Volume 215 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Court of Claims judgment expressly overruling the appellant's objections to a magistrate's decision, adopting the magistrate's decision, and rendering judgment is a final appealable order under Civ.R. 52(D)(4)(d). Appellant's claim of defamation against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") was properly rejected by the Court of Claims where he failed to provide a transcript or affidavit to support his objections to a magistrate's decision in favor of ODRC and the magistrate's findings of fact, accepted as true, showed sufficient circumstantial evidence implicating appellant's involvement in a prison drug ring to support ODRC's qualified privilege defense and defeat appellant's attempt to establish actual malice. Judgment affirmed.

The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas erred in affirming an administrative appeal from an order of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, which assessed a $500 civil penalty against appellant Paul Gross for selling gravel in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 901:6-7-03(BB), because the record did not contain reliable, probative, or substantial evidence sufficient to support the department's finding. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions to reverse the department's $500 civil penalty.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anchor's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment without a hearing, denying Anchor's motion for leave to file an answer, denying Anchor's motion to strike the notice of satisfaction of judgment, and denying Whittier's motion to intervene and Anchor's motion for joinder.

failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, R.C. 2921.331, R.C. 2945.75(A)(2), verdict form, sufficiency, manifest weight, mistrial, ineffective assistance, App.R. 16(A)(7), App.R. 12(A)(1)(c)

DEFAMATION – DEFAMATION PER SE – FALSE STATEMENT – INNOCENT INTERPRETATION: Plaintiff's defamation per se claim fails where plaintiff effectively acknowledged that the complained of statement was not defamatory "by the very meaning of the words used." Where an email written by defendants had an innocent interpretation, it was not defamatory per se against the plaintiff. Defamation by implication is, more or less, a claim for defamation per quod, which plaintiff did not pursue.

Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services social worker sexual assault State v. Boston assignment of error Evid.R. 410 constitution due process Crim.R. 29 acquittal force manifest weight of evidence sufficiency prosecutorial misconduct abuse of discretion expert witness credibility factfinder investigation disposition admissibility of plea negotiations Frazier test subjective expectation reasonableness motion for acquittal R.C. 2907.02 sexual conduct force State v. Dye position of authority. Defendant appealed his convictions for rape by force of a child under thirteen and gross sexual imposition, claiming five assignments of error. Argued that the trial court erred when it allowed testimony of the CCDCFS social worker concerning the disposition of their investigation. The appellate court finds no abuse of discretion in allowing the testimony since the social worker did not directly opine on M.B.'s credibility. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the jury to hear evidence of plea discussions, because the defendant did not have a subjective expectation that he was negotiating a plea during the jail calls. Sufficient evidence was presented as to each element of the crimes charged, including force, thus the Appellant's motion for acquittal was properly denied. The jury found the defendant guilty based on the evidence presented, including the victim's testimony, which described the abuse and her fear during the incidents. The court does not find that the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. As a result, the Appellant's conviction is upheld, and the judgment is affirmed.

Trial court judgment denying appellant's/cross-appellee's motion to vacate arbitration award and denying appellee's/cross-appellant's motion to modify or correct arbitration award is affirmed. Osowik.

Bad faith Breach of contract Abuse of discretion Award of attorney's fees Damages Expert testimony Judicial notice

Postconviction relief judicial bias presumption against judicial bias extrajudicial source doctrine abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the defendants' postconviction-relief petition. Evidence presented at the hearing showed that the trial judge's extrajudicial conversation with his wife about whether he would convict or acquit the defendants affected or appeared to affect the outcome of trial and the defendants' prison sentences.

The trial judge considered and relied on information of a type not enumerated in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(a), which it introduced without providing defendant an opportunity to respond, violating his right of allocution under Crim.R. 32(A)(1). These errors were not harmless. As such, defendant's sentence was contrary to law.