Court Rulings

ordinance, zoning, board of adjustment, vested rights

In each case, the plaintiff minor child, A and B, respectively, and his parents, sought to recover damages from the defendants, the town of Westport, its board of education, the town's superintendent of schools, L, and certain employees of one of the town's middle schools, namely, the principal, S, the vice principal, M, and a physical education teacher, Q, for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of, inter alia, the defendants' negligence in responding to reports of bullying of A and B by their classmates while they attended the middle school. Both cases arose out of the same incident, during which A and B were attacked by other students while in gym class. The plaintiffs filed reports detailing the gym incident and prior incidents of bullying with the school's administration. Thereafter, A and B both had bullying complaints filed against them by other students involved in the gym incident and they received suspen- sions as a result thereof. A few weeks later, A was again bullied by a fellow student. He reported the incident to S, who insisted that he write down his account of what had occurred. When A instead asked to speak with his father, S grabbed his arm in a hostile manner and shook it. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that, in their handling of the bullying incidents, the defendants failed to comply with the safe school climate plan that had previously been implemented at the direction of the board in accordance with the applicable statute ((Rev. to 2015) § 10-222d). The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants retaliated against them for filing their bullying complaints by, among other things, issuing sus- pensions to A and B. Additionally, in the first action, the plaintiffs alleged that S assaulted A when she grabbed and shook his arm. The trial court consolidated the cases and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment with respect to all claims except those against S in connection with the first action, as it found that there was

Trial court did not err by granting motion to dismiss a claim for declaratory judgment because a severance agreement expressly stated that it was the only agreement between the parties relating to any matter whatsoever. Accordingly, the trial court could not consider evidence of earlier agreements between the parties and the former employer could not establish any set of facts on which it could recover on a claim for declaratory judgment that the former employee remained bound by restrictive covenants contained in those earlier agreements.

Summary judgment/R.C. 4723.01/4723.74/4723.741/Employer/Employee

The Defendant, Antonio Maurice Jackson, was convicted of three counts of second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault after a bench trial. The trial court merged the homicide offenses and imposed an aggregate sentence of twenty-five years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court's decision to admit the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness the trial court's various evidentiary decisions the trial court's rulings on self-defense the trial court's refusal to require the State to make an election on various charges the trial court's decision to convict the Defendant of second degree murder in Count 3 after announcing a verdict of acquittal from the bench and entering it in the minutes and the sentencing determination. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the principles of double jeopardy prohibited the trial court from revisiting its acquittal, and we accordingly reverse the Defendant's conviction for second degree murder in Count 3. The Defendant's remaining convictions and sentences are affirmed.

The trial court did not err in dismissing administrative appeal. Appellant failed to file his appeal from the final decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission within thirty days as required by R.C. 4141.282(A).