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
Med. Mut. of Ohio v. FrontPath Health Coalition
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023-01-27 · cited 8×
The case involved a dispute between competing providers of health benefit services to Ohio municipalities, in which Medical Mutual alleged that FrontPath improperly recruited local public officials onto its board and used their influence to steer public contracts to itself, asserting claims including civil liability for criminal acts under Ohio law and violations of the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act. The Lucas County Court of Common Pleas dismissed four of the five counts in the amended complaint with prejudice under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and later denied Medical Mutual leave to file a second amended complaint adding new defendants and claims. After a jury trial on the remaining tortious interference count resulted in a verdict for Medical Mutual, the company appealed the dismissals and denial of amendment. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the civil liability and Corrupt Practices Act claims and abused its discretion in denying leave to amend to add the new defendants, and it remanded the case for further proceedings.
criminal lawtorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryhealthcare
Kinzel v. Ebner
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023-01-20 · cited 2×
In Kinzel v. Ebner, property owner Douglass Ebner challenged two Sandusky municipal ordinances that restricted short-term rentals of his beachfront homes, claiming they were invalidly enacted and unconstitutional after a neighbor sued him and the city brought enforcement actions. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's summary judgment ruling. It upheld Ordinance 12-107 as validly enacted and constitutional but found Ordinance 17-088 invalidly enacted, without addressing its constitutionality. The court also granted summary judgment to the city on Ebner's equal protection claim, reasoning that he was not similarly situated to other owners who ceased short-term rentals after receiving notices, since he continued the practice.
propertybusiness & regulatorycivil rights
State v. Morris
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023-01-20 · cited 1×
The case involved Lawrence Morris, Jr.'s appeal of his jury conviction for possession of cocaine, which stemmed from evidence seized during a 2019 search of a Toledo residence pursuant to a warrant. Morris challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the supporting affidavit lacked probable cause, along with claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper ex parte communication between the trial judge and jury. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. It held that the affidavit established probable cause through detailed information from three credible confidential sources—who had provided reliable tips leading to prior arrests—combined with police surveillance linking Morris to the address and ongoing drug activity. The court further found that any other alleged errors caused no prejudice to Morris and did not affect the outcome.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Grace
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023-01-20 · cited 5×
In State v. Grace, appellant Nickolas Grace filed a motion in Toledo Municipal Court to recover $21,456 in cash and two iPhones seized during a 2020 traffic stop after the city charged him with marijuana trafficking but later dismissed the case via nolle prosequi. The trial court denied the motion under R.C. 2981.11, concluding the funds had been transferred to federal authorities via a task force officer and that Grace's remedy lay in federal court. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the city violated R.C. 2981.14(B) by transferring property valued under $100,000 to federal agents without federal forfeiture proceedings, retained provisional title and a duty to safely keep the funds, and therefore must return them to Grace at the earliest possible time since no forfeiture action occurred.
criminal lawpropertyprocedure
State v. Horn
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023-01-18 · cited 2×
In State v. Horn, defendant Michael Horn appealed his resentencing in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas to three consecutive sentences of 10 years to life for rape convictions with sexually violent predator specifications involving his stepdaughter and niece. Following a Supreme Court of Ohio reversal of one conviction (on grounds that a familial relationship does not qualify as a mental or physical condition under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c)), the trial court resentenced Horn on the remaining counts, including one that had previously merged. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the undisturbed guilty verdicts permitted resentencing on all three counts without error and that the trial court properly exercised its authority on remand. A dissent argued that the trial court should have first conducted a double jeopardy analysis regarding the allied offenses before imposing sentence on the previously merged count.
criminal law
Smith v. Anderson
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2023-01-13 · cited 2×
In Smith v. Anderson, plaintiff Ryan Smith appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for sanctions against defendant David Andersen and his counsel in an auto-accident personal-injury case. Smith alleged frivolous conduct and violations of Civ.R. 11 through repeated false service certifications on eight filings, a "sham" answer that contested liability without adequate investigation, and improper assertions of attorney-client and work-product privilege to withhold an insurance file. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the record showed no intentional misconduct or prejudice from any service errors, the answer was appropriate at the early stage of proceedings, and the discovery objections were reasonable. The court further noted that the trial judge was already familiar with the issues and was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.
proceduretorts & liability