steven Morris appealing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas' denial of their renewed motion for sanctions against Sherry Hall under R.C. 2323.51, after an eviction action with counterclaims had settled through an agreed judgment entry. The trial court had previously denied an initial sanctions request and ruled that the final judgment resolved all claims, treating the renewed motion as an attempt to relitigate settled issues based on pre-settlement conduct. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because it possessed sufficient knowledge of the facts from prior proceedings, the alleged conduct was not shown to be egregious as required for sanctions, and no hearing was needed when the motion lacked merit and was not arbitrary.

propertyprocedure

In this case, father M.B. appealed a juvenile court decision denying his requests for shared parenting of his young daughter S.B. and instead designating mother I.M. as the residential parent and legal custodian. The trial court reached this outcome after a hearing in which both parents initially expressed openness to shared parenting but demonstrated ongoing conflicts over communication, scheduling, and decision-making, including incidents where the father missed parenting time or declined to facilitate the child’s events with the mother. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported the trial court’s finding that the parents could not cooperate sufficiently for shared parenting to serve the child’s best interests, even though both were loving and capable caregivers. The court noted that the guardian ad litem had ultimately recommended against shared parenting after observing the parties’ interactions at trial.

family law

In Evans v. Davis, Lacrecia Evans filed a small-claims complaint against her neighbor Barbara Ann Davis, alleging that Davis removed or replaced fencing along their property line without permission and seeking damages for trespass and interference with property rights. The magistrate conducted a trial, found that the removed fencing was on Davis’s own property, and recommended judgment for Davis; the trial court adopted that decision after overruling Evans’s objections. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Evans failed to support her objections with a transcript or affidavit of the evidence as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii), preventing review of factual findings, and that she had not properly raised her additional legal arguments below. As a result, the court was required to accept the magistrate’s findings and could not consider the new claims on appeal.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Matos, Eddie Matos appealed his six-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition involving two children he had access to through a relationship with their mother; the trial court had imposed a maximum 60-month term on one count and a consecutive 12-month term on the other after the State dismissed the remaining charges. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence in full. The court held that the maximum term was not contrary to law because it fell within the statutory range and the trial court was presumed to have considered the purposes of felony sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. It further held that the consecutive sentences were proper because the trial court made the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the hearing and in its entry, and the record supported those findings under the deferential “clear and convincing” standard of review in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

criminal lawprocedure