Appellate Decisions for Medina County for December of 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released six decisions for appeals from Medina County courts during December of 2013. My summaries of these decisions appear below:

Dillard v. Automation Tool & Die, Inc., 2013-Ohio-5645, released on 12/23/2013. This decision held that a denial by a trial court of a motion to dismiss under Civ. R. 41 (A) (2) is not a final appellable order. Since the trial judge's order denying the motion could not be appealed, the appellate court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. 

State v. Cooper, 2013-Ohio-5489, released on 12/16/2013, held that the Wadsworth Municipal Court properly denied a defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The defendant argued that motion should be granted on the basis of R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b). That section of the O.R.C. allows a police officer to testify as to the results of a field sobriety test if the trial court makes certain findings. The burden of proof set forth in that section is clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion to suppress. 

Bonk v. Mitchell, 2013-Ohio-5487, released on 12/16/2013, held 2-1 that an appeal filed from a decision of the Medina Municipal Court was untimely and therefore the appeal should be dismissed. Judge Belfance dissented. The appellant did not file a response brief to the appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal. The dissent contains an interesting discussion regarding a trial court's duty under Civ. R. 58 and the effect that a failure to comply with that rule can have on the time to file an appeal. 

Drogell v. Westfield Group, 2013-Ohio-5262, released on 12/2/2013, upheld a decision of the Medina County Common Pleas Court granting a motion for summary judgment filed by Westfield. Mr. Drogell set forth two causes of action in his complaint. One was for age discrimination and the other was for disability discrimination. The trial court had awarded summary judgment on both causes of action. The decision contains an interesting discussion regarding whether a trial court has to consider a deposition that does not comply with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. The majority held that it does not. In her dissent, however, Judge Carr maintained that the trial court should consider such a deposition unless there is an objection to the deposition being considered. 

There were two other decisions from Medina County that were released but I did not summarize them because I couldn't open them. The decisions are State v. Dukles and State v. Shank. If I can open the decisions at a later date this blog post will be updated.