Court Rulings

Trial court did not violate homeowners' procedural due process rights despite failing to establish case schedule and providing compressed timeline for final hearing on zoning violation claims and counterclaims. Scheduling irregularities constituted harmless error where homeowners received adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard on straightforward factual issues within their direct knowledge. Trial court did not err in denying summary judgment based on law-of-the-case doctrine where preliminary-injunction denial did not preclude permanent-injunction proceedings with additional evidence. Trial court had jurisdiction to determine zoning violations without requiring municipality to first exhaust administrative remedies. Clear and convincing evidence supported finding that homeowners operated unpermitted home occupation by storing commercial concrete equipment and coordinating employee activities on residential property.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS - divorce; de facto termination of marriage date; bankruptcy stay; marital residence; separate property; traceable; premarital loan; current market value; distribution of marital assets and marital debt; factual findings not supported by competent, credible evidence; joint tax returns; child support award; R.C. 3119.05.

Granting Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff TMC's Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Termination against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant City Choice. Although City Choice's termination notice was clear and unequivocal; its tender of its termination notice was not the exercise or acceptance of an option, and is therefore, not subject to the "strict compliance" standard applicable to the exercise or acceptance of options; and it substantially complied with notice provisions in exercising its right to terminate, it estopped from obtaining specific performance of the contract it purported to terminate. Denying TMC's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Third Party Defendant City Select Title for Release of the Independent Consideration. TMC does not seek a simple declaration from this Court that TMC is entitled to receipt of the Independent Consideration at the execution of the final judgment in this case. Instead, TMC seeks the immediate (i.e., pre-judgment) release of the Independent Consideration. But it must instead comply with the statutory requirements for a writ of attachment. Granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 91a because the pleadings fail to state a legally cognizable claim for breach of contract or for veil piercing, and the fraud claim is adequately pleaded. This opinion addresses Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction which challenged the Court's jurisdiction over Plaintiff's third-party claims filed against multiple subcontractors who performed work on a construction project. The Court denied Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding the third-party claims met the definition of an "action arising out of a qualified transaction" under Section 25A.004(d)(1). Further, the Court found the third-party claims were neither "conjectural, hypothetical or remote" and therefore ripe. Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment contending that Plaintiff's

STANDING — PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION — RESTRICTIVE COVENANT — EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT — NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT — ABUSE OF DISCRETION: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting employee's request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the noncompetition restrictive covenant in the employment agreement between employee and employer where the record supports the trial court's determination that the noncompetition restrictive covenant was greater than required for the protection of the employer. Appellant, a third-party plaintiff, lacks standing to appeal from the trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction where the record does not support that the appellant was aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court at issue in the appeal.

summary judgment; de novo; wrongful termination; breach of employment agreement; at will employment; promissory estoppel; disciplinary policy; legitimate business reason; defamation; Greeley claim.

Civil law—Insurance—Arbitration agreements—The presumption of arbitrability applies to a bad-faith insurance-handling claim when the arbitration agreement contains a broad clause and the underlying civil action could not be maintained without referring to the insurance policy or the relationship between the insurer and the insured—Court of appeals' judgment reversed.