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
State v. Mills
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-22
This case involves Dustin L. Mills's appeal of his convictions in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas for one count of attempted murder and two counts of felonious assault arising from the September 2024 stabbing of his acquaintance Tommy Aldridge outside Mills's home. A jury found Mills guilty after a four-day trial featuring testimony from Aldridge and other witnesses, and the trial court sentenced him to an indefinite prison term of nine to thirteen and one-half years after merging the offenses. Mills raised four assignments of error on appeal, beginning with a claim that the trial judge improperly interjected during voir dire by commenting on the missing knife and the existence of stab wounds as evidence. Applying the standard from State v. McAlpin and State v. Wade for evaluating judicial remarks, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Robinson
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-15
In State v. Robinson, the defendant appealed his jury convictions in Butler County for aggravated murder (with a death penalty specification), two counts of aggravated arson, and two counts of felonious assault, along with his sentence of life imprisonment without parole plus an additional eight-to-twelve-year term. The charges arose from allegations that Robinson attacked his father’s girlfriend in her bedroom by striking her with brass knuckles and setting her on fire with accelerants, causing fatal burns. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, overruling Robinson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper sentencing notifications. The court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek dismissal on speedy-trial grounds because Robinson had executed two unlimited written waivers that he never rescinded, rendering any such motion futile, and that decisions about cross-examination fell within trial strategy. It also found that the trial court had properly delivered all required Reagan Tokes notifications at sentencing.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Jones
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-08
In State v. Jones, Clarence Jones was convicted by a jury in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas on two counts of gross sexual imposition involving his eight-year-old daughter, based on allegations of sexual contact that occurred in the family home in fall 2024; he was acquitted on separate rape charges. The Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio affirmed the GSI convictions, ruling they were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reasoned that the child's detailed forensic interview statements describing the incidents were sufficient to support the verdicts, even without direct DNA linkage or physical evidence of abuse, and that those statements were bolstered by corroborating details such as the defendant's phone history of viewing related pornography and seminal fluid found on the child's comforter. The court added that any inconsistencies in the child's statements about unrelated topics, such as her pet hamsters, did not undermine the credibility of her account of the abuse for purposes of manifest-weight review.
criminal lawprocedure
In re M.S.M.B.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-08
The case concerned a Butler County juvenile court adjudication of M.S.M.B. ("Mary"), born in 2012, as a dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(C) after her non-relative temporary custodian could no longer provide care due to a failed home study, leaving her without any approved placement. The Butler County Department of Job and Family Services had filed a dependency complaint in June 2025, citing the lack of suitable caregivers, Mother's unstable housing and substance abuse history, and reports of prior trauma from contact with Mother; the court suspended Mother's visitation and, following an adjudicatory hearing with testimony from a caseworker, found Mary dependent. Mother objected and appealed, arguing insufficient clear and convincing evidence of unmet needs or adverse conditions. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record showed overwhelming evidence Mary faced immediate homelessness and lacked any adult able to meet her basic needs at the time of intervention, satisfying the statutory standard focused on the child's condition or environment.
family law
Gabel v. RMH Franchise Corp.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-01
Mia Gabel sued RMH Franchise Corporation, doing business as Applebee's, for premises liability after slipping and falling on a floor at its Batavia, Ohio restaurant in 2021, and she also sought declaratory relief against the Ohio Department of Medicaid regarding any subrogation interest. In the first action, the trial court granted RMH summary judgment on the premises liability claim, finding no evidence of a hazardous condition or notice; Gabel then filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, but later refiled identical claims against the same parties. The trial court dismissed the refiled case on res judicata grounds, and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the first summary judgment was a final, appealable order because it resolved the main claim and rendered the subrogation claim moot, making the later dismissal a nullity that did not erase the judgment. Because the second suit involved the same parties and arose from the same occurrence, claim preclusion barred relitigation.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Petrey v. Davis
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-04
William D. Petrey sued his former attorney, Michael J. Davis, in small claims court for breach of contract and legal malpractice, alleging Davis failed to file briefs, abandoned an appeal, and otherwise mishandled representation in a civil stalking protection order case. The Mason Municipal Court dismissed the entire complaint after a magistrate found both claims barred by the one-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice under R.C. 2305.11(A), which began running no later than July 5, 2023, when Petrey retained new counsel. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the breach-of-contract claim was inseparable from the malpractice allegations and that Petrey knew or should have known of the alleged failures by the time he hired replacement counsel. The court rejected Petrey’s arguments that the claims should be analyzed separately or that the limitations period had not expired.
proceduretorts & liability