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, December 31, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. WASHINGTON
APPEAL NO.: C-250032
TRIAL NO.: 24/CRB/17018
KEY WORDS: AGGRAVATED MENACING — MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: Defendant’s aggravated-menacing conviction was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the trier of fact considered conflicts and inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony but found her credible, because the trier of fact is in the best position to assess witness credibility.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: Fiedeldey v. Finneytown Local School District Board of Education
APPEAL No.: C-250075
TRIAL No.: A-1803020
KEY WORDS: Contempt — civil contempt — law of the case — abuse of discretion
SUMMARY: The trial court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion to hold defendant in contempt based on its interpretation of the trial court’s original order, where that interpretation was inconsistent with the law of the case, as established by this court’s prior decision interpretating that original order.
Defendant school board’s intervening termination of plaintiff’s employment did not necessarily preclude the trial court from holding defendant school board in contempt for failing to reinstate plaintiff in the proper role, and to the extent it denied plaintiff’s contempt motion based on an erroneous contrary belief, the trial court abused its discretion.
Where the trial court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion for contempt based on errors of law, the proper remedy was to reverse and remand to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion in the first instance.
JUDGMENT: reversed and the cause is remanded
JUDGES: OPINION by Crouse, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: HENRY CONTRACTORS, INC. V. HEIDLAGE
APPEAL NO.: C-250089
TRIAL NO.: A-2201912
KEY WORDS: SUMMARY JUDGMENT — COLLATERAL ATTACK
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff-appellant corporation’s claims against defendant, plaintiff’s sole shareholder’s former spouse, related to defendant’s misappropriation of plaintiff’s assets where those assets were distributed in defendant and shareholder’s divorce proceeding and plaintiff’s claims amounted to an attempt to collaterally attack the divorce decree; but plaintiff’s claims related to defendant’s theft occurring after the divorce decree was entered were not barred by the collateral-attack doctrine because those claims did not implicate the finality of the divorce decree, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on those claims.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF DIXIE FOUST
APPEAL NO.: C-250148
TRIAL NO.: 2024001815
KEY WORDS: GUARDIANSHIP — R.C. 2111.121(B) — APPOINTMENT — R.C. 2111.02(D)(2) — NOMINATION — BEST INTERESTS — STANDING
SUMMARY: The probate court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s application for guardianship because the court’s decision was supported by competent and credible evidence.
Appellant lacked standing to challenge the court’s appointment of two separate guardians, because the court’s decision to appoint separate guardians did not prejudice appellant.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. SAWYER
APPEAL NO.: C-250158
TRIAL NO.: B-2305779
KEY WORDS: FELONIOUS ASSAULT — IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE —INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — FELONY SENTENCING
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because the victim identified defendant as her assailant and inconsistencies in her testimony did not undermine the credibility of her identification.
Defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims based on trial counsel’s failure to investigate certain defenses and failure to present evidence require evidence outside of the record and could not be reviewed on direct appeal.
Defendant’s maximum sentence was not contrary to law because the record does not show that the trial court failed to consider the principles and purposes of felony sentencing.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: M.S., A.S., AND C.S.
APPEAL NOS.: C-250468, C-250487
TRIAL NO.: F/19/953 Z
KEY WORDS: PARENTAL TERMINATION — PERMANENT CUSTODY —REASONABLE EFFORTS — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: The juvenile court’s decision to commit the children to the permanent custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was based on competent, credible evidence where the parents’ visitation never progressed from supervised, they failed to obtain stable housing and income and submit to drug tests, they did not demonstrate understanding of the children’s trauma and special needs, and although the parents obtained housing they did so less than four months prior to the trial on the permanent-custody motion and had no furniture for the children in the home.
Where Mother failed to assert in her objections to the magistrate’s decision that the juvenile court did not make reasonable-efforts findings, she has failed to preserve this argument for appeal.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.