Volume 252 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

violating a protection order R.C. 2919.27(A)(1) R.C. 2919.27(A)(2) R.C. 2919.26 ineffective assistance guilty plea knowing intelligent voluntary Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) nature of the charges consecutive sentences jail-time credit

The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee. Appellant's breach of contract and invasion of privacy claims failed as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed.

The Qualified Domestic Relations Order interpreted and clarified the ambiguous provision in the divorce decree dividing pension benefits in a manner that is consistent with the decree.

Per Mayle, J., appellant did not timely appeal trial court's Civ.R. 60(B) judgments, so appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. Appellant did not produce evidence of substantive probative value showing that appellee was not entitled to directed verdict under Civ.R. 50(A)(4). Trial court's disposition of appellant's motion for sanctions was not an abuse of discretion. Trial court's verdict in favor of remaining defendants was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

NEGLIGENCE/SLIP AND FALL – PROCEDURE/RULES – SERVICE OF PROCESS: The trial court erred by granting defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice on service of process and statute of limitations grounds where plaintiff served by certified mail a storefront of defendant where the plaintiff's slip and fall injury occurred and thus raised a presumption of proper service, where defendant failed to assert that the store was not one of defendant's usual places of business or that the service was otherwise ineffective against it, and where defendant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service.

Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment foreclosure objections to magistrate's decision meritorious defense. In foreclosure action, trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate's decision denying the plaintiff's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment and overruling defendant's objections to the magistrate's decision where the defendant failed to demonstrate she had a meritorious defense if the Civ.R. 60(B) motion was granted and that she was entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(5).

PROCEDURE/RULES – CIV.R. 12(C) – JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS – JUDICIAL NOTICE – IMMUNITY – R.C. 2744.03 – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: The trial court did not err when it struck video evidence defendant police officer had attached to his reply in support of his motion for judgment on the pleadings because the videos were not part of the pleadings further, the trial court properly declined defendant's invitation to take judicial notice of the video evidence where the contents of the videos were not "adjudicative facts" and thus, not an appropriate matter for which a court may take judicial notice. The trial court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings where plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the malice exception to government-employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), because plaintiff alleged his arrest and criminal charges by defendant police officer were racially motivated.

Duhart. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to appellee as appellants failed to produce any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding: 1) any intent to injure on the part of appellee and 2) the application of R.C. 2745.01(C) to appellants' case.

Trial court abused its discretion when it permitted an alleged rape victim to testify that she only reported the rape after she saw the defendant's name on a sex offender website. The risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the evidence's probative value and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

damage caps – punitive damages – actual malice

Trial court did not err in granting motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Complaint alleged claim for defamation based on statement contained in eviction filing, but statements made in a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged against a defamation action so long as they are reasonably related to the proceeding. Complaint generally referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act but failed to allege the facts necessary to state a claim under that law.

CIV.R. 56 — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — WRONGFUL DEATH — DUTY — CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE — LANDOWNER: In this wrongful-death action, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant property owner where, when considering either the rural or urban standard of care for a landowner with trees abutting a public highway, issues of material fact remained as to the condition of the tree that fell onto the roadway and caused the accident that ultimately led to the decedent's death. [See CONCURRENCE: The Supreme Court of Ohio should abandon the categorical urban-rural distinction holding urban landowners to a higher liability standard than rural landowners regarding tree-related hazards on their property that may affect passersby on roads abutting their property.] [But see DISSENT: Because Rumpke does not have a general duty to inspect the thousands of trees on its property, and Rumpke did not have actual or constructive notice of the defective condition of the particular tree prior to its fall onto decedent's vehicle, Rumpke cannot be held liable for the decedent's death as a matter of law.]

Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08; Contrary to Law; Presentence Investigation; Plain Error. A trial court's reliance on evidence from outside the record may violate a defendant's due process rights and render a sentence contrary to law. However, references to information from a co-defendant's case after the defendant's sentence has been imposed do not necessarily constitute plain error where the findings made in support of the defendant's sentence have an independent basis in the record or where the trial court does not rely on such information in fashioning a sentence. A presentence investigation report is confidential. A defendant does not have the right to access a co-defendant's PSI from another case. A trial court's reference to a co-defendant's PSI does not constitute plain error where the record contains no indication that the sentence imposed on the defendant was based on any information contained therein.

An adult court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a force specification in a defendant's indictment for rape even if the juvenile court does not explicitly find probable cause to support the specification in the bindover process, where the juvenile court found probable cause to support the alleged rape.

right to counsel – waiver – jail time – knowing – intelligent – voluntary – manifest weight of the evidence