Volume 199 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Consumer Sales Practices Act statutory damages attorney fees actual damages contract absurd contingent. Trial court properly concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to damages under the Consumer Sales Practices Act when dealership repossessed a car where the parties' agreement was clearly contingent on the plaintiff obtaining financing to buy a car and plaintiff failed to obtain financing.

Sufficient manifest weight evidence enhancement alternative means unanimous verdict plain error reasonable doubt Reagan Tokes Law constitutional postrelease control new trial double jeopardy ineffective assistance prejudice deficient performance. Defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, however, the state failed to prove the furthermore clause attached to the domestic violence offense for the purposes of enhancing the conviction to a felony. The failure to ensure a unanimous verdict on the involuntary manslaughter offense was not plain error. The convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defense counsel was not ineffective for broadly challenging the evidence during his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. The trial court erred by failing to apply the amended version of R.C. 2967.28(B)(2) when imposing postrelease control. Under the prevailing jurisprudence, the Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional and does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine, or the defendant's right to a jury trial or due process law.

Trial court properly concluded that bank's third foreclosure complaint was not barred by res judicata under the Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) double-dismissal rule.

Defendant appeals the denial of post-conviction motion to vacate postrelease control sanction. Defendant's claim that court improperly imposed a judicial sanction for violation of postrelease control rendered sentence potentially voidable, not void. Defendant required to directly appeal allegedly voidable sentence. Res judicata precluded attempt to collaterally attack sentence.

Trial court did not err in granting application for involuntary administration of medication pursuant to R.C. 2945.38.

The Industrial Commission erred in its determination of Cogan's pre-injury visual baseline, and we grant a limited writ of mandamus remanding the matter to the commission to exercise the discretion afforded to it to determine the appropriate pre-injury visual baseline and use that updated pre-injury visual baseline to determine whether the medical evidence supports an award for loss of vision compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B).

The trial court did not err when it found that appellant's right to speedy trial had not been violated because of appellant's vacillating and dilatory conduct in repeatedly refusing to testify before a grand jury pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. The trial court also did not err when if found that the triple-count provision in R.C. 2945.71(E) did not apply to a period of time during which appellant was incarcerated on additional pending charges in another case. Judgment affirmed.

Probate court's decision to remove trustee for serious breach of trust is not an abuse of discretion where the trustee transferred property out of a trust, where she was a co-residual beneficiary with her sister, into a newly created trust naming herself as the sole residual beneficiary to the exclusion of her sister.

Summary judgment fraud negligent misrepresentation Civ.R. 9(B) Civ.R. 12(C). - Trial court properly granted summary judgment to appellees on appellant's fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims because appellant did not produce evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on either claim the trial court properly granted appellee's Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding appellant's fraud claim because appellant did not plead fraud with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B).

Noerr-Pennington Doctrine - Civ.R. 12(B)(6) - Abuse of Process

R.C. 4511.39 - Trial court did not err in denying appellant's Motion to Suppress where R.C. 4511.39(A) is clear in its requirement that motorists use a turn signal when turning or moving right or left on a highway and the record indicates that the trooper correctly determined that the defendant had a duty to signal a turn when making a right turn, after stopping at a stop sign at the intersection at issue.

2317.02(A)(1) attorney testimony court order Prof.Cond.R. 1.6. The trial court's order compelling appellant's former attorney to testify was error because the order did not sufficiently limit the compelled testimony to a conversation where the trial court previously ruled that the attorney-client privilege was waived by the client.

On appeal of trial court judgment convicting defendant of trafficking in persons, compelling prostitution, promoting prostitution, and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Defendant's convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. There are no errors regarding jurisdiction or venue, the testimony of a challenged witness is admissible and proper, and the court's jury instructions are not prejudicial to the defendant. Defendant's five assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore erred in reaching the merits. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the case. Judgment vacated cause remanded.

Evidence manifest weight ineffective assistance

Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo review res judicata interlocutory order/ruling Civ.R. 41 dismissal. The trial court properly granted the defendants' motion for judgment on pleadings on the ground of res judicata. In the original action, when the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of two defendants, that ended the case against those two defendants. Following the dismissal of the remaining claims, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants became a final, appealable order. The plaintiffs failed to appeal. The plaintiffs' refiled action against the same defendants as in the original action, for the same dispute, was barred under the doctrine of res judicata.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded. For each of plaintiff-appellee's proposed classes, the trial court erred by failing to conduct the rigorous analysis required to certify a class under Civ.R. 23.

gross sexual imposition bench trial written waiver of jury trial no acknowledgement by defendant in open court of waiver of jury trial strict compliance with R.C. 2945.05 required State v. Lomax, 114 Ohio St.3d 350, 2007-Ohio-4277, 872 N.E.2d 279

Sexual battery gross sexual imposition coercion sexual conduct sexual contact sufficient evidence manifest weight credibility nunc pro tunc Reagan Tokes constitutional contrary to law void voidable nullity. Defendant's convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The indefinite sentencing scheme enacted under the Reagan Tokes Law is not unconstitutional. The trial court complied with the requirements of the Reagan Tokes Law when imposing an indefinite sentence of the defendant's first-degree felony conviction. The trial court's attempt to correct a voidable sentencing error was improper and is a nullity.

EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Defendant's conviction for domestic violence was not supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence failed to establish that the victim was a family or household member because the definition of natural parent does not include a pregnant victim's unborn child however, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for minor-misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

MISDEMEANOR – RECORD SEALING – ABUSE OF DISCRETION The trial court committed an abuse of discretion in denying defendant's application to seal the record of her conviction where defendant clearly established that her interests in sealing the record outweighed the government's and the government offered no interests in maintaining the record as public.

The trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed a juror after deliberations had begun. There is no indication on the record that the juror was unable, unwilling, or unqualified to continue serving as a juror. Judgments reversed and remanded.

The State presented sufficient evidence of the lawful-arrest element of resisting arrest, and the jury's determination that the lawful-arrest element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

OVI – suppression – investigatory detention – probable cause to arrest – totality of the circumstances – blocking intersection – odor of alcohol – bloodshot eyes – slurred speech – inconsistent statements

Assumption of risks strike affidavits

Administrative appeal principal terminated from employment

The trial court did not err in reversing the Ohio Liquor Control Commission's order, finding that appellee violated Ohio Adm.Code 4301:1-1-52(B)(1) ("Rule 52"), because the order was not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence of inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another, the commission could not rely on R.C. 2917.11(A)(5) as the basis for a Rule 52 violation finding. Judgment affirmed.

summary judgment, attendant circumstances, affidavit

Aggravated burglary burglary domestic violence postrelease control merger Reagan Tokes Law plain error sufficient evidence manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court committed plain error by imposing five years of mandatory postrelease control when appellant was subject to postrelease control for a period of up to five years, but not less than two years. The trial court committed plain error by imposing a no-contact order, which is a community-control sanction, because it sentenced appellant to a prison term and not community-control sanctions. The trial court committed plain error by not merging the aggravated burglary and burglary convictions at sentencing because they were committed with the same animus. The trial court did not commit plain error by not merging the aggravated burglary and domestic violence convictions because they were separate acts. The trial court did not commit plain error by sentencing appellant under the Reagan Tokes Act. This court has upheld the Act's constitutionality in the en banc decision State v. Delvallie, 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.). Appellant's convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.