Court Filings

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's grant of permanent custody of John to the Butler County Department of Jobs and Family Services. Mother appealed, arguing the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that her trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to place John with a relative. The court found Mother had abandoned John by failing to maintain contact for more than 90 days and previously lost custody of a sibling, facts that relieved the Agency of reunification obligations and supported a permanent-custody award. The court held Mother's subsequent rehabilitation was insufficient to overcome those statutory factors.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals dismissed Nicole Potts' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Potts had challenged a municipal-court order that adopted a magistrate's decision dismissing a landlord's forcible entry and detainer action against her. The magistrate dismissed the action without prejudice, finding Potts' purported "lifelong lease" defective and that the landlord's notice to vacate was defective. The appellate court held the municipal order was not a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 because the dismissal without prejudice left the parties in the same position as before the suit and did not affect Potts' substantial rights.

The Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court's September 16, 2025 sentence of five consecutive one-year prison terms (aggregate five years) after Matthias Merritt Lewis pleaded guilty to five counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor. Lewis challenged only his sentence, arguing the record did not support the statutory findings for consecutive terms and that the trial court improperly considered societal harms of child pornography. The appellate court found the record, including Lewis’s admissions about two years of viewing and trading images across multiple platforms and the graphic nature of the materials, supported consecutive sentences and that considering societal impact was authorized by statute.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Trumbull County Children Services Board’s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition as moot. The Board had asked the court to force the juvenile judge to comply with the appellate mandate in In re A.W. (which returned legal custody of A.W. to the maternal aunt) and to bar the judge’s ex parte order granting the father temporary custody. After a pretrial conference the parties represented that the aunt now has legal and physical custody in accordance with the mandate and the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying the record, so the appellate court found the requested relief obtained and dismissed the petition.

The appellate court affirmed Jennifer Hefner’s convictions and sentences from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. Hefner was convicted after a jury trial of complicity to aggravated burglary, complicity to kidnapping, burglary, and having weapons while under disability (several counts merged at sentencing). The court found the State presented sufficient evidence—including phone records, surveillance, witness testimony, and Hefner’s own statements—that she knowingly assisted or encouraged the home invasion and related assaults. The court also rejected challenges to the denial of Crim.R. 29 acquittal, weight-of-the-evidence claims, and an ineffective-assistance claim regarding joinder of two cases for trial.

The Court of Appeals reversed a Warren Municipal Court order that denied the State leave to dismiss an aggravated menacing charge against Christopher Glover. The municipal court refused dismissal despite the prosecutor’s detailed statement that the named victim (A.H.) did not see a gun and did not fear Glover, two on-scene officers could not corroborate aggravated menacing, and the defendant joined the dismissal request. The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by substituting a sufficiency-of-the-evidence inquiry for the narrow leave-of-court review required when a prosecutor seeks dismissal.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Albert DiTomaso’s appeal because the trial court’s judgment was not a final, appealable order. DiTomaso was tried and convicted on six of eight indictment counts, but two counts (one OVI count and an assured-clear-distance minor misdemeanor) were not resolved in the record and were not presented to the jury. Because unresolved "hanging" charges remain, the appellate court concluded it lacks jurisdiction to review the convictions and therefore dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Portage County Court of Common Pleas judgment for plaintiff Fred Molai against the Standing Rock Cemetery Board of Trustees. After a jury awarded Molai $10,000 for breach of contract and $90,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the trial court refused to instruct the jury on punitive damages and attorney fees based on R.C. 2744.05(A). The appellate court held Molai waived a facial constitutional challenge by not raising it below and found the statutory prohibition on punitive damages applicable to this public cemetery, so exclusion of that instruction was not an abuse of discretion.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Kirtland Country Club (KCC) in a suit by Sandy and Kevin Donovan challenging noise from KCC’s skeet shooting range. The Donovans alleged nuisance and negligence based on loud gunfire; KCC argued it was immune under R.C. 1533.85 because it substantially complied with the Division of Wildlife noise rules (Ohio Adm.Code 1501:31-29-03) and had a conditional use permit. The court held the statutory immunity and compliance with the administrative noise standard defeated the claims and found no genuine issue of negligence, so summary judgment for KCC was affirmed.

The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed Andrew Myers’ conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence of a listed controlled-substance metabolite. Myers was stopped for speeding early on the morning of December 30, 2023; police observed signs of impairment, conducted field sobriety tests, arrested him, and obtained a urine sample showing marijuana metabolite. Myers moved to suppress the field test results and the urine test results; the trial court denied suppression. On appeal the court found the officer had reasonable suspicion to expand the stop, the officer substantially complied with sobriety-test standards, and the lab substantially complied with Ohio health regulations, so the convictions and sentence were affirmed.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals reviewed Jeremy Long’s convictions for multiple sex offenses against minors following a jury trial in Crawford County. The court held that the trial judge improperly allowed the prosecutor to amend two rape counts just before trial in a way that changed the identity of the charged offenses, so those two convictions (Counts 1 and 3) were reversed. The court affirmed Long’s remaining convictions (one rape count, three rape counts as renumbered, and two gross-sexual-imposition counts) because the evidence was not so weak or inconsistent that the jury clearly lost its way. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Van Wert County Common Pleas Court. Ryan E. Houser pleaded no contest to murder (Count Two) under a plea agreement; other counts were dismissed. Houser had sought to withdraw his plea before sentencing and moved to suppress cloud-based cellphone data. The trial court denied his motion to withdraw and denied suppression; on appeal the court held the warrant was sufficiently particular and supported by a probable-cause nexus to the phone and associated cloud data, and alternatively police relied in good faith on the warrant. The appellate court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Henry County trial court's judgment in State v. Grond. Ashley Grond pleaded guilty to amended aggravated trafficking (a second-degree felony); the trial court sentenced her to 6–9 years, waived the statutory fine due to indigence, but imposed statutory court costs and stayed collection until 60 days after release. Grond argued the court erred by ordering costs without findings on her ability to pay or specifying which costs. The appellate court held the trial court complied with statutory duties: courts must impose costs and may—but are not required to—make ability-to-pay findings when denying waiver.

The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Auglaize County Municipal Court’s September 11, 2025 conviction of Abdullah M. Alqahtani for speeding. Alqahtani challenged admission of radar evidence, argued insufficient and against-the-weight evidence, and sought a continuance for additional discovery. The court held the trooper’s testimony and a radar certification provided adequate, case-specific proof of the device’s accuracy and operator qualifications, rejected claims of manifest-weight error, and found no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance because the State had provided the available discovery.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Logan County Common Pleas Court's dismissal of Jeremy L. Larrick’s appeal of a workers’ compensation denial. Larrick appealed the Industrial Commission’s refusal to allow him to participate in the state fund after the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation denied his claim. The trial court ordered a more definite statement and dismissed his R.C. 4123.512 complaint because he never identified specific medical conditions that had been presented to the Commission. The appeals court held a claimant must identify the specific conditions raised administratively to proceed in common pleas court.

The Ohio appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s July 3, 2025 order granting Allen County Children Services Board permanent custody of J.H., a child born in August 2023. The Agency originally removed J.H. at birth after the mother tested positive for multiple controlled substances and the child suffered withdrawal; J.H. remained in Agency care for over a year. The court found clear and convincing evidence that reunification was not likely within a reasonable time, that J.H. was bonded to his foster family, and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. The mother’s request for a short extension to obtain housing was denied as an abuse of discretion did not occur.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals granted the State's motion for reconsideration, vacated its earlier February 27, 2026 opinion, and affirmed the trial court's judgment revoking Jeffrey Heath's community control and imposing prison terms totaling 12–15 years. The court held that the trial court's September 2023 sentencing sufficiently notified Heath that prison terms (up to 20 years total across the counts) could be imposed upon violation of community control, and that the court properly reserved prison terms consistent with current R.C. 2929.19(B)(4). The court also held consecutive sentences were permissible under the circumstances because there was no existing prison term at the time the reserved terms were imposed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Stark County Probate Court’s finding that attorney Gerald B. Golub was in indirect civil contempt for failing to return $43,560 he paid himself in attorney fees from four related estates without prior probate-court approval. The appellate court held the contempt finding was proper because the May 15, 2024 order requiring return of the fees had been previously affirmed and disallowed for further review, and Golub made no effort to comply or seek court approval or other relief. The court concluded the probate judge did not abuse her discretion and that coercive remedies (periodic payments, execution) were appropriate.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Terry L. Bickerstaff’s conviction for third-degree felony assault arising from an incident in a Mansfield Correctional Institution segregation recreation cell. The jury found that Bickerstaff swung through the bars at a corrections officer, J.N., and the court held the State presented sufficient evidence that he attempted to cause physical harm and that the victim suffered at least minor physical injury. The court relied on statutory language that assault includes attempts and on the victim’s testimony and bodycam footage to conclude a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A Wayne County jury convicted Brodey I. Murbarger of first-degree murder for the death of Megan Nichols; the court sentenced him to a 50-year term with 3 years of mandatory supervised release. On appeal Murbarger argued the court erred by denying a change of venue and funding for a phone-survey expert, that he was entitled to a Miller/Harris-type hearing because he was a young adult at the time of the crime, and that multiple murder convictions violated the one-act, one-crime rule. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and most rulings, held the venue and expert denials were not an abuse of discretion, declined to grant a Miller-type remedy on direct appeal, but vacated two duplicate murder convictions and ordered the mittimus corrected.

The appellate court affirmed the Cook County circuit court’s dismissal of Neighbors Against a Marijuana Dispensary (NAMD)’s administrative-review complaint challenging the Chicago Zoning Board of Appeals’ grant of a special use permit to MariGrow to operate a cannabis dispensary. The court held NAMD lacked statutory standing because it failed to show any member owned property within 250 feet, had not entered an appearance and objected at the Board hearing, and the membership evidence NAMD sought to add was outside the administrative record. The court also found no due-process or equal-protection violation and upheld denial of NAMD’s untimely motion to amend.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division's denial without prejudice of R.G.C.'s second application to expunge her criminal record under New Jersey's "clean slate" law. The court held that although more than ten years had passed since her conviction, petitioner failed to prove her large unpaid restitution obligation was not "willful noncompliance." Because she offered no competent, credibly documented evidence of inability to pay (despite claiming deportation, illness, and poverty), the court found her post-release nonpayment was a deliberate choice and therefore denied expungement.

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded defendant Jose Gerardo Espiritu’s conviction for sexual offenses because the trial court failed to follow the process required by Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 during jury selection. Defense counsel objected when the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror who identified herself as a nurse. The trial court accepted the prosecutor’s stated reason (that the juror was a nurse) without determining whether that reason was a presumptively invalid ground under section 231.7(e)(10). Because the court did not make the required inquiry into presumptively invalid categories, the appellate court reversed and ordered a new trial.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an application to correct the record under Pa.R.A.P. 1926 and affirmed the Commonwealth Court's March 31, 2026 order concerning the nomination petition of Karl Morris as the Democratic candidate for the Third Congressional District. The matter was an appeal by Karl Morris from the Commonwealth Court decision; the Supreme Court reviewed the procedural request to alter the record and declined it, leaving the lower court's decision intact.

The City of Edinburg filed a petition for writ of mandamus claiming the trial court abused its discretion by freezing discovery deadlines. The city later moved to withdraw the petition because the parties reached an agreement about the disputed discovery, rendering the mandamus request moot. The court treated the withdrawal as a motion to dismiss, found the matter moot under controlling authority, and dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus.

The court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Anderson & Associates, PLLC seeking to overturn a trial court order of December 5, 2025 that redistributed an attorney fee award. The court explained mandamus requires showing both that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal, or that the order is void. The court concluded the relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, withdrew its prior order requesting responses from the real parties in interest, and denied the petition and emergency relief.

The First District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court’s final decree terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to four minor children. The parents argued lack of jurisdiction due to timing and challenged the sufficiency of evidence on reasonable efforts, predicate grounds, and best interest. The appellate court held the earlier trial commencement was not a sham, so jurisdiction was proper. The court found clear-and-convincing evidence that both parents engaged in conduct and allowed conditions that endangered the children (Family Code §161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E)) and that termination served the children’s best interests given parental substance abuse, violence, instability, probation violations, incarceration, and the children’s special needs.

The Court dismissed William Berry Waters III’s appeal because the notice of appeal was filed on his behalf by a non-lawyer and Waters failed to cure the deficiency by filing a signed amended notice after being notified. Texas law prohibits non-lawyers from representing others or preparing pleadings, and a notice of appeal filed in a representative capacity by a non-attorney is ineffective. The clerk repeatedly asked Waters to file a signed amended notice but he did not do so, so the court dismissed the appeal under its procedural rule allowing dismissal for failure to comply with rules or clerk notices.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals reversed the county court’s no-evidence summary judgment that had dismissed Samantha Lopez’s claim that she and Felix Lengyel were informally married. Lopez alleged an informal marriage based on an agreement to be married, living together, and holding themselves out as married. The appeals court found Lopez presented more than a minimal amount of evidence on (1) an agreement to be married (her deposition and hearing testimony that they agreed to represent themselves as married to permit travel to Canada) and (2) holding out (testimony that family, housekeepers, and others treated them as married and that they represented to the Canadian government they were married). The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The Court dismissed Practical Technology, Inc.'s interlocutory appeal because the notice of appeal and appellant's brief were signed only by a person who is not a licensed attorney. The same non-attorney had previously filed a mandamus petition in this Court and the Court had dismissed that petition for lack of an attorney appearance. The Court gave Practical Technology time to respond to the appellee's motion to dismiss and rejected a late-filed extension because it was submitted by the same non-attorney. Because no licensed attorney ever appeared and no cure was shown, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.