William Herman Wolff jr

This case involved a workplace injury to Patrick McCarthy, an employee of Kinder Morgan, who was struck and fell when the manway assembly separated from a pressurized railroad tank car during a liquid transfer. McCarthy and his family sued the railcar owner Sterling Chemicals, maintainer Rescar, and others for negligence, leading to a jury verdict in favor of Sterling and Rescar after directed verdicts for other defendants. The trial court later granted plaintiffs a new trial on grounds that jury instructions inadequately addressed the relationship between common-law duties and statutory or regulatory duties. On appeal, the court reversed that order, holding that the arguments in the second new-trial motion were waived because they were not raised in the first motion or were already resolved in prior appeals, leaving the trial court without authority to grant relief. The judgment was reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the defense verdict.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved David Rose's appeal from his conviction for felony non-support of dependents under R.C. 2919.21(B), stemming from his failure to pay court-ordered child support after losing his job in 2005. Rose argued that the trial court erred by excluding a transcript of a phone call with a child support agency caseworker as cumulative evidence, that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because he established the affirmative defense of inability to pay under R.C. 2919.21(D), and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by being unprepared. The court overruled all assignments of error and affirmed the conviction, finding the transcript duplicative of trial testimony, that Rose failed to prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and that counsel's performance met the standard for effective assistance with no prejudice shown.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

Ramon Yslas appealed the dismissal of his Civ. R. 60(B) motion claiming a violation of his speedy trial rights under R.C. 2945.71. The trial court treated the motion as an untimely petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 and dismissed it as barred by res judicata, since the claim could have been raised on direct appeal. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that any speedy trial violation would have been apparent from the trial record and that Yslas had executed a written waiver of his speedy trial rights on May 17, 2005, after his March 6 arrest, which extended the deadline beyond his October 28 plea and conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

Rory Walker was convicted by a jury of tampering with evidence and possession of cocaine. On appeal, he raised two assignments of error: first, that the jury venire violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair cross-section of the community due to inadequate minority representation, and second, that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring opening statements during voir dire, which prejudiced his ability to question potential jurors about biases. The court overruled the first claim because Walker's challenge to the array was untimely under Crim. R. 24(F), as it was raised only after examination of the prospective jurors, and the record showed the selection followed standard random protocol from registered voters. The court overruled the second claim under plain error review, finding no objection at trial and no showing that the procedure clearly affected the outcome or amounted to an abuse of discretion. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over the Jean Barger Rice revocable trust, which included specific charitable bequests for the care of abused and neglected animals funded by income from a 421-acre farm and other assets, along with provisions allowing the trustee to retain and reinvest surplus income. The trustee sought a declaratory judgment permitting distribution of growing undesignated income to additional charities beyond the trust's enumerated beneficiaries. The trial court granted the trustee discretion to make such distributions, effectively reforming the trust's application, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the trust instrument granted the trustee broad powers to manage and dispose of undesignated assets in a prudent manner, and the settlor's specific charitable purposes did not control surplus income outside the designated small trusts.

property

The case involved Miami County Prosecutor Gary Nasal's effort to enforce Ohio's sex offender residency restriction statute, R.C. 2950.031, against Edward Burge, who was convicted of a qualifying offense in 2000 but began living within 1,000 feet of a school in 2006 after the law's enactment. The trial court dismissed the complaint for injunctive relief, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court held that the statute does not apply to Burge because the Ohio Supreme Court in Hyle v. Porter determined it was not expressly made retrospective, and the subsequent ruling in State ex rel. White v. Billings extended that holding to bar enforcement even when the offender established residency after the effective date. The court further concluded that intervening Supreme Court decisions rendered moot any issues regarding the prior remand limited to an ex post facto analysis.

criminal law

The case involved Kristi Jo Jarnigan, who was indicted for tampering with evidence and possession of crack cocaine after Dayton police approached her parked car in a McDonald's lot. Jarnigan appealed the denial of her motion to suppress, claiming officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the investigative stop based on her location and actions before any show of authority. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that the stop was constitutional. The court reasoned that the totality of circumstances—including the high-drug-activity area, the out-of-county license plate, the car's secluded position, and Jarnigan's lap manipulations consistent with drug preparation—supported a reasonable, articulable suspicion under Terry standards.

criminal law

The case involved the City of Englewood seeking to appropriate Miami Valley Lighting’s street-lighting system through eminent domain under the Ohio Constitution, home-rule powers, and related statutes, in order to operate it as a municipal public utility after deciding not to renew its service contract. The trial court held that the city lacked authority to appropriate the system, and the appellate court affirmed. The court determined that street lighting does not constitute a public utility under the applicable provisions, so eminent domain powers for utilities did not apply, and further concluded that the lighting equipment was personal property rather than real-property fixtures based on contractual terms allowing removal and the company’s intent. As a result, the city could not proceed with the appropriation, and no necessity hearing was required.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The Scaccias sued Dayton Newspapers for defamation based on five 1998 articles concerning their receipt of over $500,000 in money and gifts from an elderly neighbor, Charles Hoffman. The trial court granted summary judgment to the newspaper after comparing the articles to the underlying probate court record involving Adult Protective Services, concluding the statements were substantially true, and the court of appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that truth is a complete defense to defamation claims under Ohio law and that the articles' factual assertions, including those in an opinion column, were objectively accurate or substantially true when measured against the probate proceedings. The court noted that John Scaccia was a public figure but did not reach the actual malice issue because the truth defense disposed of the claim. The trial court's decision not to consider the plaintiffs' expert affidavits was upheld as the probate record provided the controlling facts.

free speechtorts & liability

Shawn Taylor was convicted by a jury of two counts of kidnapping, one count of robbery, one count of murder, and one count of involuntary manslaughter arising from a 2006 group attack on a man during a drug-related dispute that led to the victim's death. On appeal, the court determined that the robbery conviction and the kidnapping conviction to facilitate the robbery should merge for sentencing because the victim's restraint was merely incidental to the robbery, rendering them allied offenses of similar import. In all other respects the convictions were affirmed, as the evidence supported the jury's findings on the remaining counts and the defective indictment did not create structural error under the circumstances.

criminal law

In this case, Tiffney S. appealed a Clark County Juvenile Court judgment terminating her parental rights to her two youngest children and granting permanent custody to the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services. The agency had become involved due to unsafe home conditions, leading to the children's removal, Tiffney's guilty plea to eight counts of child endangering, her eviction, unemployment, failure to complete mental health counseling or obtain suitable housing as required by the case plan, and evidence of domestic violence and inadequate medical care. The trial court found that the children could not be returned to either parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in their best interest, citing the children's bonding with a foster mother interested in adoption and recommendations from the caseworker and guardian ad litem. The appellate court affirmed, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the termination despite the parents' partial efforts and the availability of an extension period.

family lawcriminal law

Greg Allison sued Evenflo Company for breach of contract, claiming he was owed royalties on a high chair design based on his consulting services. After Allison failed to respond to discovery requests despite extensions, a motion to compel, and a court warning that noncompliance would lead to dismissal, the trial court granted Evenflo's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to provide discovery and prosecute. Allison appealed, arguing the sanction was too severe without evidence of bad faith or repeated abuses. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Allison's prolonged inaction could reasonably be viewed as negligent or dilatory, and he offered no explanation for ignoring the orders.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Melton, the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and accompanying firearm specifications after forcing entry into a victim's home, displaying a gun, and stealing property while the victim was present with her child. The trial court imposed concurrent four-year sentences on the main charges plus a consecutive three-year term on the merged firearm specifications. On appeal, Melton challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting the firearm specifications, arguing lack of proof that the gun was real or operable, and also contested the restitution order. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the victim's testimony about the gun's appearance, her fear, and the defendant's actions provided sufficient circumstantial evidence of operability under R.C. 2923.11 and precedent like State v. Thompkins, but reversed the restitution award due to the state's concession of error and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.

criminal lawguns

Monica Boyd was convicted of first-degree felony cocaine possession after pleading no contest and receiving a mandatory three-year sentence. She appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of her apartment, arguing that her consent to the search was not voluntary but resulted from implicit police coercion due to the officers' unannounced early-morning arrival in uniform. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court properly credited the officers' testimony that Boyd explicitly consented after being informed of the drug complaint investigation, with no threats made, and that the totality of circumstances showed the consent was voluntary rather than coerced.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a father's appeal from a juvenile court judgment granting permanent custody of his three children to the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services. The children had entered agency custody multiple times due to the father's unemployment and homelessness; after a case plan requiring employment, housing, parenting assessment, and visitation, the agency moved for permanent custody once the children had been in its temporary custody for over twelve months of a twenty-two-month period. The trial court terminated the father's parental rights, finding both that the twelve-month threshold was met and that the children could not be returned to the parents within a reasonable time because the parents had failed to remedy the removal conditions despite the agency's reasonable efforts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statutory requirements under R.C. § 2151.414 were satisfied by clear and convincing evidence and that the best-interest determination supported permanent custody to the agency.

family law

The case involved Shane Ramey, who was indicted for aggravated murder and related charges but was acquitted by the jury of those offenses while being convicted of having a weapon under disability. The trial court imposed the maximum five-year prison sentence, explaining that it did not credit Ramey's self-defense account and believed he had misled the jury about retrieving and using the gun. Ramey appealed, claiming the sentence violated his rights by punishing him for acquitted conduct. The appellate court affirmed, applying a two-step sentencing review and concluding that trial courts may consider facts related to acquitted charges if established by a preponderance of the evidence, with no abuse of discretion shown here.

criminal lawprocedure

Joseph Rieger sued the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts for defamation and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2265 after the clerk maintained a record of an expired civil protection order (CPO) from his former wife on its public website. The trial court dismissed the claims, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the clerk was entitled to judicial immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(1) for performing the judicial function of maintaining and publishing court records. It further found no violation of the federal statute, which prohibits public internet posting of protection orders only when it would reveal the identity or location of the protected party, noting that Rieger was not the protected party and had not alleged facts showing a violation.

torts & liabilityprocedurefamily law

In State v. Lewis, the defendant pled no contest to multiple counts of dogfighting and possession of criminal tools after police observed pit bulls and related items at his residence during a response to a prior drug raid, leading to a search of a van, his truck, and his home pursuant to a warrant. Lewis appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights through an unlawful detention, searches without valid consent, and use of the resulting evidence in the warrant affidavit. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Lewis lacked standing to challenge the search of the van owned by another person, that officers had reasonable suspicion justifying his detention based on visible signs of dogfighting activity, and that his consent to search his truck was voluntary and not the product of an unlawful seizure. The evidence from these encounters was therefore properly included in the warrant application for his home. The topics addressed include criminal law, procedure, and civil rights.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Robert Dodson, Jr., who pleaded guilty to one count of felonious assault with a firearm specification and a reduced charge of aggravated assault, resulting in a ten-year aggregate sentence plus restitution orders of $150,000 to one shooting victim and $1,919.14 to the other. Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief stating no meritorious appellate issues existed, and Dodson did not submit a pro se brief after being invited to do so. The court independently reviewed the record and found the sentence appropriate under precedent but determined that the $150,000 restitution exceeded the victim's documented economic losses from the presentence investigation report, modifying it to $114,700 based on specific medical expense figures while affirming the judgment as modified.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State of Ohio appealing a trial court's order suppressing cocaine evidence and a statement obtained after a traffic stop of defendant Brian Bartone. Officer Imwalle stopped Bartone's vehicle for failing to signal a turn at least 100 feet in advance under Dayton Ordinance 71.31, then used a drug-sniffing dog during the stop that alerted on the car, leading to the discovery of drugs. The trial court had found the stop unlawful because no other traffic was present, but the appellate court reversed, concluding that the ordinance creates an absolute duty to signal that is not conditioned on traffic conditions, as supported by interpretations of identical state law provisions in other appellate districts, and that Bartone was not under arrest until after the drugs were found.

criminal lawprocedure