FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, March 22, 2024
CAPTION: HUGHES V. SOUTHWEST OHIO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
APPEAL NO.: C-230225
TRIAL NO.: A-2101004
KEY WORDS: SUMMARY JUDGMENT – CIV.R. 56 – COMMON CARRIER – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE
SUMMARY: Where defendant, a common carrier, moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligence claim and satisfied its initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it breached the applicable duty of care by failing to exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of its passengers consistent with the practical operation of the system, and where plaintiff failed to meet her reciprocal burden of setting forth specific facts to show the existence of a triable issue of fact, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant.
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: EDDY V. FARMERS
APPEAL NO.: C-230298
TRIAL NO.: A-2202476
KEY WORDS: DISCOVERY – ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE – CIV.R. 26
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err when it ordered production of defendant insurer’s claims file up to the date of a benefits payment where plaintiffs insureds alleged that defendant unreasonably delayed the processing, handling, and payment of their benefits claim in bad faith.
The trial court did not err when it ordered the production of defendant insurer’s claims file without conducting an in-camera inspection for privileged attorney-client communications where defendant’s conclusory statements failed to establish the existence of privileged documents.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; ZAYAS and KINSLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: Carter v. Carter
APPEAL NO.: C-230322
TRIAL NO.: DR-2000986
KEY WORDS: Divorce – Marital Debt – Marital Property – R.C. 3105.171 – Spousal Support
SUMMARY: Husband did not need to object at the close of evidence to preserve an evidentiary objection made during the trial before a magistrate for review by the trial court.
The trial court did not err when it allocated a substantial portion of marital debt to wife as a sanction under R.C. 3105.171(E)(5) for failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders.
The trial court did not err in determining that a vehicle was not marital property when the uncontroverted evidence showed that, although the vehicle was titled in husband’s name, husband’s adult daughter had made all payments for the vehicle, the vehicle was intended for her exclusive use and benefit, and husband did not deposit the proceeds from an insurance payment after the vehicle was totaled in an accident.
The trial court abused its discretion when it entered an award of spousal support where the court did not explain its basis for deciding the amount and the duration of support.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to require husband to reimburse wife for life insurance premiums paid by wife during the pendency of the divorce where wife did not request relief from the court from continuing to make payments and it would be inequitable to require husband to bear the cost of the policy without notice.
The trial court erred when it set a deadline for wife to turn over to husband proof of payments for the couple’s child’s school expenses to the day after the court mailed the decree of divorce to the parties.
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
JUDGES: Opinion by Crouse, J.; Bergeron, P.J., and Winkler, J., concur.
CAPTION: STATE V. DOWDY
APPEAL NO: C-230324
TRIAL NO: C-23CRB-5952
KEY WORDS: CRIMINAL – SENTENCING – CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive misdemeanor sentences where each sentence was within the statutory range for first-degree misdemeanors, the total aggregate sentence was within the 18month threshold of R.C. 2929.41(B)(1), and the trial court considered appellant’s conduct, behavior, and rehabilitation in determining the sentences.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: JORDAN V. CITY OF CINCINNATI
APPEAL NO.: C-230430
TRIAL NO.: A-2302985
KEY WORDS: MOTION TO DISMISS — DEFAULT JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without holding oral argument or allowing plaintiff to present evidence as motions to dismiss are confined to the allegations in the complaint and plaintiff failed to request oral argument as required under the local rules.
The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment where defendant defended the action by filing a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; BERGERON and WINKLER, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. BARBER
APPEAL NO.: C-230473
TRIAL NO.: 23CRB-13844
KEY WORDS: ASSAULT — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: Where the trial court as the factfinder properly gave more weight to the victim’s testimony, after finding it more credible than defendant’s testimony, and where there was physical evidence of the assault, the trial court did not err in finding defendant guilty of assault.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.