Court Rulings

In non-renewing limited teaching contract, school board conducted three observations of teacher as required by R.C. 3319.111(E) and collective bargaining agreement despite failure of evaluator to assign an overall rating and professionalism rating in second observation form and despite calculation of final summative rating using only two observations. CBA did not require board to provide assistance to improve teacher's performance beyond the comments and suggestions made in performance evaluations.

On September 30, 2019, the Defendant, Adam Lee Loper, pleaded guilty to theft of more than $2,500. The trial court imposed athree-year sentence of incarceration. The Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation. After thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an action by a construction company to recover on a written stipulated sum contract and an oral cost-plus contract for the construction of a commercial building. The construction company sought to recover for additional work performed that was not included in the scope of the stipulated sum contract and the remaining balance of the cost-plus contract. The building owners contended that the construction company was not entitled to additional payment under the written agreement and counterclaimed for payments the owners made directly to suppliers for work included in the scope of the stipulated sum contract, and for reimbursement of funds expended to correct a defect caused by the construction company. The trial court held that neither the construction company nor the owners were entitled to recover under the stipulated sum contract that the owners were not entitled to reimbursement because they failed to establish that the construction company caused the defect or, in the alternative, failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to cure and that the construction company was entitled to judgment for work performed in connection with the cost-plus agreement. We reverse the court's determination that the owners were not entitled to a credit for certain payments made directly to suppliers, that prejudgment interest commenced on November 10, 2014, when the notice of completion was filed, and that the owners did not provide the construction company with notice and an opportunity to cure. We affirm the trial court's holding in all other respects.