Judith Ann Lanzinger

This case involved Desean Williamson's appeal from his jury convictions in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on two counts of murder and one count of felonious assault arising from a 2021 shooting in the Kenmore area. Williamson raised eight assignments of error, including claims of speedy trial violations, insufficient evidence, manifest weight issues, evidentiary errors, and improper jury instructions. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that Williamson failed to develop any supporting arguments in his brief as required by App.R. 16(A)(7) and that the appellate record was incomplete due to missing transcript pages, which limited review of the evidence and claims. The court declined to construct arguments on his behalf or address undeveloped issues and found no basis to reverse under plain error review for the jury instruction claim.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the termination of parental rights of the biological mother of C.A., a child born in 2020, following multiple removals from the home by Summit County Children Services Board due to substance abuse, domestic violence, and related incidents. The juvenile court initially returned the child to the mother's legal custody under protective supervision but later granted permanent custody to the agency after the mother failed to maintain sobriety, attend required counseling, and meet other case plan objectives, despite periods of compliance and additional time granted. The mother appealed, seeking reversal or an extension of temporary custody, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding it was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence and that the mother had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that reunification was likely within a further extension period under R.C. 2151.415(D).

family law

In N. Ridgeville v. Standen, the City of North Ridgeville sought to appropriate 0.788 acres of the Standens' 2.336-acre investment property for construction of a roundabout at a major intersection, filing a petition in probate court after negotiations failed and taking immediate possession under R.C. 163.06. A jury trial determined compensation for the taken land and damages to the remaining 1.548 acres, with the parties' appraisers agreeing on a pre-take value of $300,000 per acre but disagreeing on residue damages due to disputed access points; the jury awarded $236,400 for the take plus $300,000 in damages to the residue. The City appealed, challenging the verdict as excessive and outside the range of expert opinions, the denial of its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, and related evidentiary and instructional issues. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court's judgment, holding that the verdict was supported by competent, credible evidence including testimony on access limitations and was not contrary to law or the result of passion or prejudice.

propertyprocedure

In Pearson v. Pearson, the case involved a divorced couple where the wife filed a motion to increase the husband's $500 monthly spousal support obligation after their 2023 divorce decree, which allowed modification starting November 2023 based on retirement or other changes in circumstances. The magistrate denied the motion after a hearing, and the trial court adopted that decision. The husband appealed, arguing that the court should have reduced or terminated support due to changed circumstances and that due process did not bar such consideration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the only motion before the court was the wife's request for an increase, the husband had not filed any counter-motion or raised reduction at the hearing, and due process required limiting the ruling to the issues properly presented.

family lawprocedure

Restoration Resources, Inc. sued Jennifer Williams in Stow Municipal Court small claims division for breach of contract, alleging she owed $3,090 on services provided and her account was past due. Williams moved to transfer the case to the regular docket and to dismiss based on a contractual one-year limitation period, but the magistrate denied the dismissal motion, held a trial, and entered judgment for Restoration Resources in the amount of $4,585 including fees. The trial court overruled Williams' objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate's findings or in rejecting the timeliness challenge, as the record supported that Restoration Resources learned of the cause of action within the contractual period.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose from a contract dispute between home buyers Shane Siniscalchi and Eric Velazquez and several Hovnanian entities over a purchase agreement; the trial court compelled arbitration, the arbitrator awarded the buyers damages on one breach-of-contract claim but denied other relief, and the trial court dismissed the action. The buyers later moved to vacate or modify the award, but the trial court denied the motion because it relied solely on the obsolete “manifest disregard of the law” standard and stated no statutory ground under Ohio or federal arbitration law. The defendants then sought sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 for frivolous conduct; after a hearing, the trial court awarded attorney fees and expenses against the buyers and their counsel. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the motion lacked any good-faith basis in existing law or a reasonable argument for changing it.

procedure