non-oral hearing in Ohio

2007Co. , 100 Ohio St.3d 8 , 2003-Ohio-4829 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated that "[o] ne of the overriding goals of Civ.R. 56 is fundamental fairness to all litigants, given the high stakes involved when summary judgment is sought. * * * Civ.R. 56's procedural fairness requirements place significant responsibilities on all parties and judges to ensure that summary judgment [is] granted *Page 5 only after all parties have had a fair opportunity to be heard." {¶ 11} The original scheduling entry of April 13, 2006 ordered Mazda to file its memorandum in opposition by May 12, 2006, and set a non-or

2005The hearing on the motion was to be a non-oral hearing. {¶ 14} Appellant cites us to Hooten v. Safe Auto Insurance Company, 100 Ohio St. 3d 8 , 2003-Ohio-4829 , 795 N.E. 2d 648 , wherein the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed a claim the appellant had insufficient notice of the deadline for submitting briefs and summary judgment materials, and insufficient notice of the date the court would consider the motion for summary judgment submitted.

2026Ctr., 2026-Ohio-3202 .] KEISHA MIDDLEBROOK Case No. 2025-00569JD Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck v. JUDGMENT ENTRY THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY WEXNER MEDICAL CENTER Defendant IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO {¶34} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment, pertaining to Counts I and II of the complaint.

2026[Cite as Gehlmann v. Dept. of Transp., 2026-Ohio-3686 .] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO CYNTHIA A. GEHLMANN Case No. 2022-00450JD Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler v. ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant {¶1} Pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D), defendant’s motion for summary judgment is before the court for a non-oral hearing.

2026LISA L. SADLER Judge [Cite as Sutton v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2026-Ohio-1182 .] DEANNA SUTTON Case No. 2024-00832JD Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck v. JUDGMENT ENTRY OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO {¶35} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

2025LISA L. SADLER Judge [Cite as Castellon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-4747 .] ESTEPHEN CASTELLON Case No. 2024-00507JD Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck v. JUDGMENT ENTRY OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO {¶53} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon the parties’ cross- Motions for Summary Judgment.

2025LISA L. SADLER Judge [Cite as Watson v. Ohio Dept. of Dev., 2025-Ohio-5877 .] YVONNE WATSON Case No. 2023-00531JD Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck v. JUDGMENT ENTRY OHIO DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Defendant IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO {¶69} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

2025LISA L. SADLER Judge [Cite as Mohler v. Univ. of Toledo Athletic Dept., 2025-Ohio-518 .] CAITLIN MOHLER Case No. 2023-00630JD Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler Magistrate Holly True Shaver v. JUDGMENT ENTRY UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO ATHLETIC DEPT Defendant IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO {¶57} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

2025Ctr., 2025-Ohio-517 .] KIMBERLY JONES Case No. 2023-00266JD Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck v. JUDGMENT ENTRY THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY WEXNER MEDICAL CENTER Defendant IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO {¶36} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

2025KeyBank, 2024-Ohio-5333, ¶ 22 ; Costin, 2024-Ohio-463, ¶ 22 (discussing when a non-oral hearing is permissible under R.C. 2711.03).

2024Shifrin v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 , 597 N.E.2d 499 (1992). {¶41} As to appellant’s argument regarding the lack of evidentiary hearing, we again note that appellant did not request an evidentiary hearing, nor did he object to the trial court’s notice that the motion was set for a non-oral hearing.

2024Shifrin v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 , 597 N.E.2d 499 (1992). {¶41} As to appellant’s argument regarding the lack of evidentiary hearing, we again note that appellant did not request an evidentiary hearing, nor did he object to the trial court’s notice that the motion was set for a non-oral hearing.

2024LISA L. SADLER Judge [Cite as Khatri v. Ohio State Univ., 2024-Ohio-563 .] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO MAHESH KHATRI Case No. 2022-00768JD Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler Magistrate Robert Van Schoyck v. JUDGMENT ENTRY THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Defendant {¶37} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff, Defendant, and Dr. Linda Saif.

2023LISA L. SADLER Judge [Cite as Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation, 2023-Ohio-4139 .] NADINE JOHNSON Case No. 2022-00506JD Plaintiff Judge Lisa L. Sadler Magistrate Holly True Shaver v. JUDGMENT ENTRY OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION Defendant IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO {¶21} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

2020MCGRATH Judge [Cite as Bremar v. Ohio Univ., 2020-Ohio-4912 .] AARON BREMAR Case No. 2020-00193JD Plaintiff Judge Patrick McGrath Magistrate Holly True Shaver v. JUDGMENT ENTRY OHIO UNIVERSITY Defendant {¶22} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

2018Pruszynski v. Reeves , 117 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2008-Ohio-510 , 881 N.E.2d 1230 , paragraph one of the syllabus.

2018Pruszynski v. Reeves , 117 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2008-Ohio-510 , 881 N.E.2d 1230 , paragraph one of the syllabus.

2018THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED CREDIT FOR PRETRIAL DETAINMENT FOR TIME SPENT IN ANOTHER COUNTY’S JAIL.” I {¶8} In his sole Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying his request for additional jail-time credit. {¶9} Ohio's jail-credit statute, R.C. 2967.191, provides for the reduction of a prison term for an offender's related days of “confinement.” See, also, State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 , 2001-Ohio-1890 , 758 N.E.2d 1127 .

2018THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED CREDIT FOR PRETRIAL DETAINMENT FOR TIME SPENT IN ANOTHER COUNTY’S JAIL.” I {¶8} In his sole Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying his request for additional jail-time credit. {¶9} Ohio's jail-credit statute, R.C. 2967.191, provides for the reduction of a prison term for an offender's related days of “confinement.” See, also, State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 , 2001-Ohio-1890 , 758 N.E.2d 1127 .

2017State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 , 2011-Ohio-3374 , 952 N.E.2d 1108 .

2017State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 , 2011-Ohio-3374 , 952 N.E.2d 1108 .

2017No. 05CA0073, 2006-Ohio-3877 , 2006 WL 2105283 , ¶ 12, 15 (finding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file an untimely motion to suppress where the appellant failed to demonstrate or even allege good cause for the untimely filing and stated no cause for the delay on appeal); Gerken v. State Auto Ins.

2017See also Civ.R. 56(C) (allowing for service of responsive pleading to a motion for summary judgment as provided by local rule or by order of the court). {¶ 18} L.C.C.R. 4(B) provides that "[a]ll extensions of time shall be made by written motion which states the specific basis of the extension and which is supported by documentation and, if appropriate, affidavit [and] shall be accompanied by a proposed order which states the duration of the extension." The civil rules address extensions under Civ.R. 6(B), which states: When by [the civil rules] or by a notice given thereunder or by order of c

2017See also Civ.R. 56(C) (allowing for service of responsive pleading to a motion for summary judgment as provided by local rule or by order of the court). {¶ 18} L.C.C.R. 4(B) provides that "[a]ll extensions of time shall be made by written motion which states the specific basis of the extension and which is supported by documentation and, if appropriate, affidavit [and] shall be accompanied by a proposed order which states the duration of the extension." The civil rules address extensions under Civ.R. 6(B), which states: When by [the civil rules] or by a notice given thereunder or by order of c

2017See also Civ.R. 56(C) (allowing for service of responsive pleading to a motion for summary judgment as provided by local rule or by order of the court). {¶ 18} L.C.C.R. 4(B) provides that "[a]ll extensions of time shall be made by written motion which states the specific basis of the extension and which is supported by documentation and, if appropriate, affidavit [and] shall be accompanied by a proposed order which states the duration of the extension." The civil rules address extensions under Civ.R. 6(B), which states: When by [the civil rules] or by a notice given thereunder or by order of c

2017See also Civ.R. 56(C) (allowing for service of responsive pleading to a motion for summary judgment as provided by local rule or by order of the court). {¶ 18} L.C.C.R. 4(B) provides that "[a]ll extensions of time shall be made by written motion which states the specific basis of the extension and which is supported by documentation and, if appropriate, affidavit [and] shall be accompanied by a proposed order which states the duration of the extension." The civil rules address extensions under Civ.R. 6(B), which states: When by [the civil rules] or by a notice given thereunder or by order of c

2016THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT AWARDING DEFENDANT- APPELLANT JAIL TIME CREDIT AGAINST HIS SENTENCE.”2 {¶14} In the sole assignment of error Appellant argues he is entitled to credit for the time he was jailed in lieu of bail against his sentence, pursuant to R.C. 2967.191 and State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2008-Ohio-856 .

2016DALE A. CRAWFORD Judge [Cite as Hunter v. Bur. of Workers' Comp., 2016-Ohio-8577 .] DOUG HUNTER Case No. 2012-05479 Plaintiff Judge Dale A. Crawford v. JUDGMENT ENTRY BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Defendant {¶23} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

2016“Trial courts should award summary judgment with caution, being careful to resolve doubts and construe evidence in favor -4- of the nonmoving party.” Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344, 346 , 1993-Ohio-191 , 617 N.E.2d 1129 . {¶17} First, we must address appellant’s allegations that it did not receive notice of the non-oral hearing and the trial court did not notify it as to when its response to appellee’s motion for summary judgment was due. {¶18} The docket contains a copy of a notice stating that this case was assigned for non-oral hearing on appellant’s motion for su

2013Resources, Inc., 121 Ohio App.3d 348, 355 (8th Dist.1997), quoting Collins, supra, at 71 .

2012No. 21882, 2004-Ohio-4457, ¶ 14 , citing App.R. 16(A)(7). {¶8} Husband further argues that the domestic relations court’s ruling on his objections after a non-oral hearing violated his right to due process.