Ninth District Opinions Released on July 22 and 24, 2013

Last week the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released 10 opinions for decisions from all four counties that comprise its jurisdiction. My summaries of the opinions are listed below:

Opinions Released on July 24, 2013

BAC Home Loan Serv. v. McFerren, 2013-Ohio-3228 was a decision reversing a Summit County Common Pleas Court decision that granted a foreclosure to Bank of America. The decision was based on the Ohio Supreme Court case of Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13, 2012-Ohio-5017. The Court of Appeals determined that Bank of America had not shown that it had standing to bring the foreclosure action. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. 

In the opinion the Ninth District makes clear that the Bank had to show that it had possession of the note when it filed the foreclosure action as opposed to just showing that the note had been assigned to the Bank prior to filing the foreclosure action. This analysis was based on Ninth District opinions released prior to the Schwartzwald decision. 

Hoyle v. DTJ Ents., Inc., 2013-Ohio-3223 was a decision reversing a summary judgment that was granted to the Cincinnati Insurance Company by the Summit County Common Pleas Court. The issue on appeal was whether the insurance company had an obligation to provide a defense to two defendants who were sued as a result of a workplace injury by an employee of one of the defendants. The insurance company argued that it did not have to provide such a defense because the policy in question did not provide coverage for "intentional acts." 

The Court of Appeals reversed on the reasoning that while acts with a deliberate intent to injured were excluded from coverage, the policy specifically provided coverage for the following: "...an “intentional act,” which it defines as one where the insured (1) knows of the existence of a dangerous condition within its business operation, (2) knows that if an employee is 
subjected to the dangerous condition, then harm to the employee will be a “substantial certainty,” and (3) requires “the ‘employee’ to continue to perform the dangerous task.” The appellate court could not conclude that an act which met the three conditions above would also be an act with a deliberate intent to injure. Therefore summary judgment was not appropriate and the trial court was reversed. 

Saxon Mtge. Servs., Inc. v. Whitely, 2013-Ohio-3221 was a decision affirming a denial of a motion to vacate a judgment by the Summit County Common Pleas Court. The reason why the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court was the proceeds of the foreclosure sale had been disbursed and therefore there was no controversy before the appellate court. The opinion contains a very interesting discussion on the doctrine of mootness at paragraphs numbers 6 through ten. 

State v. Ross, 2013-Ohio-3220  was a decision both affirming in part and reversing in part a criminal conviction by the Summit County Common Pleas Court. Ross set forth three assignments of error in his appeal.

The first assignment was that the trial court had not adequately informed him of the rights he was giving up by entering a plea of guilty. The appellate court reviewed the language used by the trial court and found that although the colloquy didn't quote the language of Crim. R. 11 verbatim, it was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of that Rule, especially considering that Ross also signed a written plea waiver form. 

The second assignment of error was that the trial court should have held a hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. At the change of plea hearing the State was recommending a six month prison sentence on both counts to run concurrently. The trial court expressed reservations about imposing the jointly recommended sentences. At the time of the sentence the trial court imposed two sentences of 11 months to run consecutively. (It should be noted that Ross failed to appear at the first scheduled sentencing hearing.) 

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have held a hearing since (1) the trial court had equivocated on following the recommendations of the State and (2) because Ross maintained he was not guilty of one of the offenses. 

State v. Johnson, 2013-Ohio-3218  affirmed Johnson's conviction by the Summit County Common Pleas Court on one count of cocaine trafficking. Johnson argued on appeal that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence and that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Both arguments were rejected by the Court of Appeals. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Byrd, 2013-Ohio-3217 affirmed a decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court granting a foreclosure to J.P. Morgan. The homeowners argued that the evidence offered by the Bank to obtain a summary judgment wasn't sufficient. In particular they argued that the bank officer who signed the affidavit wasn't identified in the interrogatories they had sent to the bank and that the officer didn't have personal knowledge of the matters attested to in his affidavit. Both arguments were rejected. 

Opinions Released on July 22, 2013


State v. New, 2013-Ohio-3193 reversed a decision by the Lorain County Common Pleas Court on an appeal filed by the State of Ohio. The trial court had found that the State had not justified a 35 year delay in bringing a murder charge against New for the death of a woman he was dating. The appeal involved the issue of pre-indictment delay and New's right to a speedy trial. On an appeal involving pre-indictment delay the appellate court defers to the trial court on issues of fact but reviews the case de novo on the application of the law to the facts. Under that standard the Court of Appeals found that the delay was justified, reversed the decision, and remanded for further proceedings. 

State v. Martinez, 2013-Ohio-3189 affirmed Martinez's conviction by the Wayne County Municipal Court for domestic violence. Martinez appealed arguing that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 

Kostyo v. Kaminski, 2013-Ohio-3188 affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court granting a summary judgment to Kaminski. The case involved the transfer of money from Mrs. Kostyo to an account controlled by her sister, Kaminski, and a mutual brother of the two women. When the brother died, Kaminski was the sole owner of the account. The litigation started when Kostyo was alive, but when she died, the litigation was continued by her son who was the estate administrator. 

Kostyo appealed arguing that the trial court should have denied Kaminski's motion for summary judgment and should have awarded him summary judgment instead. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Kostyo's motion for summary judgment. It reversed the trial court's finding that Kaminksi was entitled to summary judgment on the issues of unjust enrichment and conversion. The case was then remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. 

State v. Bellomy, 2013-Ohio-3187 affirmed Bellomy's conviction by the Medina County Common Pleas Court for violating a civil protection order, which is a fifth degree felony since Bellomy had been convicted of a previous violation. Bellomy appealed citing four assignments of error. He argued that the trial court erred by not giving a mistake of fact instruction; that it erred by not answering a jury request for a definition of negligence; that it erred by not granting a Crim. R. 29 motion; and that it erred by not granting Bellomy the proper jail time credit. 

The Court of Appeals found that Bellomy had not preserved the argument that there should have been a mistake of fact instruction because the record didn't contain a copy of his proposed instruction. It found that when his trial counsel agreed with the trial court's decision not to instruct on negligence he waived all but plain error with respect to that assignment and that plain error didn't apply. It found that the trial court properly overruled his Crim. R. 29 motion, and it found that his assignment regarding jail time credit was moot. 

Ninth District Opinions Released on July 15, 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released five opinions on July 15, 2013. My summaries of these decisions appear below. 

State v. Zupancic, 2013-Ohio-3072 was an appeal of Ms. Zupancic's conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. She listed one assignment of error. She argued that her counsel in the Wayne County Municipal Court case was ineffective. The appellate court affirmed her conviction. 

Ms. Zupancic argued that her counsel was ineffective because he didn't file a motion to suppress, didn't adequately prepare to argue about mitigation at her sentencing hearing, and didn't effectively advise her during plea negotiations. The Court of Appeals noted in its opinion that to sustain Ms. Zupancic's assignment of error would require it to engage in speculation and to rely on evidence outside of the record. The Court also noted that usually the matters raised by Ms. Zupancic's appeal are addressed in a petition for post-conviction relief. Such relief, however, does not lie for municipal court proceedings. 

Fannie Mae v. Trahey, 2013-Ohio-3071 was an appeal from a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court granting a foreclosure and judgement on a promissory note on a motion for summary judgement. Mr. Trahey opposed the motion arguing that there was a question of material fact regarding whether Fannie Mae had standing to bring the action for foreclosure. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. 

There were two assignments of error on appeal. One was that under the reasoning of Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13, 2012-Ohio-5017 Fannie Mae had to show that it had standing at the time that it filed the foreclosure action. The appellate court found that there was a material action of fact regarding this matter. The second assignment of error was rendered moot by the action on the first assignment and therefore wasn't addressed by the Court of Appeals. 

King v. King, 2013-Ohio-3070 was a decision affirming the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division denying a motion by Mr. King to remove a guardian ad litem. Applying an abuse of discretion standard on review the appellate court found that Mr. King had not shown that the guardian ad litem should be removed. 

State v. Hatfield, 2013-Ohio-3069 was an appeal by the from a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court dismissing the charge against Ms. Hatfield. The appeal was based on two grounds. 

The first was that only a county prosecuting attorney office may establish a pre-trial diversionary program and second the way the Lorain County Common Pleas Court had structured its diversionary program violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed noting that there have been other appeals filed raising similar assignments of error but the record on appeal does not contain the details of the Lorain County program. The Court of Appeals noted that without such information it could not rule on the assignments of error made by the State and therefore had to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the charge. 

State v. Edwards, 2013-Ohio-3068 was an appeal from a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court finding Mr. Edwards guilty of gross sexual imposition. Mr. Edwards listed several assignments of error. They included that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to show that he committed the offense, that the jury instructions were erroneous, and that the jury verdict forms didn't show the level of the offense or the presence of aggravating circumstances. The Court of Appeals overruled all the assignments of error and affirmed the conviction. 

Ninth District Opinions for Lorain County Released on June 28, 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released two decisions from Lorain County appeals on June 28, 2013.  My summaries of these decisions appear below. 

State v. Carlton, 2013-Ohio-2788 was a criminal appeal in which the trial court was affirmed. Mr. Carlton cited five assignments of error on appeal.

Mr. Carlton argued that the prosecutor's remarks during opening statement were a misstatement of the law and that even though his lawyer didn't object, the trial court committed plain error in not correcting the assistant prosecutor trying the case. 

He also argued that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that his motion under Crim. R. 28 should have been granted because the state failed to produce sufficient evidence in its case in chief. 

He argued that the trial court erred in allowing in other acts evidence and that the trial court erred in its instructions by not requiring unanimity in the jury's verdicts. That assignment of error relied on an argument that the State had charged him with "multiple acts" while the State argued that it had charged him with "alternative means" of committing the crimes. The Court agreed with the State that the correct analysis was an "alternative means" analysis and not a "multiple acts" analysis. Judge Hensal's decision contains case citations from the Ohio Supreme Court on the "alternative means" versus "multiple acts" analysis and what each analysis requires. 

Altercare, Inc. v. Clark, 2013-Ohio-2785 is a case in which both Altercare, inc. and its former employee, Clark, filed appeals from a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court regarding the issue of spoliation of evidence. 

Altercare had sued Clark for various causes of action related to her employment as its CEO and Clark had counterclaimed. Before litigation Clark's attorney had sent a letter to Altercare regarding a computer that Clark had used during her employment. Clark's attorney wanted the computer preserved or a mirror image made of its hard drive. During discovery it became apparent that Altercare had not preserved the computer's hard drive or made a mirror image of the hard drive. 

The trial court sanctioned Altercare for this spoliation of evidence by dismissing all of its counts against Clark. It did not, however, grant Clark's request for judgment on her counterclaim. Altercare appealed and Clark cross-appealed. Clark, however, failed to submit a merit brief in support of her cross-appeal, so it was dismissed. The Court then affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the dismissal of the Altercare complaint. 

Judge Whitmore's opinion refers to the provision of Civ. R. 37 which concerns the preservation of electronically stored information, (ESI), and the factors that a trial court should consider when deciding to sanction a party for non-compliance. 

Ninth District Opinions Released on June 24, 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released three opinions on June 24, 2013. Two were from Medina County and one was from Lorain County. 

The case from the Lorain County Common Pleas Court  was State v. Malone, 2013-Ohio-2605, a criminal case in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. Mr. Malone cited two assignments of error. The first was that the trial court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea. The second was that his counsel was ineffective in not advising him of the strength of the State's case and in not conducting a proper pre-trial investigation. The Court overruled both assignments of error. Judge Carr concurred in the judgment of the Court only since she would have affirmed on the basis of res judicata. She wrote in her concurring opinion that Mr. Malone could have raised these issues on a direct appeal and that since he didn't, he couldn't raise them on this appeal from the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. 

The two Medina County cases were both criminal cases out of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. In one case the appellate court affirmed the trial court and in the other case the court reversed and remanded. 

The case in which the trial court was affirmed was State v. Sebestyen, 2013-Ohio-2606. Mr. Sebestyen appealed from the trial court's decision overruling his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision under the doctrine of res judicata. The Court noted that Mr. Sebestyen could have raised the issues on a direct appeal. The Court further noted that the fact that Mr. Sebestyen didn't file a direct appeal doesn't stop the doctrine from being applied to his appeal from the decision regarding his motion to withdraw his plea. 

The case in which the trial court was overruled was State v. Labriola, 2013-Ohio-2604. Labriola was convicted after a jury trial of complicity to commit arson. Mr. Labriola raised two assignments of error. The first was that his conviction was not based on sufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. The second assignment of error was that the assistant prosecutor's comments during closing argument were an impermissible comments on Labriola's credibility and the credibility of other witnesses. The Court of Appeals accepted this assignment of error and reversed his conviction. The case was remanded back to the Common Pleas Court for a new trial. 

Ninth District Opinions Released on June 10, 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released eight opinions on June 10, 2013. Below are short summaries of the opinions. 

Vestige, Ltd. v. Mills, 2013-Ohio-2379 reversed a decision of the Medina County Common Pleas Court granting a directed verdict to the plaintiff on the defendant's counterclaim. The defendant had retained the plaintiff to perform a forensic examination of the computer belonging to the client of the defendant. The client was charged with possessing pornography involving minors on this computer. The plaintiff is a firm that offers computer forensic services. The defendant's client got convicted. The defendant believed that the plaintiff had breached its contract with the defendant by not providing its services in a competent and professional manner. 

During the presentation of the counterclaim the defendant did not call an expert witness. This led to the trial court granting the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict. The appellate court reversed the trial court on the grounds that the allegations being made by the defendant could be understood by a lay jury and no expert witness was needed. 

Stanfield v. United States Steel Corp., 2013-Ohio-2378 reversed a decision from the Lorain County Common Pleas Court granting a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant. The case involved whether the plaintiff was discharged for filing a workers' compensation claim. The Court of Appeals found that there were issues of material fact about whether the firing of the plaintiff was in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation and whether the employer's conduct was extreme and outrageous. The appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 

Rodriguez v. S. Star Corp., 2013-Ohio-2377 affirmed a decision of the Medina County Common Pleas Court overruling a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission that denied unemployment benefits to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant who was assigned to work with a crew chief that had repeatedly used racial slurs around the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked to be reassigned to other crews, but the supervisor refused even though he had honored such requests in the past. The plaintiff then quit. The UCRC found that he had quit without just cause. The trial court reversed that decision and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. 

State v. Smetana, 2013-Ohio-2376 affirmed a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas court that convicted the defendant of one count of sexual battery and one count of sexual imposition. The defendant appealed arguing that the trial judge had been biased against him, that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence, and that it was also against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals rejected all three assignments of error. 

State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-2375 reversed a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court that suppressed evidence seized as the result of a traffic stop. The trial court held that the officer did not have probable cause to make a warrantless search of the trunk of the defendant's car following the stop. The State argued that the search was justified on the basis of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The Ohio Highway Patrol trooper who stopped the vehicle smelled an odor of marijuana. He found marijuana "shake" in the passenger compartment of the car, but believed that the shake was not the source of the odor. He searched the trunk and found more drugs, including marijuana and heroin. By a 2 to 1 vote the Court of Appeals upheld the search. The decision contains an interesting dissent by Judge Belfance in which she reviews the history of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. 

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Horn, 2013-Ohio-2374 reversed of decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court that granted a summary judgment to Wells Fargo in a foreclosure action. The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the case without prejudice. The dismissal order was based on the recent Ohio Supreme Court case of Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 Ohio St.3d 13, 2012-Ohio-5017, ¶ 40.

Committe v. Rudolchick, 2013-Ohio-2373 reversed a decision granting a motion for summary judgment to a defendant in a negligent entrustment lawsuit. The Court of Appeals reversed because the documents cited in support of the motion were not evidentiary material required by Civ. R. 56. The Court pointed out that in the Ninth District a trial court may rely on documents that are not evidence as that term is used in Civ. R. 56. Here, though, the plaintiff objected to such documents and the trial court should not have considered them. Without the contested documents, the defendant did not establish that there was no issue of material fact. 

Artim v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Dev. Disabilities, 2013-Ohio-2372 both reversed and affirmed a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court that had granted motions for summary judgment filed by the Disabilities Board and an employee of the Board. The lawsuit involved injuries received by a child of the plaintiffs' while she was undergoing therapy at a facility run by the Board. The appellate court found that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the Board on the basis of sovereign immunity but that it erred when it granted summary judgment to the employee. The appellate court wrote that there was a material issue of fact as to whether the employee's acts were wanton and malicious. Judge Carr dissented because she found that the employee as well as the Board should have had their motions for summary judgment granted.  

Ninth District Opinions Released on June 3 and June 5, 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released two opinions from Lorain County on June 3, 2013 and four opinions from Summit County on June 5, 2013. The opinions released on June 3, 2013 were:

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Horn, 2013-Ohio-2374 was a reversal of a summary judgment granted by the Lorain County Common Pleas Court. The issue in the case was whether the bank had shown that it had the right to file the lawsuit when it filed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed on the authority of Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 2012-Ohio-5017 at P40. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. 

Wright v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2013-Ohio-2260 affirmed a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court that affirmed a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission that denied Mr. Wright unemployment compensation. The Commission found that Wright had quit his job as a truck driver without just cause when he left his truck at his employer's terminal in Seville, Ohio and told his employer he would not drive for the company if it would not give him a local route. 

The opinions released on June 5, 2013 were:

State v. Novotny, 2013-Ohio-2321 affirmed a decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court that convicted Mr. Novotny of interference with custody of a juvenile who had left her home and moved in with Mr. Novotny. Originally he was charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and the interference with custody. The jury found him not guilty of the unlawful sexual conduct but guilty of the interference with custody. The Court of Appeals rejected all assignments of error raised by Mr. Notovny. 

McFall v. McFall, 2013-Ohio-2320 reversed a decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court should have held a hearing on the wife's motion to vacate under Civ. R. 60 (B). While the majority found that the trial court should have held a hearing and found that the wife had raised the issue in a reasonable period of time, the dissent found that the issue could have been handled on a direct appeal and therefore the trial court did not have to hold a hearing on the 60 (B) motion. 

State v. Harmon, 2013-Ohio-2319 affirmed a decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court convicting Mr. Harmon of several criminal charges. In his assignments of error Mr. Harmon argued that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of battered woman's syndrome because there was no established pattern of domestic violence. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, as well as the remaining assignments of error. 

Clayton v. Walker, 2013-Ohio-2318 affirmed a decision of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division which had issued a temporary restraining order through a magistrate. Mr. Walker apparently filed objections to the magistrate's order in another related case. The trial court took judicial notice of those objections, considered them, and overruled them. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court could not take judicial notice of the objections filed in the other case and held that Mr. Walker had never objected in the case that was on appeal. 

Since he hadn't filed objections under that case number, the appellate court held that the trial court had no authority to even consider the objections to the magistrate's order and affirmed the issuing of the order. There was a dissent by Judge Carr in which she argued that the trial court had the power to review the magistrate's decision and she believed that the appellate court could review that decision. 

Ninth District Opinions from Lorain County for May 13, 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released two opinions that were decisions from appeals filed from the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. One decision was a criminal case and the other was a civil case. 

The criminal case was State v. Seymour, 2013-Ohio-1936. Mr. Seymour raised two assignments of error. The first was that the verdict was based on insufficient evidence and the second was that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Both assignments were rejected and the trial court was affirmed. 

The civil case was Miller v. Community Health Partners, 2013-Ohio-1935. This decision concerned a employee of Community Health Partners who filed a claim for worker's compensation. 

Initially Ms. Miller filed a claim for a injury to her back that she received while working. The Industrial Commission allowed the claim. Community Health Partners appealed the Commission's ruling.  While the employer's appeal to the Common Pleas Court was pending, Ms. Miller filed a motion to have her back injury claim modified to include psychological issues allegedly caused by the back injury. The Industrial Commission allowed the claim for the psychological injury and Community Health Partners did not file an appeal of that decision. 

Ms. Miller argued in the Common Pleas Court that since her employer did not appeal the decision allowing the psychological claim, and since that claim arose out of the back injury, the employer was now bound by the rule of res judicata regarding its appeal of her back injury claim. The Common Pleas Court agreed with her and granted summary judgment against Community Health Partners. It held that under the doctrine of res judicata Community Health Partners could not re-litigate Ms. Miller's back injury. 

In its opinion the Court of Appeals pointed out that the term res judicata in Ohio includes both issue preclusion (collateral estoppal) and claim preclusion. Since the employer never had an opportunity to litigate the back injury, the doctrine of res judicata didn't apply, no matter if it was used to preclude issues or preclude claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favor of Ms. Miller and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

Ninth District Opinions Released April 29, 2013

Last week the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released 14 opinions. Three were released on April 29, 2013 and 11 were released on May 1, 2013. The opinions released on April 29, 2013 were:

In reC.R., 2013-Ohio-1724 was an appeal by the State from a decision of the Medina County Juvenile Court granting a motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. In the opinion there is an interesting discussion of whether the Ohio Rules of Evidence apply to hearings on motions to suppress evidence.

The Court of Appeals opinion noted that under Evid. R. 101 (C) (1) and Evid. R. 104 (A) a trial court is not bound by the Rules of Evidence when making preliminary decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence except with respect to privileges. The State argued in its appeal that since the Juvenile Court was not bound by the Rules of Evidence it erred in not admitting hearsay evidence in the form of one officer testifying as to what another office had told him.

The Court of Appeals noted that while the Rules of Evidence don't apply in a suppression hearing, hearsay evidence is still regarded by courts as unreliable. The Juvenile Court held that the State hadn't met its burden. Thus, the Court of Appeals reasoned that if the Juvenile Court would have allowed the hearsay evidence, it wouldn't have changed the Juvenile Court's ruling that the State hadn't met its burden.

The Court of Appeals also overruled other assignments of error raised by the State. The opinion was a 2 to 1 opinion. Judge Hensal wrote the Court's opinion and Judge Whitmore filed a opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part.

McMillanv. Global Freight Mgt., Inc., 2013-Ohio-1725 was an appeal by the Plaintiff from a decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court. The decision appealed from was a decision granting a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful termination lawsuit. The Plaintiff contended that his termination from employment by the Defendant was due to his filing a claim for Worker's Compensation. The issue raised on appeal was whether there is a common law claim for wrongful discharge for filing a worker's compensation claim in addition to bringing a cause of action under R.C. 4123.90.

The Court of Appeals held in a decision that was written by Judge Moore that a common law cause of action for the tort of violating public policy does not exist in Ohio. In reaching its conclusion the Court of Appeals relied on a decision from the Ohio Supreme Court and distinguished a decision that was cited by the Plaintiff. The decision of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court was affirmed.

Schmuckerv. Kurzenberger, 2013-Ohio-1726 was an appeal by both parties of a decision by the Wayne County Common Pleas Court granting a motion for summary judgment filed by the Wayne Mutual Insurance Company. The Plaintiffs appealed the decision granting the motion on one ground and the insurance company appealed the part of the decision that denied the motion on another ground.

The issue in the appeal was whether there was coverage for an automobile accident that ended up killing a young woman who was the daughter of a woman who, along with her husband, had a policy issued by Wayne Mutual. When the accident happened the young woman was a passenger in a car driven by her father.  Her father had drove the car left of the center line. His daughter grabbed the wheel and pulled the car back. When she did that her father overcorrected and lost control of the vehicle.

The trial court found, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that when the accident took place the daughter was not using the car as she was permitted. This is known as a "unpermitted use exclusion." The Court of Appeals also found that the trial court was correct in holding that the "regular use exclusion" also excluded coverage.

The Insurance Company appealed the trial court's decision not to exclude coverage under an "intentional act exclusion." The Court of Appeals ruled that its ruling on the two assignments of error raised by the Plaintiffs rendered the issue of "intentional act exclusion" moot and declined to address it.

The decision was a 2-1 decision. Judge Carr authored the opinion and Judge Whitmore concurred while Judge Moore wrote a dissent.