The Supreme Court of Ohio annual report - Supreme Court - State of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Hubbell v. Xenia Case nos. 2006-1528 and 2006-1589 Web cite 2007-Ohio-4839 When a trial court denies a motion in which a political subdivision or its employee seeks immunity under R.C. 2744, that order denies the benefit of alleged immunity and is therefore a final, appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2477.02(C). Greene App. No. 2005 CA 99, 167 Ohio App.3d 294, 2006-Ohio-3369. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent. In re Adams Case no. 2006-1695 Web cite 2007-Ohio-4840 A trial court order denying the motion of a children-services agency to modify temporary custody to permanent custody and continuing temporary custody is not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) or (2). Cuyahoga App. No. 87881. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger and Cupp, JJ., concur. State v. Frazier Case no. 2005-1316. Web cite 2007-Ohio-5048 Affirms the conviction and death sentence of James Frazier of Toledo for the aggravated murder of a disabled woman during the March 2004 robbery of her apartment. Lucas C.P. No CR04-1509. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger and Cupp, JJ., concur. Davis v. Davis Case no. 2006-1250 Web cite 2007-Ohio-5049 A high school that has been recognized by another state and accredited by non-Ohio entities need not also have been approved by the state of Ohio in order to be a “recognized and accredited” high school as contemplated by R.C. 3103.03(B). Geauga App. No. 2005-G-2646, 167 Ohio App.3d 319, 2006-Ohio-2393. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, Pietrykowski, O’Donnell and Cupp, JJ., concur. Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment only. Mark L. Pietrykowski, J., of the 6 th Appellate District, sitting for O’Connor, J. State v. Geeslin Case no. 2006-0882 Web cite 2007-Ohio-5239 Unless a defendant can show the state acted in bad faith, the state’s failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not violate a defendant’s due process rights. (Arizona v. Youngblood [1988], 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.E.2d 281, followed.) Mercer App. No. 10-05-06, 2006-Ohio-1261. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent. In re Special Docket No. 73958 Case no. 2006-1279 Web cite 2007-Ohio-5268 (1). A finding with respect to whether it is constitutional to retroactively apply the prima facie filing requirements of R.C. 2307.92 is a provisional remedy pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(A)(3). (2). When determining whether a finding on the constitutionality of retroactively applying the prima facie 106
equirements of R.C. 2307.92 is a final appealable order, R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) requires a court to consider (a) whether the trial court has determined the action and prevented a judgment in favor of the appealing party with respect to that finding and (b) whether that party is denied a meaningful or effective remedy upon appeal from a final judgment in the action. Cuyahoga App. Nos. 87777 and 87816. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only. State v. Muttart Case nos. 2006-1293 and 2006-1488 Web cite 2007-Ohio-5267 Regardless of whether a child less than 10 years old has been determined to be competent to testify pursuant to Evid.R. 601, the child’s statements may be admitted at trial as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Evid.R. 803(4) if they were made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Hancock App. No. 5-05-08, 2006-Ohio-2506. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Powell, and Whitmore, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only. Stephen W. Powell, J., of the 12 th Appellate District, sitting for Lanzinger, J. Beth Whitmore, J., of the 9 th Appellate District, sitting for Cupp, J. Manley v. Marsico Case No. 2006-1263 Slip Opinion No. 2007-Ohio-5543 A trial court’s order denying a motion to dismiss for the procedural pleading error of not filing an affidavit of merit contemporaneously with a complaint as required by Civ.R. 10(D)(2) does not arise from an ancillary proceeding, does not deny a provisional remedy pursuant to R. C. 2505.02(A)(3), and is not final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). Clinton App. No. CA2006-04-013. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Fisher v. Hasenjager Case nos. 2006-1815 and 2006-1853 Slip Opinion No. 2007-Ohio-5589 A modification of the designation of residential parent and legal custodian of a child requires a determination that a “change in circumstances” has occurred, as well as a finding that the modification is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a). Mercer App. No. 10-05-14, 168 Ohio App.3d 321, 2006-Ohio-4190. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Blackmon, JJ., concur. Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent. Patricia Ann Blackmon, J., of the 8 th Appellate District, sitting for Cupp, J. Sinnott v. Aqua-Chem, Inc. Case no. 2006-1604 Slip Opinion No. 2007-Ohio-5584 An order finding that a plaintiff in an asbestos action has made the prima facie showing required by R.C. 2307.92 is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4). Cuyahoga App. No. 88062. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent. 107
Page 1 and 2:
The Supreme Court of Ohio 2007 annu
Page 3:
The Supreme Court of Ohio 2007 Annu
Page 7:
A message from the Chief Justice De
Page 10 and 11:
Justices of the Supreme Court of Oh
Page 12 and 13:
Paul E. Pfeifer Justice 2007 Staff
Page 14 and 15:
Maureen O’Connor Justice 2007 Sta
Page 16 and 17:
Judith Ann Lanzinger Justice 2007 S
Page 19 and 20:
A Look Back 2007 Jan. 2 Robert R. C
Page 21 and 22:
June 28 More than 70 judges from ac
Page 23 and 24:
Nov. 30 An Ohio delegation, includi
Page 25 and 26:
For fiscal year 2009, $6.5 million
Page 27 and 28:
Sandra J. Anderson, chair of the bo
Page 29 and 30:
Counties of Off-Site Court Since th
Page 31 and 32:
A message from the administrative D
Page 33 and 34:
Supreme Court Administrative Operat
Page 35 and 36:
The Administrative Division is the
Page 37 and 38:
Court Veteran Promoted to New Leade
Page 39 and 40:
Visitor Education Center The Visito
Page 41 and 42:
The clerk of the Court is charged w
Page 43 and 44:
The Supreme Court of Ohio 2007 Case
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
The Legal Resources Division consis
Page 53 and 54:
Court Implements New System of Rele
Page 55 and 56:
The Attorney Services Division is r
Page 57 and 58:
OFFICE OF BAR ADMISSIONS The Office
Page 59 and 60:
Supreme Court staff assist newly sw
Page 61 and 62:
The Judicial & Court Services Divis
Page 63 and 64: Domestic Violence Program The Domes
Page 65 and 66: In 2007, the Judicial College staff
Page 67 and 68: joint effort by the Supreme Court a
Page 69 and 70: Specialized Dockets Section The Spe
Page 71 and 72: Hon. Patsy Thomas Franklin County M
Page 73 and 74: The Fiscal & Management Resources D
Page 75 and 76: The Supreme Court of Ohio 2007 Case
Page 77 and 78: Judiciary/Supreme Court Fiscal Year
Page 79 and 80: The Information Technology Division
Page 81 and 82: Planning Group is to facilitate the
Page 83 and 84: The Facilities Management Division
Page 85 and 86: OFFICE OF COURT SECURITY The Office
Page 87 and 88: The Supreme Court of Ohio has the c
Page 89 and 90: task force met four times during 20
Page 91 and 92: Criminal Sentencing Commission The
Page 93 and 94: Hon. Stephen W. Powell 12 th Distri
Page 95 and 96: JANUARY In re Estate of Holycross*
Page 97 and 98: case, including the time establishe
Page 99 and 100: during the child’s disability. (R
Page 101 and 102: in substantial compliance with test
Page 103 and 104: State v. Taylor Case no. 2006-0568
Page 105 and 106: JUNE Welling v. Weinfeld* Case no.
Page 107 and 108: on the pending charges does not sat
Page 109 and 110: Gliozzo v. Univ. Urologists of Clev
Page 111 and 112: In re Guardianship of Hollins Case
Page 113: enefits for a fast-food worker inju
Page 117 and 118: Vitantonio Inc. v. Baxter Case no.
Page 119 and 120: In Memoriam Coit H. Gilbert Former
Page 121: 65 South Front Street Columbus, Ohi
show all

The Supreme Court of Ohio annual report - Supreme Court - State of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?