Cites CTS Corp. v. Waldburger — Federal law pre-empts state-law statutes of limitations in certain tort actions involving personal injury or property damage arising from the release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminan
In State v. Pruitt, the defendant was charged with two third-degree felony counts of failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer after she led police on high-speed chases in two separate jurisdictions, driving recklessly and endangering others before abandoning her vehicle and fleeing on foot. Pursuant to a plea agreement she pleaded guilty to one count, and the trial court sentenced her to 36 months in prison after reviewing the presentence investigation report and applying the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Pruitt appealed, arguing that the court improperly treated the conduct as two separate offenses and relied on two prior no-billed failure-to-comply cases. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that any error in considering the no-billed cases was not plain error because the defendant did not object, the sentence was supported by her extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the offense, and appellate courts may not reweigh sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.
This case involved former high school band directors Gretchen Weaver and Shane Ellsworth suing parents Matthew and Shannon Deevers, Ginger and Jeffrey Maines, the Streetsboro City Schools Board of Education, and several school administrators. The suit alleged defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy arising from the parents' complaints about alleged hazing and harassment at a 2016 band camp, which prompted an investigation that led to the teachers' separation from the school. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants, and the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the parents' statements were protected by qualified privilege as reports to school officials about potential policy violations, the school defendants' actions in conducting the investigation did not constitute extreme or outrageous conduct, and no underlying unlawful act supported the conspiracy claim.
In State v. Barna, the defendant appealed from a municipal court's dismissal of criminal charges against him, which occurred on the state's motion at a preliminary hearing after the grand jury had indicted him on the same charges. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the municipal court's order was not a final appealable order subject to review. The court reasoned that appellate jurisdiction is limited to final orders under the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2953.02, and that a dismissal of charges on the state's motion before jeopardy attaches does not qualify as final under R.C. 2505.02(B) or any specific statute. It cited supporting precedent that such dismissals do not produce appealable orders.
Walter E. Reyes pleaded guilty in 2010 to rapes committed in 2006-2007 and was classified as a Tier III sex offender under Ohio's Adam Walsh Act (S.B. 10). Years later, he moved to vacate the classification as an unconstitutional retroactive law under the state constitution, citing the Williams decision, and sought reclassification under the prior Megan's Law. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that any classification error was voidable (not void) because the court had jurisdiction, that the motion was an untimely postconviction petition, and that res judicata barred the claim since it could have been raised on direct appeal.
In State v. Joyce, the defendant pled guilty to multiple felonies including attempted murder and aggravated robbery and was sentenced by the trial court to an aggregate indefinite prison term of 20 to 25.5 years under Ohio's Reagan Tokes Act. On appeal, he argued that the Act's indefinite sentencing provisions violate separation of powers, due process, and vagueness principles under the state and federal constitutions, seeking to have his sentence vacated. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the constitutional challenges were not ripe for review because it remains uncertain whether the defendant will be held beyond his minimum term. The court reasoned that such claims are premature at sentencing and should instead be raised later, if at all, through a habeas corpus petition once any extended detention occurs, consistent with its prior precedent on similar sentencing schemes.
The case concerned a dispute among the ten children of decedent Patricia R. White over the administration and final distribution of her inter vivos trust, which had been modified shortly before her 2013 death to alter successor trustees and allocate real property. Plaintiffs sued in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas (after voluntarily dismissing a prior probate-court action), alleging fraudulent conduct by some siblings regarding the modification and finances; the parties reached partial settlements in 2018, and the trial court later approved the final trust report and distribution while denying requests for attorney fees and vexatious-litigator sanctions. Defendant-appellant Patricia Ellen White challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, denial of a formal accounting, and other rulings. The Eleventh District affirmed, reasoning that probate courts have only concurrent jurisdiction over inter vivos trusts under R.C. 2101.24, the jurisdictional-priority rule did not apply because the earlier action had been dismissed under Civ.R. 41(A), and no statutory basis existed for a formal accounting.
.jpg?width=900)