The Ninth District reversed the trial court’s modification of a spousal support termination date, holding that after a reversal and remand, the original pending motion need not be refiled, and the trial court cannot impose new procedural requirements that did not exist before the appeal.
The Ninth District upheld an Alford plea but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make any findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences.
The Ninth District reversed summary judgment for a property owner in a sidewalk fall case, holding that the open-and-obvious doctrine does not override negligence per se based on a municipal ordinance requiring sidewalk maintenance, and that the plaintiff’s statement about tripping was admissible as an excited utterance.
The Ninth District dismissed the State’s appeal of a trial court’s refusal to compel witness testimony, holding that R.C. 2945.44 requires full transactional immunity and that the State’s offer excluding murder was insufficient to compel testimony over a Fifth Amendment invocation.
The Ninth District affirmed a murder conviction, holding that the defendant forfeited jury instruction challenges by failing to object and that Ohio’s self-defense presumption under R.C. 2901.05(B)(2) was unavailable because the victim had a right to be in the residence.
The Ninth District reversed summary judgment for the City of Hudson, holding that a termination clause in an MOU requiring good-faith negotiation of a commercially reasonable termination may be an enforceable agreement to negotiate under Ohio law.
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.