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: Friday, December 19, 2025
CAPTION: SCHEIDLER V. MACIEJEWSKI
APPEAL NO.: C-250074
TRIAL NO.: A-2303329
KEY WORDS: CIVIL TRESPASS — NUISANCE — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — ACTUAL DAMAGES — PROXIMATE CAUSE — MOTION TO STRIKE — PUNITIVE DAMAGES
SUMMARY: Where counterclaim plaintiff failed to establish that counterclaim defendant’s trespassory conduct was the proximate cause of the damage to her property, the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding $8,000 in actual damages.
Where plaintiff disclosed an expert witness well past the expert-disclosure deadline, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to strike the expert’s affidavit.
Where plaintiff’s claims asserted that defendant’s actions caused erosion to his property, and where plaintiff did not present expert testimony regarding the causation of the erosion, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant.
The trial court erred in awarding punitive damages in the absence of actual damages.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, P.J.; BOCK and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL DAVE YOST V. ELEVATE SMOKE, d.b.a. ELEV8 SMOKE SHOP
APPEAL NO.: C-250175
TRIAL NO.: A-2403034
KEY WORDS: MOTION TO DISMISS — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — HARMLESS ERROR — EXPRESS PREEMPTION — IMPLIED PREEMPTION
SUMMARY: The trial court’s erroneous use of the standard for motions to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) when reviewing a motion for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56 was harmless where the only issue before the trial court was the preemptive effect of federal law, a purely legal question.
Federal law regulating labels and market authorization for e-cigarettes implicitly preempted claims under Ohio’s consumer protection law against defendant-retailer of e-cigarettes because those claims exist solely by virtue of the federal law requiring premarket review of e-cigarettes and those claims conflict with the federal law’s labeling requirements for e-cigarettes.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.