MAli `! Mf;;1 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant,

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "MAli `! Mf;;1 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant,"

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO JANE DOE A.K.A. LISA PHELPS CASE NO ^ Plaintiff-Appellant, V. WILLIAM BARLOCK, Jr. Defendant- Appellee On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Case Nos. CA and CA and Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. CV PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT JANE DOE A.K.A. LISA PHELPS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION JOHN F. BURKE, III ( ) Mansour, Gavin, Gerlack & Manos Co., LPA 55 Public Square, Suite 2150 Cleveland, OH Phone ; Fax jburke@mggmlpa.com Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant Jane Doe a.k.a. Lisa Phelps DANIEL F. LINDNER ( ) Lindner & Jordan LLP 55 Public Square, Suite 1800 Cleveland, OH ; FAX daniel@justuslawyers.com and MARCUS S. SIDOTI ( ) Sidoti & Sidoti Co., LPA 55 Public Square, Suite 1800 Cleveland, OH Phone ; Fax msid165@aol.com Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee William Barlock, Jr. MAli `! Mf;;1 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO i

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST OR INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION...1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS...3 LAW AND ARGUMENT Proposition of Law No. I: The granting of a motion for a new trial on one cause of action is a final appealable order...8 CONCLUS ION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...1 I Paee APPENDIX Anpx. Page Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Decision... I Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Journal Entry denying Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration...2 ii

3 EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST OR INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION This cause presents an issue critical to the appellate process and a party's legislatively granted right to appellate review of a trial court's taking away of a jury's verdict via the granting of a motion for new trial. In this case, the court of appeals dismissed Plaintiff-Appellant Jane Doe a.k.a. Lisa Phelps' appeal of the trial court's granting Defendant-Appellee William Barlock's motion for new trial on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Cuyahoga County Eighth District Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed, sua sponte, Plaintiff-Appellant's appeal erroneously claiming a lack of a final appealable order. Subsequently, Plaintiff-Appellant filed an application requesting that the appellate court correct its error as such appeal is specifically authorized by O.R.C. 2505(B)(3) which affirmatively states that an order granting a new trial is a final appealable order. Nonetheless, the appellate court denied Plaintiff- Appellant's Application for Reconsideration of that order without analyzing its error. The implication of the decision of the court of appeals is to fundamentally eliminate Plaintiff-Appellant's legal right to review of the trial court's granting of a motion for new trial. Implications of this decision affect every party to litigation in the State of Ohio. Such a process sabotages the entirety of government regulations and undermines the fundamental legal principle that the rule of law constrains the courts as well as citizens. Similarly, the public interest is affected if an appellate court is allowed to defy to rules of procedures and dismiss Plaintiff- Appellant's appeal. Apart from the aforementioned considerations which makes this case one of great public interest, the decision of the court of appeals also has broad general significance. Thousands and thousands of litigants rely on the court on appeals to review decisions made by the trial courts. 1

4 The General Assembly has specifically recognized the right to immediate appellate review of the grant or denial of a motion for new trial. The decision of the court of appeals sets a dangerous precedent that would exclude from review the trial court's grant of a motion for new trial. If allowed to stand, the decision of the court of appeals would destroy a fundamental tenet of the American legal system which is appellate review of lower court's decisions. In sum, this case puts in issue the essence of appellate review and the legislature's specific requirements that appellate courts be able to immediately review the grant of a motion for new trial. To promote the purposes and preserve the integrity of the courts, this Court must grant jurisdiction to hear this case and review and reverse the erroneous and dangerous decision of the court of appeals dismissing Plaintiff-Appellant's appeal. 2

5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS On October 24, 2006, Plaintiff-Appellant Jane Doe a.k.a. Lisa Phelps ("Plaintiff- Appellant" or "Ms. Phelps") was awoken by a phone call indicating that nude photographs of her had been ed to over 100 employees at her place of employment. She immediately knew who had perpetrated such a heinous act, it was her ex-boyfriend Defendant-Appellee William Barlock ("Defendant-Appellee" or "Barlock"). On November 2, 2006, Plaintiff-Appellant, as "Jane Doe," filed a Complaint seeking a temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Barlock from further disseminating the pictures. (R. 2, 3, 4) Ms. Phelps also sought compensatory and punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy along with attorney fees, costs and expenses. The court granted the TRO on November 2, 2006, prohibiting Barlock from further disseminating the photographs. (R. 4) An agreed upon permanent injunction was subsequently entered into and approved by the court. (R. 10) The agreed injunction stated: (R. 10) 1. Defendant is prohibited from disseminating, copying, transferring or otherwise publishing any photographs of Plaintiff; 2. Defendant must provide to Plaintiff, through her counsel, the original copies of all photographs and all electronic data relating to said photographs or the transference of such photographs. 3. Defendant is prohibited from possessing or disseminating any photographs of Plaintiff. 4. Defendant must execute a document verifying his compliance with this Order. Defendant-Appellee failed to answer the Complaint and December 15, 2006, Plaintiff- Appellant filed a motion for default judgment. (R. 11) On December 18, 2006, Barlock filed a 3

6 motion for leave to file answer instanter (R. 12) and a brief in opposition to the motion for default. (R. 13) Defendant-Appellee's motion contained no good cause for failing to answer the Complaint. Nonetheless, the trial court granted Defendant-Appellee's motion for leave to answer instanter and denied the motion for default judgment. (R. 15) Defendant-Appellee answered the Complainti and denied the material allegations alleged therein. On January 11, 2007, Defendant-Appellee filed a motion to dismiss attempting to force Plaintiff-Appellant to put her legal name on the Complaint subjecting her to further public humiliation.2 (R. 17) Plaintiff-Appellant opposed that motion arguing that she should be allowed to maintain her anonymity due to the private and embarrassing nature of this matter. (R. 20) The trial court granted Defendant-Appellee's motion without opinion. (R. 22) Plaintiff- Appellant filed her Amended Complaint pursuant to the trial court's order. (R. 30) Defendant- Appellee failed to answer the Amended Complaint and on August 30, 2007, Plaintiff-Appellant filed her second motion for default judgment due to Defendant-Appellee's failure to answer the Amended Complaint. (R. 60) Again, Defendant-Appellee filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff- Appellant's motion for default and motion for leave to file answer instanter. (R. 62) Plaintiff- Appellant opposed the motion to file answer instanter. (R. 64) Again, the trial court denied the motion for default and granted Defendant-Appellee's motion to file answer instanter. (R. 78) Defendant-Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that Plaintiff- Appellant could not present a prima facie case for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (R. 30) Plaintiff-Appellant opposed said motion. (R. 59) The trial court, in a written opinion, denied Defendant-Appellee's motion for summary judgment. (R. 79) 'Defendant-Appellee's answer denied that he had sent the . (R. 12, 9[4.) 2 The only rationale for this motion was either an attempt to inflict further embarrassment upon Plaintiff-Appellant or to force her to dismiss the case. 4

7 This matter was tried before a jury beginning September 19, At the close of Plaintiff-Appellant's case in chief (R. 82, Tr. 212) and at the end of Defendant-Appellee's case (R. 82, Tr. 321), the Defendant-Appellee moved for a directed verdict on all of Plaintiff- Appellant's claims. Both motions were denied. (Tr. 212, 321) On September 20, 2007, the jury entered a unanimous verdict in favor of the Plaintiff- Appellant on her claim of invasion of privacy and awarded her $25,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages. (Tr. 318) The jury also unanimously found in favor of Plaintiff-Appellant on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded $25,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages. (Tr ) The jury also found that the Defendant-Appellee should pay Plaintiff-Appellant's legal fees on both claims. (Tr ; see also Jury Verdict Forms.) On or about September 28, 2007, the Defendant-Appellee filed a motion for JNOV and new trial contending that the court should overturn the jury's unanimous verdict or in the alternative award a new trial. (R. 80) Defendant-Appellee falsely claimed that the damage award was unsubstantiated and that Plaintiff-Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support her claims. (R. 80, Defendant-Appellee's motion, p. 3.) The Defendant-Appellee's claims were specious and belied by the evidence that was before the jury. Barlock also moved for a new trial under Civil Rule 59(A). (R. 80, see Defendant-Appellee's motion.) Plaintiff- Appellant filed a brief in opposition to Defendant-Appellee's motion. (R. 85) Additionally, Plaintiff-Appellant filed motions for prejudgment interest and attorney fees.3 (R. 86, 88) Defendant-Appellee did not file a brief in opposition to either motion. Nonetheless, the trial ' The trial court never ruled on those unopposed motions. However, eight months after they were filed, on June 18, 2008, the trial court indicated that it would hold those motions in abeyance awaiting the conclusion of the new trial on Plaintiff-Appellant's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. (R. 93) 5

8 court did not rule on them. (See docket.) Eight months later, on May 30, 2008, the trial court issued its ruling denying Defendant-Appellee's motion for JNOV and motion for new trial on the claim for invasion of privacy. (R. 92) The trial court did, however, grant Defendant-Appellee's motion for a new trial on Plaintiff-Appellant's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (R. 92) Notwithstanding the fact that the court previously denied both the motion for summary judgment and the motions for directed verdict on the same evidence, incredibly the trial court now claimed that the judgment in regard to the intentional infliction of emotional distress shocked its conscience. The court stated: In this case, Plaintiff did not present such evidence of serious emotional distress. The jury's verdict on this issue shocks the Court's sense of justice and faitness and cannot be reconciled with the evidence. Although Plaintiff suffered some degree of emotional distress, the events giving rise to this lawsuit did not preclude Plaintiff from performing her daily tasks. Plaintiff was actively occupied with her obligations and coped adequately, as a reasonable person. *** Although the Court does not mean to diminish the significance of the distress that Plaintiff endured, the weight of the evidence clearly shows that Plaintiff's distress did not rise to the level of severe and debilitating under the law. Therefore, the jury's verdict on Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was not sustained by the weight of the evidence, and Defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Civil Rule 59(A)(6) is granted as to this claim. (R. 92, trial court's Joumal Entry and Opinion, p. 7-8.) On June 24, 2008, Ms. Phelps timely filed her notice of appeal on the issue of the trial court granting Barlock's motion for new trial on the intentional infliction of emotional stress claim. (R. 94) On June 26, 2008, Barlock filed a notice of appeal. (R. 95) On June 30, 2008, the trial court stayed the proceedings in this case due to the filing of the notice of appeal. (R. 96) Both parties fully briefed their positions in the court of appeals. 6

9 Seven months later, after briefing was complete, on January 22, 2009, the Cuyahoga County Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals, sua sponte, claiming a lack of a final appealable order. The appellate court stated: ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED THE PARTIES' AGREED PERMANENT INJUNCTION (#10) AND THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT ON THE JURY'S VERDICT ON THE OTHER TWO CLAIMS (#83) AS WELL AS BARLOCK'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND FOR NEW TRIAL (#92), THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT DETERMINED ATTORNEY FEES AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST. LIKEWISE, THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED BARLOCK'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM. SUA SPONTE, THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER. EACH PARTY TO BEAR HIS OR HER OWN COSTS. SEE CIV.R. 54(B); INTERNATL. BHD. OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 8 V. VAUGHN INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., 116 OHIO ST.3D 335, 2007-OHIO-6439, 879 N.E.2D 187 [ATTORNEY FEES]; MILLER V. FIRST INTERNATL. FID. & TRUST BLDG., LTD., 113 OHIO ST.3D 474, 2007-OHIO-2457, 866 N.E.2D 1059 [PREJUDGMENT INTEREST]... On January 28, 2009, Ms. Phelps filed a motion requesting that the appellate court reconsider its decision dismissing her appeal as the trial court's granting a motion for new trial was a final appealable order as specifically outlined in O.R.C. 2505(B)(3) which affirmatively states that an order granting a new trial is a final appealable order. Nonetheless, on February 26, 2009, the appellate court denied Plaintiff-Appellant's Application for Reconsideration stating: MOTION BY APPELLANT FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENTRY NO DISMISSING THESE APPEALS IS DENIED. COURTS AVOID PIECEMEAL APPEALS IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY. SEE, E.G., INTERNATL. BHD. OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 8 V. VAUGHN INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., 116 OHIO ST.3D 335, 2007-OHIO-6439, 879 N.E.2D 187 (ATTORNEY FEES]; MILLER V. FIRST INTERNATL. FID. & TRUST BLDG., LTD., 113 OHIO ST.3D 474, 2007-OHIO- 2457, 866 N.E.2D 1059 [PREJUDGMENT INTEREST]. VOL. 676 PG NOTICE ISSUED. Nonetheless, this decision by the appellate court is in error and deprives Plaintiff- Appellant of her fundamental right to appellate review. In support of her position, the Plaintiff- Appellant presents the following argument. 7

10 LAW AND ARGUMENT Proposition of Law No. I: The granting of a motion for a new trial on one cause of action is a final appealable order. The Ohio Constitution specifically provides the right to appeal a judgment or final order unless the appellate court's jurisdiction is limited by law. Court of appeals shall have such jurisdiction as may be provided by law to review and affirm, modify, or reverse judgments or final orders of the courts of record inferior to the court of appeals within the district. See, O.Const. Art. IV, Sec. 3(B)(2). Accordingly, any judgment or final order not otherwise restricted by law, i.e., an enactment by the General Assembly, is immediately reviewable through the appellate process and constitutionally guaranteed. The appellate court's dismissal of Plaintiff-Appellant's appeal was in error as it is well established in Ohio's jurisprudence that the granting of a motion for a new trial is a final appealable order. See, Colvin v. Abbey's Restaurant, 1999-Ohio-286 ("It is now well settled... that the granting of a motion for a new trial is a final appealable order under R.C citing Price v. McCoy Sales & Service, Inc. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 131, 11 of the syllabus; see also, Rohde v. Farnaer (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 82, R.C specifically provides simply that "an order that... grants a new trial" is a final appealable order. See O.R.C (B)(3) ("An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified or reversed, with or without a retrial, when it is one of the following:... (3) an order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial"). Thus, the appellate court's sua sponte dismissal of Ms. Phelps' appeal was improper. The appellate court determination, sua sponte, that there was no final appealable order created an unworkable situation where Plaintiff-Appellant will not have an opportunity for an appellate court to review the trial court's decision to grant Barlock's motion for new trial on the 8

11 intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. If this matter returns to the trial court for a new trial on Ms. Phelps' claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Ms. Phelps will be deprived of her lawful right to have the trial court's grant of a new trial on that claim reviewed by a superior court. Ms. Phelps did not disagree that a motion for prejudgment interest and a motion for attorney fees should be finalized prior to an appeal of the court's final judgment order, but those motions are not germane to Ms. Phelps' appeal of the trial court's order granting a new trial on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. They do, however, preclude the appeal by Barlock. Here, the decisions regarding attorney fees and prejudgment interest cannot be resolved until the appellate court resolves the granting of the new trial on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. What is legally required to happen in the present case is that the Court of Appeals must rule on Ms. Phelps' appeal of the trial court's grant of a new trial on her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress while at the same time dismissing Barlock's appeal as there is no final appealable order related to him. If the appellate court's order dismissing the appeal is affirmed, the matter would return to the trial court and jurisdiction would again vest in that court for the new trial on the intentional infliction claim. However, if the appellate court overrules the trial court's grant of a new trial, then the matter would return to the trial court for a final determination as to Ms. Phelps' unopposed motions for attorney fees and prejudgment interest. Thus, as it is a final order as it relates to Plaintiff-Appellant's claims, the appeal must be heard. The appellate court's sua sponte decision dismissing the appeal is directly contrary to O.R.C. 2505(B)(3) which affirmatively states that an order granting a new trial is a final appealable order. 9

12 CONCLUSION The Ohio legislature and this Court have expressly held that an order granting a new trial is a final appealable order. There are no additional statutory requirements and such an order is immediately reviewable by the appellate court. Allowing the court of appeals' sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiff-Appellant's appeal effectively precludes her from her right to have an appellate court review the decision granting the motion for a new trial and impermissibly violates Plaintiff-Appellant's constitutional and statutory right to an appeal. This matter clearly raises a substantial constitutional question and is one of great general or public interest. Respectfully submitted, JOA F. BURR LM-( ) ansour, Gavin, Gerlack & Manos Co., LPA Public Square, Suite 2150 Cleveland, OH Phone ; Fax Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant Jane Doe a.ka. Lisa Phelps 10

13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy for the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction has been sent via regular U.S. Mail on this 11th day of March 2009, to: Daniel F. Lindner Lindner & Jordan LLP 55 Public Square, Suite 1800 Cleveland, OH Marcus S. Sidoti Sidoti & Sidoti Co., LPA 55 Public Square, Suite 1800 Cleveland, OH Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee William Barlock, Jr. JrO r^^yf. BURKE Att rneyfor Plaintiff-Appellant Jane Doe a. a. Lisa Phelps 11

14 ttts'g0 cuuzi APPENDIX 1 Taurt of Apptttls uf M41u, TEuo* 19istrict County of Cuyahoga Gerald E. Fuerst, Clerk of Courts JANE DOE, A.K.A., LISA PHELPS Appellant COA NO. LOWER COURT NO CP CV CP CV vs- COMMON PLEAS COURT WILLIAM BARLOCK, JR. Appellee MOTION NO Date 01/ ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED THE PARTIES' AGREED PERMANENT INJUNCTION (#10) AND THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT ON THE JURY'S VERDICT ON THE OTHER TWO CLAIMS (#83) AS WELL AS BARLOCK'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND FOR NEW TRIAL (#92), THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT DETERMINED ATTORNEY FEES AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST. LIKEWISE, THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED BARLOCK'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM. SUA SPONTE, THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER. EACH PARTY TO BEAR HIS OR HER OWN COSTS. SEE CIV.R. 54(B); INTERNATL. BHD. OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 8 V. VAUGHN INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., 116 OHIO ST.3D 335, 2007-OHIO-6439, 879 N.E.2D 187 [ATTORNEY FEES]; MILLER V. FIRST INTERNATL. FID. & TRUST BLDG., LTD., 113 OHIO ST.3D 474, 2007-OHIO-2457, 866 N.E.2D 1059 [PREJUDGMENT INTEREST] ADDITIONALLY, JANE DOE'S APPELLEE'S BRIEF FILED IN CASE NO ON OCTOBER 22,2008 DOES NOT CONTAIN A STATEMENT OF THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR OR A STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES. APP.R. 16. BARLOCK'S REPLY BRIEF FILED IN CASE NO ON DECEMBER 1, 2008 AND APPELLANT'S BRIEF FILED IN CASE NO ON OCTOBER 10, 2008 AS WELL AS JANE DOE'S APPELLEE'S BRIEF FILED IN CASE NO ON OCTOBER 22, 2008 ALL CONTAIN FOOTNOTES WHICH FAIL TO MEET THE MINIMUM TYPE SIZE OF TWELVE POINTS AS MANDATED BY APP,R. 19(A). FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH APP.R. 16 AND 19 AS WELL AS LOC. APP.R. 16 MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL, STRIKING THE BRIEF OR DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO ARGUE. LOC.APP.R. 16(B). COUNSEL ARE ADMONISHED TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE RULES IN FUTURE FILINGS IN THIS COURT. JUDGE SEAN C. GALLAGHER, CONCURS ANNOIINCEMENT OF DBCISION Administrative Judge PER APP. R. 2211^1, 22i=1 AND 2eIM COLLEEN CONWAY E,D RALD E. FUERST CLERK F HRT OF APFEALS CA oone'filed AAiD 90URNALIZED PER APP. R. 22(E) FEB GEI4ALD E. FUERST gy DEP Tnis Is an announcement of Courf's dec7;fon. CLERK 0^0 T OF APPEALS }A,ailon for reooqrlderq^iop must be filed within 10 days trom cu e^^.. DEP. E

15 APPENDIX 2 Tuur# uf Ap.^ea1s af 04tn, Erg4t4 DYstrtct County of Cuyahoga Gerald E. Fuerst, Clerk of Courts JANE DOE, A.K.A., LISA PHELPS Appellant COA NO. LOWER COURT NO CP CV CP CV vs- COMMON PLEAS COURT WILLIAM BARLOCK, JR. Appellee MOTION NO Date 02126/2009 Journal Entry MOTION BY APPELLANT FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENTRY NO DISMISSING THESE APPEALS IS DENIED. COURTS AVOID PIECEMEAL APPEALS IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY. SEE, E.G., INTERNATL. BHD. OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 8 V. VAUGHN INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., 116 OHIO ST.3D 335, 2007-OHIO-6439, 879 N.E.2D 187 [ATTORNEY FEES]; MILLER V. FIRST INTERNATL. FID. & TRUST BLDG., LTD., 113 OHIO ST.3D 474, 2007-OHIO-2457, 866 N.E.2D 1059 [PREJUDGMENT INTEREST]. RECEIVED FOR FILING FEB GERALD E. FU CLERK OF TSIE 41JiJRY. BY Adm. Judge, COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, Concurs

AUTO CONNECTION, LLC LONNIE PRATHER

AUTO CONNECTION, LLC LONNIE PRATHER [Cite as Auto Connection, L.L.C. v. Prather, 2011-Ohio-6644.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 96564 and 96736 AUTO CONNECTION, LLC PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State ex rel. Ford v. Adm. Judge of Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2013-Ohio-4197.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100053

More information

JUPd 0-20^^ CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NO, CA BARBARA ZINDROSKI, ET AL.

JUPd 0-20^^ CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NO, CA BARBARA ZINDROSKI, ET AL. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO S BARBARA ZINDROSKI, ET AL. V. Appellees PARMA CI'tY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NO, CA 08 091124 On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Ninth Appellate District

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as In re Contempt of Scaldini, 2008-Ohio-6154.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90889 IN RE: CONTEMPT OF RICHARD SCALDINI In the

More information

CLEVELAND-AKRON-CANTON ADVERTISING COOPERATIVE PHYSICIAN S WEIGHT LOSS CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

CLEVELAND-AKRON-CANTON ADVERTISING COOPERATIVE PHYSICIAN S WEIGHT LOSS CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL. [Cite as Cleveland-Akron-Canton Advertising Coop. v. Physician s Weight Loss Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 2009-Ohio- 5837.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT [Cite as Harris v. Harris, 2004-Ohio-4084.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 83526 MARLENE HARRIS JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee AND vs. OPINION GARY HARRIS [Appeal by

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For plaintiff-appellant: : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION BONITA ROSE DELORENZO, et al.

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For plaintiff-appellant: : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION BONITA ROSE DELORENZO, et al. [Cite as Biddulph v. Delorenzo, 2003-Ohio-2654.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 82291 JOHN BIDDULPH : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION BONITA

More information

THOMAS OPINCAR, ET AL. F.J. SPANULO CONSTRUCTION

THOMAS OPINCAR, ET AL. F.J. SPANULO CONSTRUCTION [Cite as Opincar v. F.J. Spanulo Constr., 2008-Ohio-6286.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91255 THOMAS OPINCAR, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

More information

JOSE C. LISBOA, JR. KIMBERLY LISBOA

JOSE C. LISBOA, JR. KIMBERLY LISBOA [Cite as Lisboa v. Lisboa, 2008-Ohio-3129.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90105 JOSE C. LISBOA, JR. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. KIMBERLY

More information

GUNTON CORPORATION, DBA PELLA WINDOW & DOOR CO. ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS, ET AL.

GUNTON CORPORATION, DBA PELLA WINDOW & DOOR CO. ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS, ET AL. [Cite as Gunton Corp. v. Architectural Concepts, 2008-Ohio-693.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 89725 GUNTON CORPORATION, DBA PELLA

More information

STATE OF OHIO DEMETREUS LOGAN

STATE OF OHIO DEMETREUS LOGAN [Cite as State v. Logan, 2009-Ohio-1685.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91323 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DEMETREUS LOGAN

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as GrafTech Internatl. Ltd. v. Pacific Emps. Ins. Co., 2016-Ohio-1377.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 103008 GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as CapitalSource Bank FBO Aeon Fin., L.L.C. v. Donshirs Dev., Corp., 2013-Ohio-1563.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99032 CAPITALSOURCE

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION [Cite as Price v. Carter Lumber Co., 2010-Ohio-4328.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) GERALD PRICE C.A. No. 24991 Appellant v. CARTER LUMBER CO.,

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT MRK TECHNOLOGIES, LTD. : : ACCELERATED DOCKET

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT MRK TECHNOLOGIES, LTD. : : ACCELERATED DOCKET [Cite as MRK Technologies, Ltd. v. Accelerated Systems Integration, Inc., 2005-Ohio-30.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 84747 MRK TECHNOLOGIES, LTD. : : ACCELERATED DOCKET

More information

[Cite as State v. Gray, 2009-Ohio-4200.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. GARY GRAY JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

[Cite as State v. Gray, 2009-Ohio-4200.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. GARY GRAY JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED [Cite as State v. Gray, 2009-Ohio-4200.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91806 STATE OF OHIO vs. GARY GRAY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Bobo, 2011-Ohio-4503.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95999 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. HARRY BOBO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

ABDELMESEH DANIAL GERALD E. LANCASTER, ET AL.

ABDELMESEH DANIAL GERALD E. LANCASTER, ET AL. [Cite as Danial v. Lancaster, 2009-Ohio-3599.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92462 ABDELMESEH DANIAL PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. GERALD

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Lalain, 2011-Ohio-4813.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95857 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DANIEL LALAIN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY. For Plaintiff-Appellee: : and -vs- : : OPINION. For Defendant-Appellant:

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY. For Plaintiff-Appellee: : and -vs- : : OPINION. For Defendant-Appellant: [Cite as State v. Jester, 2004-Ohio-3611.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 83520 STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION WILLIE LEE

More information

AND OPINION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 10, 2006

AND OPINION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 10, 2006 [Cite as Steindler v. Meyers, Lamanna & Roman, 2006-Ohio-4097.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 86852 SHIRLEY STEINDLER Plaintiff-appellee vs. MEYERS, LAMANNA & ROMAN,

More information

STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT [Cite as FIA Card Servs. v. Marshall, 2010-Ohio-4244.] STATE OF OHIO, CARROLL COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A. fka ) MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A., ) ) CASE NO. 10 CA 864

More information

STATE OF OHIO RICO COX

STATE OF OHIO RICO COX [Cite as State v. Cox, 2009-Ohio-2035.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91747 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. RICO COX DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. EBBETS PARTNERS, LTD. : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : -vs- : AND : RONALD FOSTER : OPINION

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. EBBETS PARTNERS, LTD. : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : -vs- : AND : RONALD FOSTER : OPINION [Cite as Ebbets Partners, Ltd. v. Foster, 2002-Ohio-6324.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 80728 EBBETS PARTNERS, LTD. : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : -vs- : AND

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Holloway v. State, 2014-Ohio-2971.] [Please see original opinion at 2014-Ohio-1951.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100586

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. McDonald, 2011-Ohio-1964.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95651 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CASSANDRA MCDONALD

More information

FREDI GONZALEZ ALCON INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED

FREDI GONZALEZ ALCON INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED [Cite as Gonzales v. Alcon Industries, Inc., 2009-Ohio-2587.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92274 FREDI GONZALEZ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Brown v. Carlton Harley Davidson, Inc., 2014-Ohio-5157.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101494 BRUCE ANDREW BROWN, ETC., ET

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Peyton, 2007-Ohio-6325.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 89296 STATE OF OHIO ERIC PEYTON PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Cleveland v. Cleveland Assoc. of Rescue Emps., 2011-Ohio-4263.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96325 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Castro, 2012-Ohio-2206.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97451 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JOSE CASTRO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

LIBERTY SAVINGS BANK GARNETTE REDUS, ET AL.

LIBERTY SAVINGS BANK GARNETTE REDUS, ET AL. [Cite as Liberty Sav. Bank v. Redus, 2009-Ohio-28.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90571 LIBERTY SAVINGS BANK PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Parkview Federal Savings Bank: appellee, V. 1 AV, 7 On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District Robert L. Grimm appellant. Court of Appeals

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Kelley v. Lipman, 2015-Ohio-883.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101918 ELLIOTT RAY KELLEY, ET AL. PETITIONERS vs. ATTORNEY

More information

STATE OF OHIO JAMAR TRIPLETT

STATE OF OHIO JAMAR TRIPLETT [Cite as State v. Triplett, 2009-Ohio-2571.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91807 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMAR TRIPLETT

More information

STATE OF OHIO GEORGE NAOUM

STATE OF OHIO GEORGE NAOUM [Cite as State v. Naoum, 2009-Ohio-618.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 91662 and 91663 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. GEORGE

More information

STATE OF OHIO ALLEN RICHARDSON

STATE OF OHIO ALLEN RICHARDSON Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87886 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ALLEN RICHARDSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: APPLICATION

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY APPEARANCES:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY APPEARANCES: [Cite as Davis v. Remy, 2006-Ohio-5030.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY Alton Davis, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : Case No. 05CA16 v. : Teresa Remy, : DECISION AND

More information

RE-^MVED 1,D JUL 0 9 %010 CLERK OF COURT SUPREMEC URT F HI. JUL G CLERK OF COURT SUPREME CCUR7 OF Nen IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

RE-^MVED 1,D JUL 0 9 %010 CLERK OF COURT SUPREMEC URT F HI. JUL G CLERK OF COURT SUPREME CCUR7 OF Nen IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO GREGORY SMITH(DEDONNO) Appellant, V. CUYAHOGA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. et al. Appellees. CASE NO. 2010-0906 ON APPEAL FROM THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH APPELLATE

More information

JEFFREY A. OLSON CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP., ET AL.

JEFFREY A. OLSON CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP., ET AL. [Cite as Olson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 2008-Ohio-6641.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90790 JEFFREY A. OLSON PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs.

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Pryor v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2015-Ohio-1255.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) MARCUS PRYOR, II C.A. No. 27225 Appellant

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Chiple v. Acme Arsena Co., Inc., 2006-Ohio-5029.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87586 MICHAEL A. CHIPLE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Henry v. Lincoln Elec. Holdings, Inc., 2008-Ohio-3451.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90182 DENA HENRY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

More information

with one count of Aggravated Murder, O.R.C (B), and two counts of

with one count of Aggravated Murder, O.R.C (B), and two counts of STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) SS. COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ) CR. 184772 ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ) JUDGMENT ENTRY ) STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff ) ) Vs. ) ) WILLIE LEE JESTER,

More information

MADELYN BOHANNON GALLAGHER PIPINO, INC., ET AL.

MADELYN BOHANNON GALLAGHER PIPINO, INC., ET AL. [Cite as Bohannon v. Pipino, Inc., 2009-Ohio-3469.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92325 MADELYN BOHANNON PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. GALLAGHER

More information

STATE OF OHIO MYRON SPEARS

STATE OF OHIO MYRON SPEARS [Cite as State v. Spears, 2010-Ohio-2229.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94089 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MYRON SPEARS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

EDWARD M. STEFANSKI, ET AL. CHRISTIN McGINTY, ET AL. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

EDWARD M. STEFANSKI, ET AL. CHRISTIN McGINTY, ET AL. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED [Cite as Stefanski v. McGinty, 2007-Ohio-2909.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88596 EDWARD M. STEFANSKI, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Brookdale Senior Living v. Johnson-Wylie, 2011-Ohio-1243.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95129 BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Bates v. Postulate Invests., L.L.C., 176 Ohio App.3d 523, 2008-Ohio-2815.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90099 BATES ET AL.,

More information

STATE OF OHIO RUTH KRAUSHAAR

STATE OF OHIO RUTH KRAUSHAAR [Cite as State v. Kraushaar, 2009-Ohio-3072.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91765 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. RUTH KRAUSHAAR

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite Ear v. Phnom Penh Restaurant, Inc., 2007-Ohio-3069 Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88560 DOEUN EAR, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Groening v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 2009-Ohio-357.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91394 RAYE H. GROENING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs.

More information

STATE OF OHIO JEREMY GUM

STATE OF OHIO JEREMY GUM [Cite as State v. Gum, 2009-Ohio-6309.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92723 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEREMY GUM DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

[Cite as James V. Zelch, M.D., Inc. v. Regional MRI of Orlando, Inc., 2003-Ohio-1362.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT

[Cite as James V. Zelch, M.D., Inc. v. Regional MRI of Orlando, Inc., 2003-Ohio-1362.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT [Cite as James V. Zelch, M.D., Inc. v. Regional MRI of Orlando, Inc., 2003-Ohio-1362.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 81826 JAMES V. ZELCH, M.D., INC. : ET AL. : : JOURNAL

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT AND OPINION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 28, 2005

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT AND OPINION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 28, 2005 [Cite as State v. Hightower, 2005-Ohio-3857.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 84248, 84398 STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-appellee vs. WILLIE HIGHTOWER Defendant-appellant JOURNAL

More information

OR G NAL MAY CLERK AW11" Appellant, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO EXREL. RENEE ENGELHART,

OR G NAL MAY CLERK AW11 Appellant, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO EXREL. RENEE ENGELHART, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO OR G NAL STATE OF OHIO EXREL. RENEE ENGELHART, vs. Appellant, On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals Eighth Appellate District HONORABLE NANCY MARGARET. Court

More information

STATE OF OHIO JOANNE SCHNEIDER

STATE OF OHIO JOANNE SCHNEIDER [Cite as State v. Schneider, 2010-Ohio-2089.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93128 STATE OF OHIO vs. JOANNE SCHNEIDER PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

[Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. MILTON HILL JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

[Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. MILTON HILL JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED [Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93379 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MILTON HILL DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Tokar v. Tokar, 2010-Ohio-524.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93506 JANE TOKAR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAY TOKAR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

KELLY J. BENCIVENNI, ET AL. MARILYN V. DIETZ, IND., ET AL.

KELLY J. BENCIVENNI, ET AL. MARILYN V. DIETZ, IND., ET AL. [Cite as Bencivenni v. Dietz, 2007-Ohio-637.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88269 KELLY J. BENCIVENNI, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as McMillan v. Global Freight Mgt., Inc., 2013-Ohio-1725.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) WILLIAM E. MCMILLAN Appellant C.A. No. 12CA010248

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as 2188 Brockway, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer, 2015-Ohio-109.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101529 2188 BROCKWAY,

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT [Cite as Tornstrom v. DeMarco, 2002-Ohio-1102.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 79521 TODD TORNSTROM, ET AL. JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees AND vs.

More information

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. ANTONIO PETERSON CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. ANTONIO PETERSON CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR [Cite as State ex rel. Peterson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court Judge & Prosecutor, 2010-Ohio-4501.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

More information

STATE OF OHIO FRANK RAMOS, JR.

STATE OF OHIO FRANK RAMOS, JR. [Cite as State v. Ramos, 2009-Ohio-3064.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92357 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. FRANK RAMOS, JR.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ^8 ^,3 ^:,:::^; h.^,,,^^ u,^ti: ^,,, a, ^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO TODD LEOPOLD, et al. v Plaintiffs/Appellants, ACE DORAN HAULING & RIGGING CO., et al. Supreme Court Case No. 2012-0438

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Milligan, 2012-Ohio-5736.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98140 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. VICTOR D. MILLIGAN

More information

STATE OF OHIO JEFFREY SIMS

STATE OF OHIO JEFFREY SIMS [Cite as State v. Sims, 2009-Ohio-2132.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91397 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY SIMS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Hyde v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 2011-Ohio-4234.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95687 GARY L. HYDE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION [Cite as Summit Cty. Fiscal Officer v. Estate of Barnett, 2009-Ohio-2456.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) SUMMIT COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER C.A. No.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Gaskins v. Mentor Network-REM, 2010-Ohio-4676.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94092 JOYCE GASKINS vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT [Cite as Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 2003-Ohio-3959.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 82148 CHARLES V. DIXON JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee AND vs. OPINION FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

More information

?'ktkiv.u: UURT OF, FEB ^ 5 2,009 ^^^ ^^ ^^^^T IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. IN RE: CONTEMPT OF RICHARD SCALDINI, In the matter styled:

?'ktkiv.u: UURT OF, FEB ^ 5 2,009 ^^^ ^^ ^^^^T IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. IN RE: CONTEMPT OF RICHARD SCALDINI, In the matter styled: IN RE: CONTEMPT OF RICHARD SCALDINI, In the matter styled: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DAVID V. LEE, BY AND ON BEHALF, ETC., ET AL. -vs- Supreme Court Case No. 2009-0387 On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators Labor Council v. Cleveland, 2012-Ohio-3358.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97358 MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION

More information

CITY OF CLEVELAND JEFFREY POSNER

CITY OF CLEVELAND JEFFREY POSNER [Cite as Cleveland v. Posner, 2010-Ohio-3091.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93893 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Powell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2015-Ohio-2035.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101662 ELIZABETH POWELL vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Jenkins, 2008-Ohio-6149.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90640 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. RICHARD B. JENKINS,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Buttner v. Renz, 2014-Ohio-4939.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101479 DANIEL A. BUTTNER PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. WILLIAM H.

More information

329 E. Main Street 1231 East Broad Street Lancaster, OH Columbus, OH 43205

329 E. Main Street 1231 East Broad Street Lancaster, OH Columbus, OH 43205 [Cite as Vizzo v. Morris, 2012-Ohio-2141.] COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JAMES A. VIZZO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- CHRISTINA M. MORRIS Defendant-Appellant JUDGES Hon. W.

More information

BROADVOX, LLC LENS ORESTE, ET AL.

BROADVOX, LLC LENS ORESTE, ET AL. [Cite as Broadvox, L.L.C., v. Oreste, 2009-Ohio-3466.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92064 BROADVOX, LLC PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LENS

More information

SANDRA HAVEL VILLA ST. JOSEPH, ET AL.

SANDRA HAVEL VILLA ST. JOSEPH, ET AL. [Cite as Havel v. St. Joseph, 2010-Ohio-5251.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94677 SANDRA HAVEL vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VILLA ST. JOSEPH,

More information

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SENECA COUNTY HERBERT ET AL., CASE NUMBER v. O P I N I O N

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SENECA COUNTY HERBERT ET AL., CASE NUMBER v. O P I N I O N [Cite as Herbert v. Porter, 165 Ohio App.3d 217, 2006-Ohio-355.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SENECA COUNTY HERBERT ET AL., CASE NUMBER 13-05-15 APPELLANTS, v. O P I N I O N PORTER ET AL.,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Gilbert, 2011-Ohio-1928.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 95083 and 95084 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. GABRIEL

More information

MILLING AWAY LLC UGP PROPERTIES LLC, ET AL.

MILLING AWAY LLC UGP PROPERTIES LLC, ET AL. [Cite as Milling Away, L.L.C. v. UGP Properties, L.L.C., 2011-Ohio-1103.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95751 MILLING AWAY LLC PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

RALPH A. PESTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY J. PESTA CITY OF PARMA, ET AL.

RALPH A. PESTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY J. PESTA CITY OF PARMA, ET AL. [Cite as Pesta v. Parma, 2009-Ohio-3060.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92363 RALPH A. PESTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Daimler Chrysler Fin. v. L.N.H., Inc., 2012-Ohio-2204.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97437 DAIMLER CHRYSLER FINANCIAL vs.

More information

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT CASE NO

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT CASE NO COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY RONALD A. YONTZ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT CASE NO. 6-99-01 v. RONALD D. GRIFFIN, ET AL. O P I N I O N DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil

More information

O P I N I O N ... ROBIN MYLES, 336 Woodhills Boulevard, Dayton, Ohio Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant

O P I N I O N ... ROBIN MYLES, 336 Woodhills Boulevard, Dayton, Ohio Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant [Cite as Myles v. Westbrooke Village Apts., 2010-Ohio-3775.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY ROBIN MYLES : : Appellate Case No. 23554 Plaintiff-Appellant : :

More information

STATE OF OHIO WELTON CHAPPELL

STATE OF OHIO WELTON CHAPPELL [Cite as State v. Chappell, 2009-Ohio-5371.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92455 STATE OF OHIO vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/ CROSS-APPELLEE

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT [Cite as Snider v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 2005-Ohio-1989.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 84989 DAVID S. SNIDER, ET AL., : ACCELERATED : Plaintiffs-Appellants

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For defendant-appellant: : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 10, 2005

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For defendant-appellant: : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 10, 2005 [Cite as State v. Gramlich, 2005-Ohio-503.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 84172 STATE OF OHIO JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee AND vs. OPINION HELENA GRAMLICH, AKA LISA

More information

CLL-REA 01, aaollr SUPREME CtlURs-" 01"OHI

CLL-REA 01, aaollr SUPREME CtlURs- 01OHI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO JEFFREY C. KEITH Petitioner, -vs- SUPREML COURT NO. On Appeal from the Eleventh District Court of Appeals Court of Appeals No. 2009-T-0056 Decision rendered December 21, 2009

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Gulley, 2011-Ohio-4123.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96161 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. BOBBY E. GULLEY

More information

STATE OF OHIO JAMES CARPENTER

STATE OF OHIO JAMES CARPENTER [Cite as State v. Carpenter, 2009-Ohio-3593.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91769 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMES CARPENTER

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT AND OPINION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 1, Court, Case No. CV Reversed and remanded.

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT AND OPINION DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 1, Court, Case No. CV Reversed and remanded. [Cite as Sharp v. Leiendecker, 2004-Ohio-3467.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 82949 DAVID W. SHARP, ET AL. Plaintiffs-appellees vs. SCOTT G. LEIENDECKER, ET AL. Defendants-appellants

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO GRaGIN L IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO BranchLotspeich,. CASE NO. 60 Appellant, On Appeal from the V.. Hamilton County Court of Appeals, First R. A. Hermes, Inc. dba About Space,. Appellate District Appellee.

More information

[Cite as State v. Abrams, 2011-Ohio-103.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA. JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No.

[Cite as State v. Abrams, 2011-Ohio-103.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA. JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. [Cite as State v. Abrams, 2011-Ohio-103.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94637 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DANT_ ABRAMS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Morrow, Gordon & Byrd, Ltd 10 West Broad Street, Suite W. Main Street, P.O. Box 4190 Columbus, OH Newark, OH

Morrow, Gordon & Byrd, Ltd 10 West Broad Street, Suite W. Main Street, P.O. Box 4190 Columbus, OH Newark, OH [Cite as Ohiotelnet.com, Inc. v. Windstream Ohio, Inc., 2012-Ohio-5969.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OHIOTELNET.COM, INC., ET AL Plaintiff-Appellant -vs- WINDSTREAM OHIO,

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Akron v. State, 2015-Ohio-5243.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) CITY OF AKRON, et al. C.A. No. 27769 Appellees v. STATE OF OHIO, et al.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Hull v. Charter One Bank, 2013-Ohio-2101.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99308 DOROTHY L. HULL, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

More information