214 N.E.3d
Volume 214 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series
10 opinions
- 214 N.E.3d 23State v. Johnson (2023)
The trial court did not err by dismissing appellant's motion to suppress without first holding a hearing on the matter where appellant's suppression motion failed to state with particularity the grounds upon which the motion was based as required by Crim.R. 47.
- 214 N.E.3d 48Shannon Village Homeowners Assn. v. Miller (2023)
The trial court erred in finding that appellant had invoked the jurisdiction of the court and waived the defenses of insufficiency of service and lack of personal jurisdiction by filing an agreed consent entry extending her time to answer or by filing counterclaims, because the appellant raised and preserved the defenses in her answer. The trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint on those grounds. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part cause remanded.
- 214 N.E.3d 58Newton v. U.S. Bancorp Invest., Inc. (2023)
The trial court did not err in granting a motion to stay filed by the defendants-appellees, a broker-dealer/investment adviser and his employer, pending Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") arbitration of claims brought by appellants, a husband and wife seeking redress for the reduction in value of an annuity serviced by appellees. Appellants failed to show alleged tortious conduct removed their claims from the scope of the broad arbitration provision in the universal customer agreement the husband signed or that the trial court erred in staying the identical claims brought by the wife, a non-signatory to the operative agreements. Judgment affirmed.
- 214 N.E.3d 77Dietrich v. Core (2023)
contract – arbitration clause – motion to stay and compel arbitration – answer – responsive pleading – default judgment – sanctions – motion to dismiss
- 214 N.E.3d 601Mullinix v. Mullinix (2023)
The domestic relations court did not err in denying appellant's post-decree motions to dismiss and for summary judgment in a divorce proceeding. Appellant challenged the court's jurisdiction based on her assertion that appellee had not been a resident of the state of Ohio for at least six months immediately preceding the filing of his complaint for divorce as required by R.C. 3105.03, but appellant admitted in her answer appellee's allegation that he had been a resident of the state for the statutorily required time. Appellant and her counsel also signed an agreed entry which affirmed the necessary jurisdictional facts. Her admission of facts sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction precluded her post-judgment collateral attack.
- 214 N.E.3d 723McLemore v. Clinton Cty. Sheiff's Office (2023)
Plaintiff appeals dismissal of 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims. Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and struck the unsigned pleadings. Plaintiff failed to serve summons and process on any defendants. Defendants who had not waived a personal jurisdiction defense were properly dismissed. Court properly struck the pleadings for plaintiff's failure to sign, a violation of Civ.R. 11.
- 214 N.E.3d 742Eaton Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. KNG, Ltd. (2023)
annexation, R.C. 709.033, divided, segmented, maintenance
- 214 N.E.3d 1243Coldren v. Northview Shopping Plaza, L.L.C. (2023)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOCTRINE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES SLIP AND FALL. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees because there is no genuine issue of material fact that the defendants-appellees owed a duty to the plaintiffs-appellants. The curb was an open and obvious hazard and there are no attendant circumstances which would warrant an exception to the open and obvious doctrine.
- 214 N.E.3d 1271Hoffman v. Atlas Title Solutions, Ltd. (2023)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ESCROW FRAUD BREACH OF CONTRACT BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ECONOMIC LOSS RULE. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee as to plaintiff-appellant's breach-of-contract and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims.
- 214 N.E.3d 1284Darr v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio (2023)
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the medical Board's order revoking appellant's license to practice medicine was supported by reliable probative and substantial evidence as the record shows that the Board determined the weight and credibility of the conflicting evidence and expressly relied on the testimony of qualified experts who opined that appellant is unable to practice according to acceptable and prevailing standards of care by reason of a Mild Neurocognitive Disorder that adversely affects his cognitive skills. Judgment affirmed.