Cases

[Cite as Buehner v. Cheselka, 2022-Ohio-2687.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA MICHAEL BUEHNER, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 111165 v. : MICHAEL JOSEPH CHESELKA, JR., : ET AL.,

[Cite as Robinson v. Cleveland, 2024-Ohio-969.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA MALIK D. ROBINSON, ET AL., : No. 112798 Plaintiffs-Appellees, : v. : CITY OF CLEVELAND, ET AL. :

[Cite as Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Cleveland, 2024-Ohio-1475.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 113116 v. : CITY OF CLEVELAND,

[Cite as Cleveland v. Shaker Hts. Apts. Owner, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-449.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA CITY OF CLEVELAND, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Nos. 114852, 114853, and v.

[Cite as State v. Howard, 2022-Ohio-3739.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : No. 111286 LEONARD HOWARD, : Defendant-Appellant. :

[Cite as State v. Fisher, 2010-Ohio-5192.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT AUGLAIZE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2-10-09 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MALLORY FISHER, OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Appeal from Auglaize County Municipal Court T

[Cite as Euclid v. Washington, 2026-Ohio-2081.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA CITY OF EUCLID, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 115509 v. : DATONE WASHINGTON, SR., :

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Whitaker, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2840.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0079p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0079p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐ Plaintiff-Appellee, │

OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Ronald A. Smith, appeals a judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court finding him guilty of Aggravated Burglary and Aggravated Robbery and sentencing him to twenty years. In case number 21463, Smith *Page 2 asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on aggravated burglary; that the verdicts were contrary to the manifest weig

O’Donnell, J. {¶ 1} Anthony Sowell appeals from the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in connection with 11 capital convictions and sentences of death arising out of the serial killing of 11 women in Cleveland, Ohio. Sometime before October 28, 2009, Sowell kidnapped and murdered these 11 women and buried or concealed them at his home located at 12205 Imperial Avenue on the east side of Cleveland. Members of

[Cite as State v. Ayers, 2026-Ohio-1040.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 115129 v. : RONALD AYERS, :

[Cite as State v. McInnes, 2026-Ohio-734.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 115053 v. : IAN W. MCINNES, :

JAMES M. CARTER, District Judge. This appeal, in an action for violation of civil rights, presents three major questions: (1) The sufficiency of the second amended complaint to state a cause of action; (2) The right to immunity, if any, possessed by state executive officers, and

Appellee instituted this action to recover damages of appellant by reason of its alleged negligence. This appeal is only concerned with one of the assigned errors: the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial, and the two causes named therein, viz., the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and the verdict is contrary to law. The complaint alleged that appellant in the operation of its train violated the provisions of Acts 1881 (Spec. Sess.) p. 590, §

Action by appellee to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as result of a collision of a motor truck, operated at the time by appellee, with appellant's traction car, at a railroad and highway crossing. Complaint in two paragraphs, which are the same, except that in the first the negligence charged as the proximate cause of the collision is the failure of appellant to give a warning signal of the approach of its car, while the second paragraph charges the proximate cause to have be

Willoughby, J. — Appellee sued appellant for damages on account of an injury alleged to have occurred at a street crossing in the city of Bluffton, Indiana, on account of alleged negligence of appellant. The complaint was in three paragraphs and issues were formed on each paragraph by general denial. Trial by jury and verdict for appellee in the sum of $2,500. Appellant filed a motion for new .trial, and the court, after requirin

Gillett, J. Suit by appellee against appellant for injuries received by her while attempting to alight from appellant’s interurban car, in a public street in the town of Arcadia. Appellant was defeated below, and assigns as error the overruling of its demurrer to the complaint, and the overruling of its motion for a new trial. *881.

Hottel, P. J. — This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee in an action brought against it for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by appellant when attempting to board one of appellee’s cars, at the intersection of Wenzel and Jefferson Streets, in the city of Louisville, Kentucky. The issues of fact were presented by a complaint and a general denial. A motion for a new trial was overruled and this rul