We hit the highlights from the Ohio Supreme Court on Friday, so let's get right to the courts of appeals.
Criminal. 6th District holds that nunc pro tunc entry imposing post-release controls is invalid because trial court did not comply with RC 2929.191 requirement of hearing to do that; imposition would have been impermissible anyway, since defendant had finished sentence, although he was still in prison on another crime... 10th District rules that exculpatory disclosure ten days prior to trial satisfies Brady; good discussion of timing requirement for disclosure of Brady material... 8th District affirms 8-year sentence for multiple pandering and importuning counts, holds that review of sentence is not for abuse of discretion, but only to determine whether sentence is contrary to law or evidence "clearly and convincingly" does not support it... 4th District holds that trial court's reference to having read PSI, which "presumably" contained financial information, sufficient to satisfy requirement that court consider defendant's ability to pay in ordering restitution... 12th District holds that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to make Rule 29 motion where state failed to prove venue...
Civil. 6th District rules that Texas decree on custody not entitled to full faith and credit, where child and father resided in Ohio since 1999... 9th District reverses plaintiff's verdict in med mal case, holds that trial court erred in refusing to allow defense to cross-examine plaintiff about prior misdemeanor theft conviction, rules that "unfair prejudice" not a proper consideration for admissiblity... 3rd District reverses grant of permanent custody to agency on grounds that trial court did not explain why it went against GAL's recommendation in doing so... 5th District holds that even where wife's motion to modify alimony is denied, judge can order husband to pay attorney fees where husband engages in "egregious acts"... 12th District reverses summary judgment in trampoline case, holds that dangers "double bounce" -- more than one person on trampoline at a time -- not sufficiently "open and obvious" so as to eliminate manufacturer's duty to warn...
You can call me Ronny, and you can call me Johnny, but you doesn't have to call me Emmanouel Hatzigeorgiou. From the 8th District's decision last week in Arrow Unif. Rental v. Emmanuel:
Although the original complaint was filed against "Emmanuel, aka Mike Hapcigeogiou, dba New Mom's Restaurant" the correct spelling of defendant-appellant's name is "Emmanouel Hatzigeorgiou," and he uses the nickname of "Mike." He is referred to herein as "appellant."
Me, I just would've sued "Mike" and been done with it.