Volume 197 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that defendant/appellant was not competent to stand trial. The defendant/appellant had sufficient knowledge of the particular facts and circumstances of his individual case and possessed sufficient competence to understandingly and wisely waive representation by counsel. The trial court did not err by retaining jurisdiction over defendant/appellant and committing him to Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare-Moritz. The trial court erred by imposing consecutive terms of involuntary commitment in violation of R.C. 2945.401(J)(1).

Relator's complaint for mandamus properly denied because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the Industrial Commission's findings. Writ of mandamus denied.

CIVIL - small claims rescission waiver of warranties "as is" R.C. 1302.29(C)

statutory 10% change test in R.C. 3119.79(A) sufficient for modification of child support even if prior order due to parties' agreement to deviate from worksheet amount.

Willful or wanton misconduct by officer would allow the city, as a political subdivision to be held liable under R.C. 2744.02(B)(1)(a). Wanton or reckless behavior by officer would allow officer to be held personally liable as an employee of a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b). Demonstrating either wantonness or recklessness is subject to a high standard. Although the determination of wantonness or recklessness is typically within the province of the jury, summary judgment is appropriate in instances where the individuals' conduct does not demonstrate a disposition to perversity. Where officer slowed substantially as he approached the intersection and had at minimum his emergency lights activated, there was no evidence that his conduct rose to the level of recklessness contemplated by the statute.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the township-appellee and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting appellants from using a structure on appellants' farm for weddings, receptions, graduation parties, or other celebratory events. The rationale for the decisions was that the use of the structure for such purposes violated the township's zoning code. On the facts of this case, the upper portion of the structure used for weddings, receptions, and other celebrations is subject to the township's zoning code and does not constitute agritourism under R.C. 901.80(A)(2). The injunction is neither too broad nor vague. Judgment affirmed.

The probate court did not err in finding that a ward did not have the capacity and understanding to enter into a marriage contract where the ward's actions over the past several years had not been consistent with such a capacity and understanding. Judgment affirmed.

Appellant's first three assignments of error are barred from review by res-judicata. Appellant was not entitled to counsel at purge hearing. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing contempt sentence. Judgment affirmed.