Volume 167 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Fraud - Economic Loss Doctrine - Punitive Damages

Cleveland Codified Ordinances 171.57 collective bargaining R.C. 5923.05/military leave pay USERRA home-rule analysis self-government res judicata. The trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. Appellee's Cleveland Codified Ordinances 171.57 does not operate as an exercise of military power but rather to provide benefits to its employees while on military leave appellant failed to show that under USERRA he was denied a benefit he was entitled to appellant provided no case evidence to support his claim that R.C. 5923.05 was enacted by the General Assembly the trial court's home-rule analysis was proper - the Cleveland Codified Ordinances 171.57 is an exercise of local self-government and appellant's attempt to relitigate claims previously litigated in federal court are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Because petitioner was subject to five-year mandatory postrelease control under his sentences originally imposed, which became res judicata, later nunc pro tunc orders specifying that nature and duration of postrelease control were redundant and petitioner has failed to establish a clear legal right to mandamus. Writ denied.

APPELLATE REVIEW – appeal dismissed lack of jurisdiction preliminary injunction provisional remedy "ancillary to" judgments or final orders on the merits notice R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) notice of voluntary dismissal App.R. 28 mootness doctrine advisory.

CRIMINAL - speeding radar operator of radar qualifications sufficiency of the evidence "using" radar visual observation of speeding motion to suppress

POSTCONVICTION RELIEF - CONSTITUTIONAL - Eighth Amendment "cruel and unusual punishments" death penalty intellectual disability Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) State v. Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303 (2002) is outdated State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 (2019) IQ score rebuttable presumption no longer valid standard error of measurement Flynn Effect courts must be informed by medical community's diagnostic framework teaching expert expert witness abuse of discretion adaptive behavior deficits.

The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress upon finding the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied where there was no reason for anyone involved in the search of appellant's residence to believe appellant's three-year community control term had been rendered "void" at the time his probation officer conducted the search, as there would be no deterrent effect on future Fourth Amendment violations by suppressing the resulting evidence obtained during the search.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS HARASSMENT – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY: Defendant's conviction on one count of telecommunications harassment was not supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence did not establish that defendant's specific purpose in making the telecommunication was to threaten another.

Arbitration summary judgment standing judicial estoppel compel jurisdiction contract scope of arbitration claim petition. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The trial court exceeded the scope of the discretion afforded to it under R.C. 2711.03 by looking through the petition to compel arbitration to prematurely review the procedural or factual deficiencies of the petitioner's potential claims.

R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) requires that if an inmate who files a civil action or appeal against a government entity of employee seeks a waiver of the prepayment of the full filing fees assessed by the court, the inmate shall file with the complaint a statement setting forth the balance in the inmate account for the inmate for "each of the preceding six months," as certified by the institutional cashier. In construing R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), the court finds the term "month" to be ambiguous and reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. The court applies R.C. 1.45 to "each of the preceding six months" in R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) to compute "months" . Accordingly, the court declines to adopt the magistrate's recommendation to sua sponte dismiss relator's complaint for lack of compliance with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). The court does not adopt the magistrate's decision and remands this case to the magistrate to proceed with review of the case.

The trial court erred and abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction to two businesses involved in putting on youth sports leagues and tournaments where their claims alleging an order pertaining to contact sports issued by the Ohio Department of Health to combat the COVID-19 pandemic violated their equal protection and procedural due process rights did not have a strong likelihood of success on the merits given the historic principle first recognized by the United States Supreme Court over a century ago that the police power retained by the states empowers state officials to address pandemics such as COVID-19 largely without interference from the courts so long as the orders imposed by the states are not so arbitrary and oppressive so as to deny one's constitutional rights.