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, October 1, 2025

CAPTION: State v. Swanigan

APPEAL No.: C-240598

TRIAL No.: B-2202844

KEY WORDS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAl — Competency to Stand Trial — Due Process — R.C. 2945.38

SUMMARY: During the course of a single proceeding, a defendant may not be ordered to receive competency-restoration treatment for a cumulative period greater than that specified in R.C. 2945.38(C).

The trial court erred in ordering defendant to undergo six months of competency-restoration treatment, where defendant had previously undergone five months of competency-restoration treatment, a forensic examiner concluded defendant could only be restored to competency again if the six-month period was “reset,” and the parties did not dispute the application of R.C. 2945.38 to the proceedings below.

JUDGMENT: reversed and cause remanded

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

 

CAPTION: SOUDERS V. LAZOR

APPEAL NO.: C-240613 

TRIAL NO.: A-2305350

KEY WORDS: R.C. 2323.52 — VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR — SCOPE OF APPEAL — 

FIRST AMENDMENT 

SUMMARY: The classification of plaintiff as a vexatious litigator was not violative of the First Amendment and the right to seek redress of grievances where the classification does not prevent him from seeking redress for legitimate grievances.

An appellant challenging a vexatious-litigator determination must set forth more than a mere conclusory assertion that the litigation pursued by him was neither frivolous nor intended to cause harm to meet the burden to demonstrate error on appeal. 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED AND APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART

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

 

CAPTION: STANSBERRY V. THEETGE

APPEAL NO.: C-240687 

TRIAL NO.: A-2404246

KEY WORDS: MOTION TO DISMISS — SERVICE — CIV.R. 5

SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that plaintiff was not properly served with the motion to dismiss where the record shows that the motion to dismiss was served on plaintiff at the address provided in the complaint and subsequent filings by plaintiff, and plaintiff did not challenge service below or offer any evidence in the record that service was not accomplished.

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; CROUSE and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.