FIRST DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

        

THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT.  THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI.  INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

 

DATE: Wednesday, August 27, 2025

CAPTION: STATE V. HUDSON

APPEAL NO.: C-240554 

TRIAL NO.: B-2305953

KEY WORDS: SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT — IMPORTUNING — R.C. 2907.07 

SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for importuning was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the juvenile victim testified that defendant school-security guard texted her to determine what class she was in, showed up outside of her classroom, and when the victim left class to go to the restroom, defendant waited for her and then asked her to engage in sexual activity. 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; BOCK, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.

 

CAPTION: STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. DANIELS V. HINKSTON

CASE NO.: C-240688

KEY WORDS: WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO — SUMMARY JUDGMENT— LACHES — MUNICIPAL CHARTER — REMOVAL OF OFFICERS

SUMMARY: Relator was entitled to a writ of quo warranto ousting respondent from relator’s seat on the municipality’s city council where the city council failed to pass a resolution declaring relator’s seat vacant as required by the removal provision of the municipal charter, and therefore, realtor was never legally removed from his seat on the council and respondent was never legally appointed to fill relator’s seat. 

JUDGMENT: WRIT GRANTED

JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.