Court Rulings

Husband, a member of the United States Army, and Wife divorced. The trial court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement pay, including his VA disability pay. Husband took issue with the trial court's method of calculating Wife's share of his retirement pay, as well as its determinations as to the residential parenting schedule and child support obligations. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate in part.

An altercation between the residents of a home and alleged Comcast employees occurred when the alleged employees attempted to recover an unreturned modem from the residents after their service had been cancelled. The residents brought suit alleging several claims against multiple Comcast entities. Several of the entities were previously dismissed from the case. The trial court granted summary judgment to the remaining Comcast entity-defendants, having concluded that they had established that the alleged tortfeasors were independent contractors of a separate third party entity, and, as a result, the Comcast entities could not be liable. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for such further proceedings as may be necessary and are consistent with this Opinion.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Eric Battle, of one count of attempted first degree premeditated murder, five counts of aggravated assault, one count of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and one count of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, the Defendant claims that: (1) the trial court erred when it ruled that a witness's proposed testimony was inadmissible (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and (3) the trial court erred when it declined to instruct the jury on self-defense. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgments, but we remand for entry of corrected judgments.

Core Terms: public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43(B)(8) inmate standing res judicata. Overview: Requester inmate and his designees sought records pertaining to his criminal case. The Prosecutor's Office argued that Ellis lacked standing to seek enforcement of requests filed by designees, that a previous determination rendered this case res judicata, and that Ellis had not complied with the procedure required by R.C. 149.43(B)(8) for inmates seeking law enforcement investigatory records. The Special Master recommended that the court find, 1) Ellis had standing to seek enforcement of requests filed by designees, 2) Ellis' previous action did not operate as res judicata, and 3) Ellis has not shown that he has complied with R.C. 149.43(B)(8), and thus is not entitled to production of records. Ellis objected that the special master erred in concluding that his designees were subject the same limitations in R.C. 149.43(B)(8) that applied to Ellis himself. Outcome: Based on Ellis' failure to affirmatively plead in his complaint that he met all of the requirements of R.C. 149.43(B)(8), the court modified the report and recommendation to find that the prosecutor's office's contention that Ellis had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted was not wholly without merit. The court overruled Ellis' objections, and adopted the special master's report and recommendation as modified.

Employer appeals from the agency's decision to award unemployment benefits to an employee. Because the record contains substantial and material evidence to support the agency's decision, we affirm.

The Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (Commission) decided that Plaintiff-appellant's employment termination was for just cause, and, accordingly, that she was ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits. The trial court affirmed the Commission's decision. The record is not sufficient to allow a determination of whether the Commission's just cause conclusion is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. In particular, the record needs to be further developed to allow the Commission to determine whether Plaintiff-appellant's termination violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Trial court judgment and Commission determination are reversed matter is remanded to the Commission for further proceedings.

Defendant, Rashunus B. Pearsons, was indicted for two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of harassment. Defendant was uncooperative with his appointed attorneys, and the trial court allowed Defendant to represent himself at trial. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of all counts. On appeal, Defendant argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated, that the trial court erred by granting the State's motion in limine to exclude mention of the victim's immigration status, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated assault, and that the trial court deprived him of his right to counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that proper procedure was not followed to secure a waiver of the right to counsel from Defendant and that Defendant did not forfeit his right to counsel. Therefore, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand this case for a new trial.

The Hamilton County Grand Jury indicted Robert A. Franklin, the Defendant-Appellant, for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI by impairment), driving while the alcohol concentration in his blood or breath was 0.08% or more (DUI per se), violating the financial responsibility law, and violating the vehicle registration law. Prior to trial, Franklin filed a motion to suppress evidence from his search, seizure, and arrest on the basis that the sobriety checkpoint where this evidence was obtained was unconstitutional. After the trial court denied this motion to suppress, Franklin filed a motion to reconsider, which was also denied. Franklin next filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, or in the alternative, to exclude the evidence from his blood test, arguing that Code section 55-10- 413 is unconstitutional because it creates a fee system that violates the right to due process and a fair trial. Although Franklin's request to dismiss the indictment or exclude the evidence was denied, the trial court granted his request for a jury instruction regarding the fee in Code Section 55-10-413(f). Thereafter, during voir dire, Franklin asserted that the State engaged in purposeful discrimination in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), when it used its peremptory challenges to exclude two African-American individuals from the jury pool. At the ensuing trial, the jury convicted Franklin of DUI per se and violating the vehicle registration law but acquitted him of DUI by impairment, and the State dismissed the charge for violating the financial responsibility law. On appeal, Franklin argues that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motion to suppress because the checkpoint was unconstitutional (2) overruling his Batson challenge and (3) denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, or in the alternative, to exclude the evidence based on the unconstitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-413(f) (2017). Because the trial court erred i

Kristin McKenzie and her husband, Joshua McKenzie, filed this health care liability action individually, and on behalf of their infant child, Jacob, who sustained injuries during his birth. As a result of these injuries, Jacob has limited use of his left arm. The plaintiffs allege that defendant Dr. Matthew A. Roberts was negligent in the delivery of Jacob. They assert that he applied a vacuum extractor during the delivery without first obtaining mother's informed consent. Following a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Roberts and his employer. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court committed several errors that entitle them to a new trial. They claim that the court erred in allowing the introduction of evidence that violates the collateral source rule. Specifically, they argue that the defendants were allowed to extensively cross-examine plaintiffs' witnesses regarding possible health insurance benefits under the Affordable Care Act and other benefits under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants pursued this line of interrogation in an attempt to show that some of Jacob's needs would be covered by these collateral sources. The plaintiffs state that the trial court also erred in restricting the scope of the plaintiffs' argument. Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine. Finally, they argue that the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the concepts of "foresight" and "hindsight." Plaintiffs appeal, arguing reversible errors on the part of the trial court. We vacate the trial court's judgment on the jury verdict. We affirm some of the actions of the trial court, actions that are challenged by plaintiffs. We vacate the trial court's order awarding the defendants $81,343.47 in discretionary costs. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

This action involves a former employee's alleged misappropriation of confidential business information and improper interference with contractual and business relationships for the benefit of a competitor company. The employer filed suit against the employee and the competitor company, seeking damages for lost profits. The defendants moved for summary judgment, alleging, inter alia, that the employer could not prove causation or damages in support of any of its claims. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that the proof submitted was insufficient to support a claim for lost profits. We affirm.