Volume 211 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Defendant appeals burglary and failure to appear convictions. Evidence supported the burglary conviction. Defendant trespassed into open garage. Defendant acted stealthily by using ladder in garage to enter home's attic. State failed to submit sufficient evidence demonstrating that defendant knew or should have known about his upcoming court date.

savings statute, Civ.R. 12(B), retroactive, employment law uniformity act

Prohibition jurisdictional priority rule forcible entry and detainer action declaratory judgment claim for not surrendering possession. The court dismissed a prohibition action that argued the jurisdictional priority rule. A declaratory judgment claim that a tenant is not compelled to surrender possession did not divest a municipal court of jurisdiction to adjudicate a forcible entry and detainer action based on the authority of State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 705 N.E.2d 127 (1999).

pretrial detention Eighth Amendment R.C. 2937.222 clear and convincing evidence standard of review

Summary judgment Damages Interpretation of operating agreement

Crim.R. 16(L), admissibility of evidence, Evid.R. 609, manifest weight, cumulative error

Medical malpractice motion for a directed verdict Civ.R. 50 causation expert testimony reasonable degree of medical certainty Evid.R. 703 motion for new trial Civ.R. 59 admissibility of evidence Evid.R. 901 authentication of evidence R.C. 2317.422 misconduct of opposing counsel. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in granting a defendant-doctor's motion for a directed verdict where plaintiff-patient's expert failed to opine that the doctor's alleged negligence caused the patient any pain or suffering. The trial court also did not err in failing to grant plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on an irregularity of the proceeding or opposing counsel's misconduct.

Small claims medical malpractice derivative claim loss of consortium expenditures motion to dismiss Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standing affidavit of merit Civ.R. 10(D) common knowledge exception damages mental anguish attorney fees litigation costs litigation expenses collateral litigation dismissal with prejudice motion to reconsider. The plaintiff's small claims complaint alleged that the defendant doctor negligently used an online health management system to communicate with the plaintiff's spouse during the spouse's treatment. These communications allegedly caused the doctor's employer to remove the spouse as a patient, leaving her without needed medical care. The plaintiff alleged that he and his spouse filed other litigation to attempt to undo that care decision and had suffered mental anguish. We affirmed the municipal court's dismissal, with prejudice, of the plaintiff's malpractice claim against the doctor the plaintiff lacked standing to assert a malpractice claim where he was not the doctor's patient. After considering the concise, nontechnical nature of small claims complaints, we read the plaintiff's complaint to assert derivative medical claims for loss of consortium and expenditures. We found that it was error for the municipal court to dismiss those claims with prejudice for lack of standing and for being outside the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. But where the plaintiff did not file an affidavit of merit and waived any argument that Civ.R. 10(D) does not apply to small claims matters, we agreed that the complaint was deficient and remanded the matter with instructions for the municipal court to dismiss the derivative claims without prejudice for lack of an affidavit of merit. We affirmed the dismissal, with prejudice, of the plaintiff's prayer for damages attributable to legal expenses and attorney fees related to collateral litigation these were not cognizable compensatory damages for loss of consortium or expenditures under the facts of the case and were barred by the American rule. The plaintiff's motion to reconsider the municipal court's dismissal order was a nullity and was properly denied.

Common Law Dog Bite—Vicious Dog Standard—Spoliation of Evidence. Court of Claims did not err when it adopted the magistrate's decision as its own and entered judgment for the ODRC on appellant-inmate's claims of negligence under a common law dog bite theory and spoliation of evidence. Trial court's findings that appellant did not prove dog's prior viciousness (essential element of common law dog bite claim) and failed to show that ODRC willfully destroyed notes kept by the dog's inmate-handlers for purposes of disrupting appellant's case (essential element of spoliation claim) were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant abandoned her traditional negligence claim in the trial court and did not argue the trial court applied the wrong legal standard for that claim on appeal. Judgment affirmed.

CRIMINAL LAW – felonious assault second-degree felonies trial by jury Appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and by the manifest weight of the evidence R.C. 2953.08(G) consecutive sentence R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) the trial court made the statutory findings at the sentencing hearing but failed to additionally incorporate them in its sentencing entry the State concedes this clerical error affirmed in part, and remanded for the limited purpose of entering a nunc pro tunc entry addressing the consecutive sentence findings made at the sentencing hearing.

The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court did incorrectly conclude that the motion should be evaluated as a post-sentence motion to withdraw. However, the sentence was agreed-upon and the trial court stated during the plea hearing that it would apply the agreed sentence. In such situations, a motion to withdraw a plea should be considered under pre-sentence standards. No abuse of discretion occurred, however, because the trial court did apply nine factors that are traditionally applied to pre-sentence motions to withdraw. The court's decision to deny the motion was not unreasonable, as appellant lacked credibility and did not have a reasonable and legitimate reason for withdrawing his guilty plea. Further, in accepting the plea, the trial court did fail to completely comply with Crim.R.11(C)(2)(a)'s "maximum-penalty-advisement," because the court failed to discuss community notification and residency requirements for sex offenders during the plea hearing. Appellant failed to show any prejudice, however, as his testimony during the plea withdrawal hearings was inconsistent and lacked credibility. Judgment affirmed.

CIVIL- suggestion of death death of party abatement motion to vacate personal jurisdiction R.C. 2311.21 divorce domestic violence protection order R.C. 3113.31 issue adjudicated during lifetime of parties ex parte order Civ.R. 65.1(F)(2)

Trial court did not err in dismissal of R.C. 3111.01 time-barred complaint to establish a father-child relationship.

jurisdiction final appealable order R.C. 2505.02 Civ.R. 54(B) notice of voluntary dismissal Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) Civ.R. 41(C) App.R. 4(A)(2) App.R. 4(C)