Opinion analysis
New Ohio appellate decisions, analyzed for what they change in the next appeal. Quotations checked against the court's own opinion.
Browse by practice topic
A.A. v. S.P., 2026-Ohio-4205
A party who appeals a civil protection order without first filing the objections Civ.R. 65.1(G) requires does not lose appellate jurisdiction, but forfeits review of the alleged errors that could have been raised by objection, and plain-error review is not available as a substitute. Here, that meant no jurisdictional dismissal, but an affirmance of the protection order.
Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Co., N.A., 2026-Ohio-4001
When an earlier action was timely commenced and later failed other than on the merits, R.C. 2305.19(A) lets the plaintiff commence a new action within one year of that failure (or within the original limitations period, if later), and every claim in it is saved, even claims whose limitations period ran before a previous use of the statute. Because the case came up as a certified conflict, the court also revived claims the plaintiff never cross-appealed.
State v. Wilson, 2026-Ohio-3988
The Supreme Court of Ohio overruled State v. Luck and its progeny and adopted the United States Supreme Court's test: a defendant seeking dismissal for preindictment delay must prove both actual prejudice (missing evidence that would be favorable, material, and noncumulative) and that the delay was an intentional device to gain a tactical advantage for the State. The burden no longer shifts to the State to justify the delay, and a motion built on conclusory or speculative claims of lost evidence fails on the first prong.
Wilkes v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2026-Ohio-3897
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that ODOT's decision not to install temporary vandal-protective fencing on a bridge under reconstruction, made with no policy requiring it, was a basic policy decision involving a high degree of discretion. ODOT was immune, the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the wrongful-death action must be dismissed, even though the case had already been tried on the merits.
State v. Bradley, 2026-Ohio-3771
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that an error is not plain under Crim.R. 52(B) unless it is clear under current law, and that the appellant must show the outcome would have been different, not that it may have been. An unrequested transferred self-defense instruction failed both tests, so the Seventh District's reversal was itself reversed.
Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville, 2026-Ohio-3531
A unanimous Supreme Court of Ohio held that because claims for damages and declaratory relief cannot be brought in an R.C. Chapter 2506 administrative appeal, res judicata does not bar them in a later action. Those claims belong in a separate case, and the Sixth Circuit's contrary Moore decision was wrongly decided.
State v. Fontanez, 2026-Ohio-3281
A trial court's failure to tell a defendant that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt is not a complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 when the court otherwise complies with the rule, the admission of guilt is obvious from the context of the plea colloquy, and the defendant does not assert actual innocence. Appeals built on that omission now turn on whether the defendant can prove prejudice under the third Dangler prong.
Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-3056
When a trial court denies summary judgment because material facts are disputed and the case goes to verdict, the court of appeals must review the full trial record, not just the pretrial filings, before reversing. Pure legal error in the denial remains reviewable after trial, but labeling a fact question as legal does not let a reviewing court bypass the jury.
Garg v. Jenkins, 2026-Ohio-2936
An appeal from an order appointing a receiver is final only as to the receivership, so it cannot carry assignments of error aimed at earlier settlement, injunction, and fee rulings. If those rulings were final, the App.R. 4(A) time to appeal them had expired; if not, the receivership order did not make them final.
State v. Barnes, 2026-Ohio-2750
A crime victim appealing the denial of restitution is bound by the 30-day deadline in App.R. 4(A), and App.R. 5(A) offers delayed appeals only to defendants. A victim who voluntarily dismissed a timely appeal could not revive it years later through constitutional arguments, and the court refused to rewrite the rule by decision.
Subscribe with any reader: RSS feed. Analyses are for attorneys and are not legal advice.
The clock is running: the App.R. 4 deadline is often just 30 days
Send the caption today.
A firm quote within one business day.