Volume 172 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress because the city failed to present evidence that it substantially complied with Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-04, the alcohol-testing regulation requiring the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath-testing instrument to use dry gas standards traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Motion for judgment on the pleadings Civ.R. 12(C) judgment as a matter of law de novo review statute of limitations defense jurisdiction e-filing timestamp correct docket cases should be decided on their merits. Appellant's complaint should have been deemed filed on the day his counsel completed all of the tasks necessary for the complaint to be accepted by the clerk's office for e-filing. The complaint was therefore timely filed, and it was error to grant judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellees based upon the statute of limitations.

statute of repose, wrongful death action, medical malpractice action

Criminal contempt R.C. 2929.25 direct and indirect contempt due process notice proof of guilt aggravated menacing jail credit personal bond. The trial court erred when it charged the defendant with criminal contempt for violating the terms of his community control sanctions because R.C. 2929.25 does not permit a trial court to do so. The trial court also erred when it found the defendant guilty of criminal contempt when it failed to give him adequate notice in one contempt case and lacked sufficient evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the other contempt case. Further, the trial court erred when it increased the defendant's sentence and added a community control sanction in his aggravated menacing case when he did not commit a new violation of his criminal control sanctions. Finally, the trial court erred when it miscalculated the defendant's jail credit because it failed to count the days that he remained in jail because he did not post a personal bond.

The trial court did not err in finding nearly all of appellant's claims against his former employer and its named employees (the employer defendants) barred by res judicata. A federal court previously dismissed appellant's identical or substantially similar claims against the same and/or similarly-situated defendants on the basis of judicial estoppel. That prior judgment precluded appellant from pursuing such claims in this state court action. The trial court correctly concluded that the claims against the employer defendants not barred by res judicata were barred by the judicial privilege doctrine. Also, the trial court did not err by dismissing appellant's claims against the employer's outside counsel. The claims were barred by either judicial privilege or res judicata. Finally, appellant's motion to disqualify outside counsel is moot. Judgments affirmed.

Judgment reversed where trial court based denial of summary judgment on expert opinion regarding meaning of statutorily defined equipment safety guard, with determination a matter of law for the trial court.