The Eleventh District affirmed summary judgment for PetSmart after a cat died during a routine nail trimming, holding that the owners failed to present evidence of a wrongful act or negligence that caused the death and that emotional distress claims are barred for loss of personal property under Ohio law.
The Eleventh District reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial court violated the defendant’s right of allocution by repeatedly interrupting her personal statement and preventing her from reading it herself, particularly where the court then penalized her perceived lack of remorse.
The Ninth District affirmed a $3 million cognovit judgment, holding that Civ.R. 60(B) relief from judgment was unavailable where the original judgment was not yet final due to unresolved attorney fees, and that Civ.R. 54(B) reconsideration was properly denied.
The Ninth District reversed in part a partition case, holding that the trial court erred in scheduling a bench trial when a valid jury demand had been filed, while affirming the denial of multiple continuance requests and the denial of leave to amend the complaint.
The Ninth District affirmed sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 against homebuyers and their attorney for filing a frivolous motion to vacate an arbitration award using a ‘manifest disregard of the law’ standard that Ohio no longer recognizes.
The Ninth District affirmed the removal of an ancillary estate administrator who had a conflict of interest, holding that his failure to file objections to the magistrate’s decision under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv) forfeited all appellate arguments except plain error, which he did not argue.
The Twelfth District reversed a murder sentence that included ‘lifetime parole supervision,’ holding that no Ohio statute authorizes a trial court to impose such a condition and clarifying the distinction between imposing parole terms and notifying defendants of parole eligibility.
The Twelfth District reversed summary judgment in favor of a roofing contractor on homeowners’ breach of contract claim, finding genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the work was performed in an unworkmanlike manner.
The Twelfth District reversed the trial court’s denial of a noncitizen defendant’s motion to withdraw his no-contest plea, holding that the court was required to apply the Strickland two-prong test when the motion was premised on counsel’s failure to advise of immigration consequences under Padilla v. Kentucky.