{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-11", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e0b409", "proof": "sha256:307091870e3219878d2b33556e8011199263e10bf64d0d32e18f2bed7d39a14b", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "", "paragraphs": [ "para_1" ] }, { "title": "IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "LUCAS COUNTY", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Geneva Simmons", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appellee", "paragraphs": [ "para_7" ] }, { "title": "Kendra Pierce", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appellee", "paragraphs": [ "para_10" ] }, { "title": "Court of Appeals No. L-24-1243", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Trial Court No. CI0202301825", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "DECISION AND JUDGMENT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Decided: January 16, 2026", "paragraphs": [ "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19" ] }, { "title": "Common Pleas finding him in contempt of court following his refusal to provide", "paragraphs": [ "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24" ] }, { "title": "I. Facts and Procedural History", "paragraphs": [ "para_26" ] }, { "title": "Kory Moore at Procare Accident & Injury Center following an auto accident involving", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Kendra Pierce. At that time, Simmons and Moore executed an agreement providing that", "paragraphs": [ "para_29", "para_30" ] }, { "title": "Procare Accident & Injury Center shall not release any medical records", "paragraphs": [ "para_32", "para_33" ] }, { "title": "Agreement. Patient specifically prohibits the release of their medical file", "paragraphs": [ "para_35" ] }, { "title": "Center in writing that the (responsible party) Adjuster, Insurance Company", "paragraphs": [ "para_37", "para_38", "para_39" ] }, { "title": "She also signed a Letter of Protection (LOP) which included a signature line for her", "paragraphs": [ "para_41", "para_42", "para_43" ] }, { "title": "November 2022. Simmons’ counsel sent letters in October and December 2022 and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "January 2023, with HIPAA-compliant authorizations, requesting medical records and", "paragraphs": [ "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51" ] }, { "title": "Simmons’ direction.”", "paragraphs": [ "para_53", "para_54" ] }, { "title": "On that date, Simmons’ counsel sent a subpoena to Moore. No return receipt was filed", "paragraphs": [ "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60" ] }, { "title": "Counsel sent a copy of the motion to Moore at Procare prior to its closing at the end of", "paragraphs": [ "para_62", "para_63" ] }, { "title": "August 24, 2023, by appearing in court with the requested records or be held in contempt", "paragraphs": [ "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68" ] }, { "title": "Kory Moore, D.C., of ProCare Accident & Injury Center to appear, this Court finds he is", "paragraphs": [ "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82" ] }, { "title": "On February 14, 2024, Moore’s counsel entered an appearance indicating Moore’s intent", "paragraphs": [ "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88" ] }, { "title": "Civ.R. 60(B)(4) and (5), Simmons’ omission also qualified as an abuse of process in that", "paragraphs": [ "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109" ] }, { "title": "February 2024 and resided out of state. He explained that while working at Procare, he", "paragraphs": [ "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124" ] }, { "title": "January 2023, all prior to the office closing, requesting that the records be produced. He", "paragraphs": [ "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153" ] }, { "title": "Moore’s assertion that Simmons fraudulently failed to apprise the court of the treatment", "paragraphs": [ "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168" ] }, { "title": "II. Assignments of Error", "paragraphs": [ "para_170" ] }, { "title": "Assignment of Error One: The judgment of contempt is void as the", "paragraphs": [ "para_172", "para_173" ] }, { "title": "Assignment of Error Two: If the contempt order was based on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_175", "para_176", "para_177" ] }, { "title": "Assignment of Error Three: If the contempt order was based on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_179", "para_180", "para_181" ] }, { "title": "Assignment of Error Four: The trial court denied Dr. Moore Due", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Process when it deprived him of a contractual right to recover payments", "paragraphs": [ "para_184" ] }, { "title": "Assignment of Error Five: Civ.R. 60(B) relief should have been", "paragraphs": [ "para_186" ] }, { "title": "III. Analysis", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A. Post-dismissal Enforcement of Contempt Sanctions", "paragraphs": [ "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194" ] }, { "title": "133 (1994). “Contempt proceedings ‘are sui generis in the law’ bearing “some", "paragraphs": [ "para_196", "para_197" ] }, { "title": "Cincinnati Dist. Council 51, 35 Ohio St.2d 197, 201-202 (1973). The court’s intent", "paragraphs": [ "para_199", "para_200", "para_201" ] }, { "title": "Arnold, 2020-Ohio-3749, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.) Criminal contempt sanctions, however, are", "paragraphs": [ "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210" ] }, { "title": "(2001). In Corn, a prohibition action, relators argued that respondent court lacked", "paragraphs": [ "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226" ] }, { "title": "(1990) (“criminal contempt charge is likewise ‘a separate and independent proceeding at", "paragraphs": [ "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231" ] }, { "title": "(“[E]ven if the Civ.R. 41(A) dismissal were deemed valid, we are not persuaded that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239" ] }, { "title": "Mut. Bank v. Beatley, 2020-Ohio-4658, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.). The language reserving", "paragraphs": [ "para_241" ] }, { "title": "Karam Properties, II, Ltd., 2015-Ohio-1101 (a court retains jurisdiction to enforce a", "paragraphs": [ "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253" ] }, { "title": "B. Basis of Contempt Finding", "paragraphs": [ "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259" ] }, { "title": "Civ.R. 30. His third assignment of error challenges the validity of the March 10, 2023", "paragraphs": [ "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265" ] }, { "title": "Procare employee Deanna [sic] Walker testified she would occasionally", "paragraphs": [ "para_267", "para_268" ] }, { "title": "September 12, 2023 when the Court’s compel order and order for sanctions", "paragraphs": [ "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274" ] }, { "title": "Further, in scheduling the show cause hearing the court afforded Moore the opportunity", "paragraphs": [ "para_276" ] }, { "title": "The hearing could have provided Moore a second chance to contest the validity of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286" ] }, { "title": "C. Right to Recover", "paragraphs": [ "para_288" ] }, { "title": "September 23 notice of dismissal barring his recovery of payment for his chiropractic", "paragraphs": [ "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293" ] }, { "title": "257, 266 (4th Dist. 1998). Generally, the imposition of sanctions requires prior notice", "paragraphs": [ "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309" ] }, { "title": "Simmons. He chose not to and Simmons should not be penalized by Moore’s failure to", "paragraphs": [ "para_311" ] }, { "title": "D. Relief from Judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320" ] }, { "title": "ThorWorks Industries, Inc., 2024-Ohio-1617, ¶ 91 (6th Dist.), quoting GTE Automatic", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976), paragraph two of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326" ] }, { "title": "Civ.R. 60(B)(1), mistake, and (B)(3), misrepresentation, based on Simmons’ counsel’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331" ] }, { "title": "Finally, under Civ.R. 60(B)(5), he should be granted relief from the contempt order based", "paragraphs": [ "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339" ] }, { "title": "IV. Conclusion", "paragraphs": [ "para_341" ] }, { "title": "Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, Moore is ordered to pay the costs of", "paragraphs": [ "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347" ] }, { "title": "JUDGE", "paragraphs": [ "para_349" ] }, { "title": "JUDGE", "paragraphs": [ "para_351" ] }, { "title": "CONCUR. JUDGE", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported", "paragraphs": [ "para_355", "para_356" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "[Cite as Simmons v. Pierce, 2026-Ohio-152.]", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "LUCAS COUNTY", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "Geneva Simmons", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "Appellee", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Kendra Pierce", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Appellee", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "[Kory Moore - Appellant]", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Court of Appeals No. L-24-1243", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Trial Court No. CI0202301825", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "DECISION AND JUDGMENT", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Decided: January 16, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "* * * * *", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Karin L. Coble, Esq., attorney for appellant.", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "* * * * *", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "SULEK, J.,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "{¶ 1} Appellant, Kory Moore, appeals a judgment of the Lucas County Court of", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Common Pleas finding him in contempt of court following his refusal to provide", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "chiropractic records in a personal injury action, ordering sanctions of $500 per day,", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "totaling $14,500, and barring his recovery of any fees relating to the missing documents.", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "2.", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "I. Facts and Procedural History", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "{¶ 2} In February 2022, Geneva Simmons sought chiropractic treatment with Dr.", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Kory Moore at Procare Accident & Injury Center following an auto accident involving", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "Kendra Pierce. At that time, Simmons and Moore executed an agreement providing that", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "any settlement would include provisions for the payment of Procare. The agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "included the following records release provision:", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Procare Accident & Injury Center shall not release any medical records", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "relating to the accident described herein unless and until Patient provides", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "written proof that Patient has provided the Adjuster with a copy of this", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "Agreement. Patient specifically prohibits the release of their medical file", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "until such time as Patient has so instructed Procare Accident & Injury", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "Center in writing that the (responsible party) Adjuster, Insurance Company", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "or tortfeasor has been advised of this agreement and has consented to the", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "provisions contained herein.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Simmons signed a “Treatment Fee Agreement and Instructions to My Attorney” form.", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "She also signed a Letter of Protection (LOP) which included a signature line for her", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "counsel guaranteeing that any outstanding fees would be paid from the settlement", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "proceeds.", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "{¶ 3} According to Moore, the documents were faxed to Simmons’ attorney in", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "November 2022. Simmons’ counsel sent letters in October and December 2022 and", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "January 2023, with HIPAA-compliant authorizations, requesting medical records and", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "itemized billing statements. On February 11, 2023, Moore emailed Simmons’ attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "enquiring as to why the LOP had not been signed. Counsel responded that LOPs are not", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "signed per counsel’s law firm’s policy. The parties continued corresponding regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "3.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "the release of Simmons’ medical records and the LOP with Moore stating that “[w]hen", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "the records release clause has been met, I will certainly release the medical file at Ms.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "Simmons’ direction.”", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "{¶ 4} On March 10, 2023, Simmons filed a complaint in the Lucas County Court", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "of Common Pleas against Pierce for damages stemming from the motor vehicle accident.", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "On that date, Simmons’ counsel sent a subpoena to Moore. No return receipt was filed", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "with the court. On May 5, 2023, Simmons filed a Civ.R. 30 notice of deposition duces", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "tecum of Moore, seeking medical records relating to her treatment following the accident.", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "Moore did not respond.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "{¶ 5} On June 9, 2023, Simmons moved to compel the production of Simmons’", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "medical records stating that Moore ignored both the subpoena and notice of deposition.", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "Counsel sent a copy of the motion to Moore at Procare prior to its closing at the end of", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "June. Moore again did not respond.", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "{¶ 6} The court granted the motion to compel, ordering Moore to comply by", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "August 24, 2023, by appearing in court with the requested records or be held in contempt", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "of court. On July 11, 2023, the court sent a copy of the order by certified mail. The court", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "filed the signed return receipt, listing the signature as “not legible.”", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "{¶ 7} Moore failed to appear at the August 24 show cause hearing. After finding", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "that Moore was served notice of the hearing, the court found: “Based upon the failure of", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "Kory Moore, D.C., of ProCare Accident & Injury Center to appear, this Court finds he is", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "4.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "in contempt and in direct violation of this Court’s Order filed on July 7, 2023.” The court", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "then imposed contempt sanctions of $500 per day until the documents were produced.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "{¶ 8} On September 22, 2023, the court found the parties joint stipulation of", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "dismissal well-taken. In the judgment entry of dismissal, the court ordered that Moore", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "and Procare were barred from collecting any payment relating to her treatment from", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "either Simmons or the insurance company because the missing bills were not factored", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "into settlement negotiations. Simultaneous to the dismissal order the court issued an", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "order, sua sponte, enforcing the sanctions it imposed on Moore. The order stated that as", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "of the date of the dismissal, Moore had accrued monetary sanctions of $14,500 and", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "ordered that Moore remit payment within 60 days or the court would issue a body", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "attachment for his arrest. The clerk’s office sent copies of both orders to Moore.", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "{¶ 9} The court issued a body attachment after Moore failed to remit payment.", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "On February 14, 2024, Moore’s counsel entered an appearance indicating Moore’s intent", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "to turn himself in on the body attachment. On February 26, 2024, Moore moved for", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) claiming that Simmons intentionally failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "inform the court of her contract with Moore covering the release of documents in order to", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "avoid payment. He claimed that the failure qualified as a mistake or “material", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "misrepresentation” under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) and (3). Moore further claimed that under", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "Civ.R. 60(B)(4) and (5), Simmons’ omission also qualified as an abuse of process in that", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "she attempted to punish a nonparty to the action.", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "5.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "{¶ 10} On April 18, and June 20, 2024, the court conducted a hearing on Moore’s", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "motion. During opening statements, Moore additionally claimed that the subpoena and", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "motion to compel were never properly served on Moore. He further claimed that Procare", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "was closed from July 2023 until February 2024 and the mail was not opened.", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "{¶ 11} Simmons’ prior counsel testified regarding the issuance of the subpoena", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "duces tecum and the notice of deposition. He acknowledged that the subpoena was", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "unsigned and that he did not file a return of service with the court. Counsel also agreed", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "that Moore was not a party to the action and was served a notice of deposition, not a", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "subpoena.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "{¶ 12} Procare office coordinator Dena Walker testified that she handles various", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "administrative functions, including opening the mail. She stated that Moore closed the", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "office from June 2023 until February 2024. The only evidence that he closed the office", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "was a blank printout showing no appointments. Walker agreed to check on the building", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "once a week, generally on the weekends, to make sure it was secure and collect the mail", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "and place it in a box. During that time, she denied opening any mail and could not", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "remember signing for any certified mail. She specifically denied signing for the July 9,", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "2023 order to compel.", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "{¶ 13} Moore testified that he closed the office from the end of June 2023 until", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "February 2024 and resided out of state. He explained that while working at Procare, he", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "commutes from Iowa and it is difficult to get associates to cover the office. For the first", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "time, Moore decided to close for a “month or so” because it is slower in the summer; that", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "6.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "stretched into six or seven months. He testified regarding patient reporting software", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "printout showing that that there were no scheduled appointments during that time. Moore", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "stated that there were no active clients when he closed the clinic in late June 2023.", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "{¶ 14} According to Moore, only he and Walker had keys to the office. Walker,", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "unpaid and with no set schedule, stopped by to make sure it was secure and placed mail", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "in a box in Moore’s office. She opened only the mail that appeared to be a payment", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "though any checks remained uncashed in his absence. Walker did not forward any mail", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "to Moore in Iowa and placed no calls to Moore regarding the contents of the mail. He", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "also denied having remote access to the work email account.", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "{¶ 15} Moore could not recall receiving any correspondence even after being", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "shown three letters sent by Simmons’ attorney in October and December 2022, and", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "January 2023, all prior to the office closing, requesting that the records be produced. He", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "denied receiving any correspondence from Progressive Insurance relating to the court", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "{¶ 16} Moore did not recall receiving either the March 10, 2023 subpoena or the", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "notice of deposition. His understanding was that the parties would resolve the case", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "without the medical records and bills and that his payment would not come from the", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "settlement proceeds.", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "{¶ 17} Simmons’ counsel questioned Moore about the certified mail delivery of", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "the court’s order granting the motion to compel, left with an individual on July 19, 2023", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "at 9:20 a.m. with the return receipt signed with what appears a name with the initials", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "7.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "“D.W.,” order granting sanctions, left with an individual on September 7, 2023, at 9:41", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "a.m. with the return receipt clearly signed “Dena Walker,” and the order enforcing", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "sanctions, left with an individual on September 23, 2023, at 11:40 a.m., return receipt", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "unsigned. Moore indicated that when he returned in February 2024, he went through all", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "the mail and found the documents relating to the court proceeding. He discovered he had", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "a warrant and turned himself in and immediately contacted his attorney who, in turn,", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "entered an appearance with the court.", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "{¶ 18} On September 5, 2024, the court denied Moore’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "relief from judgment, concluding that he failed to establish mistake, inadvertence, or", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "excusable neglect. The court discredited Moore’s arguments regarding the validity of the", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "subpoena duces tecum and the notice of deposition noting that he had an opportunity to", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "challenge the documents in response to Simmons’ motion to compel. The court also", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "questioned Moore’s assertion that he received none of Simmons’ documents or any of the", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "court’s orders. The court noted that the three separate letters sent by Simmons’ counsel,", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "with HIPAA-compliant authorizations, were sufficient alone in requiring Moore to", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "provide the requested records.", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "{¶ 19} The court then concluded that Moore’s willful ignorance of the court and", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "the proceedings did not support a finding of mistake or excusable neglect. It also rejected", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "Moore’s assertion that Simmons fraudulently failed to apprise the court of the treatment", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "contract between she and Moore in her motion to compel. The court explained that this", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "8.", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "defense to performance could have been raised in response to the motion to compel of", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "which Moore received service.", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "{¶ 20} The court further explained that Moore’s and Walker’s testimony regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "the closing of the office lacked credibility highlighting the fact that Walker just happened", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "to be at the office on two occasions when certified mail was delivered. The court also", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "discredited the “Appointment Statistics Report” evidence.", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "{¶ 21} Finally, the court found that Moore’s willful and deliberate disregard of the", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "court’s orders over several months resulted in a settlement offer excluding the medical", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "bills incurred by Simmons. Finding this unjust, the court upheld its waiver and discharge", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "of the medical bills relating to Simmons citing it discretion when imposing sanctions for", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "discovery violations under Civ.R. 37.", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "{¶ 22} This appeal followed.", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "II. Assignments of Error", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "{¶ 23} Moore raises five assignments of error for review:", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "Assignment of Error One: The judgment of contempt is void as the", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "underlying litigation was settled and dismissed on the same day the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "court journalized the judgment of contempt.", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "Assignment of Error Two: If the contempt order was based on the", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "notice of deposition on May 5, 2023, the contempt must be vacated because", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "no show cause order can be issued to a non-party based upon a notice of", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "deposition pursuant to Civ.R. 30.", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "Assignment of Error Three: If the contempt order was based on the", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "subpoena duces tecum of March 10, 2023, the contempt must be vacated as", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "the subpoena was unsigned, not properly docketed, and not properly served.", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "9.", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "Assignment of Error Four: The trial court denied Dr. Moore Due", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "Process when it deprived him of a contractual right to recover payments", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "from his patient, the plaintiff in this matter.", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "Assignment of Error Five: Civ.R. 60(B) relief should have been", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "granted.", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "III. Analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "A. Post-dismissal Enforcement of Contempt Sanctions", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "{¶ 24} In his first assignment of error, Moore claims that the court’s dismissal of", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "the underlying case voids the civil contempt finding and the court’s jurisdiction to", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "enforce the judgment imposing the civil contempt sanctions.", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "{¶ 25} A court has the inherent authority “‘to compel compliance of their lawfully", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "issued orders . . .to uphold and ensure the effective administration of justice.’” Cleveland", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "v. Bright, 2020-Ohio-5180, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.), quoting Cramer v. Petrie, 70 Ohio St.3d 131,", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "133 (1994). “Contempt proceedings ‘are sui generis in the law’ bearing “some", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "resemblance to suits in equity, to criminal proceedings and to ordinary civil actions; but", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "they are none of these.” State v. Wisener, 2022-Ohio-4557, ¶ 24 (7th Dist.), quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "Cincinnati Dist. Council 51, 35 Ohio St.2d 197, 201-202 (1973). The court’s intent", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "governs whether the proceedings are civil or criminal. Id. Civil contempt sanctions are", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "designed for remedial or coercive purposes and are often employed to compel obedience", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "to a court order. Andrews v. Andrews, 2022-Ohio-3854, ¶ 6 (6th Dist.), quoting State v.", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "Arnold, 2020-Ohio-3749, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.) Criminal contempt sanctions, however, are", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "punitive in nature and are designed to vindicate the authority of the court. Id., quoting", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "10.", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "Arnold at ¶ 12. Thus, civil contempts are characterized as violations against the party for", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "whose benefit the order was made, while criminal contempts are most often described as", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "offenses against the dignity or process of the court. State v. Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201,", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "204-205 (1980).", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "{¶ 26} A proceeding that begins as a civil contempt action may transform into a", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "criminal contempt action. State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551, 555-556", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "(2001). In Corn, a prohibition action, relators argued that respondent court lacked", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "authority over a civil contempt proceeding involving the production of documents by a", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "nonparty where the parties settled the underlying action. Id. at 554. The court agreed", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "with respondent’s characterization of the proceeding as shifting from civil to criminal", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "contempt when respondent learned that it was relators’ practice to destroy records to", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "prevent inquiries into his billing practices. The court noted that", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "the purpose of the contempt sanction was no longer restricted to coercing", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "relators into complying with the court’s orders. Instead, its purpose was to", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "vindicate the authority of the judge and to punish relators if she found that", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "their practices impeded the judicial process and frustrated the civil", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "discovery rules. Thus, what began as a civil matter became criminal in", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "nature.", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "Id. at 556.", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "{¶ 27} The court then determined that “the dismissal of an underlying civil action", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "does not divest a court of common pleas of jurisdiction to conduct criminal contempt", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "proceedings.” Id., relying on Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395-396", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "(1990) (“criminal contempt charge is likewise ‘a separate and independent proceeding at", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "11.", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "law’ that is not part of the original action. . . . A court may make an adjudication of", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "contempt and impose a contempt sanction even after the action in which the contempt", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "arose has been terminated.”). See Kahler v. Capehart, 2004-Ohio-2224 (3d Dist.), fn. 3", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "(“[E]ven if the Civ.R. 41(A) dismissal were deemed valid, we are not persuaded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "trial court did not have inherent authority to address the collateral matter of contempt for", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "failure to obey an order of the court rendered prior to the court’s dismissal", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "notwithstanding the civil characterization given to the contempt proceeding by the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "court.”).", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "{¶ 28} In addition, Ohio courts have held that a trial court may specifically retain", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over a civil contempt proceeding as a collateral matter following dismissal of", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "the underlying action. Dudley v. Dudley, 2013-Ohio-859, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.); Washington", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "Mut. Bank v. Beatley, 2020-Ohio-4658, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.). The language reserving", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "jurisdiction must be clear and unequivocal. Id. See also Infinite Sec. Solutions, L.L.C. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "Karam Properties, II, Ltd., 2015-Ohio-1101 (a court retains jurisdiction to enforce a", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "settlement agreement if the dismissal entry incorporates the terms of the agreement or the", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "court states that it retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement).", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "{¶ 29} Under the specific facts presented here, Moore does not dispute his failure", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "to provide the requested documents, his failure to appear at the contempt hearing, and the", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "court’s contempt finding on this basis—all of which were decided prior to the dismissal", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "of the underlying action. Thus, whether the civil contempt proceedings converted into", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "criminal proceedings upon the dismissal of the action or the court specifically retained", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "12.", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over the collateral, contempt action, the court had jurisdiction to enforce its", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "contempt finding and accompanying sanctions. Moore’s first assignment of error is not", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "well-taken.", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "B. Basis of Contempt Finding", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "{¶ 30} Moore’s second and third assignments of error challenge the manner and", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "method by which he, as a nonparty to the personal injury action, was served with various", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "discovery notices. Specifically, Moore’s second assignment of error states that if the", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "court based its contempt finding on his failure to respond to the notice of deposition", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "issued on May 5, 2024, it was erroneous as only a party can be served with notice under", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "Civ.R. 30. His third assignment of error challenges the validity of the March 10, 2023", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "subpoena duces tecum because it was unsigned, and the return of service was not", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "docketed with the court.", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "{¶ 31} Moore’s arguments should have been addressed in response to Simmons’", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "motion to compel which the trial court properly served. The court recognized this in its", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "entry denying relief from judgment noting:", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "Procare employee Deanna [sic] Walker testified she would occasionally", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "stop by Procare while it was closed to collect mail and place it on Moore’s", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "desk. However, she happened to be present on both July 20, 2023 and", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "September 12, 2023 when the Court’s compel order and order for sanctions", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "were delivered respectively, both of which she signed for an accepted as", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "shown on the certified mail receipts. Ex. PC 7. Even if Moore was in Iowa", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "during the time Procare was supposedly closed, service would have been", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "deemed complete as per the Civil Rules.", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "13.", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "Further, in scheduling the show cause hearing the court afforded Moore the opportunity", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "to either provide the requested documents or explain why he could or would not comply.", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "The hearing could have provided Moore a second chance to contest the validity of the", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "documents and the underlying contract between Procare and Simmons.", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "{¶ 32} Finally, the court’s August 25, 2023 judgment entry, clearly stated that", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "“[b]ased upon the failure to Kory Moore, D.C. of ProCare Accident & Injury Center to", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "appear, this Court finds he is in contempt and in direct violation of this Court’s Order", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "filed on July 7, 2023.” This evidences that the court held Moore in contempt because of", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "his failure to appear at the show cause hearing.", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "{¶ 33} Accordingly, the trial court did not err by determining that Moore received", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "notice of and failed to comply with its direct order, thus, finding him in contempt and", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "ordering sanctions. Moore’s second and third assignments of error are not well-taken.", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "C. Right to Recover", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "{¶ 34} Moore’s fourth assignment of error challenges the portion of the court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "September 23 notice of dismissal barring his recovery of payment for his chiropractic", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "services provided to Simmons for the accident at issue in the case. He contends that the", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "court imposed the sanction without due process notice protections.", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "{¶ 35} A trial court has broad discretion in fashioning contempt sanctions to", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "compensate an injured party. First Bank of Marietta v. Mascrete, Inc., 125 Ohio App.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "257, 266 (4th Dist. 1998). Generally, the imposition of sanctions requires prior notice", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "and an opportunity to be heard. See R.C. 2705.03. What due process is required varies", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "14.", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "“‘depending on the importance attached to the interest and the particular circumstances", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "under which the deprivation may occur.’” Angotti v. Jones, 2024-Ohio-3222, ¶ 21 (6th", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "Dist.), quoting State v. Hochhausler, 76 Ohio St.3d 455, 459 (1996); First Bank at 268.", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "{¶ 36} Here, Moore and Simmons contracted for chiropractic services. The", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "contract emphasized that Procare would satisfy its outstanding bills through the", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "settlement proceeds. At the motion hearing, Moore specifically acknowledged that “[w]e", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "work on a contingency waiting to get paid after the settlement.” He explained that the", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "bills could be adjusted where “the settlement is not enough for everyone to have a", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "reasonable amount.” Patients were not required to pay any up-front charges or provide", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "proof of the ability to pay and were billed only after an insurance settlement. It follows,", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "thus, that where a settlement is entered into exclusive of the medical bills, Moore could", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "not reasonably anticipate recovery for such bills. Moore had the option of providing the", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "requested records and intervening in the action to assert a breach of contract claim against", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "Simmons. He chose not to and Simmons should not be penalized by Moore’s failure to", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "participate in the proceedings. Moore’s fourth assignment of error is not well-taken.", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "D. Relief from Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "{¶ 37} Moore’s fifth and final assignment of error asserts that the court erred by", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "denying his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. Entitlement to Civ.R. 60(B)", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "relief requires that a movant “‘demonstrate that: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "15.", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "reasonable time, and, where the grounds of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken.’” Moore v.", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "ThorWorks Industries, Inc., 2024-Ohio-1617, ¶ 91 (6th Dist.), quoting GTE Automatic", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976), paragraph two of the", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "syllabus. An appellate court reviews a trial court’s denial of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for an", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "abuse of discretion. Id., citing Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "(1988).", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "{¶ 38} Moore claims that he established the right to relief from judgment under", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "Civ.R. 60(B)(1), mistake, and (B)(3), misrepresentation, based on Simmons’ counsel’s", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "failure to properly serve the subpoena and notice of deposition or acknowledge the", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "contract between he and Simmons. Under Civ.R. 60(B)(4), Moore claims it was no", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "longer equitable to enforce the contempt and the court’s attempt to retain jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "failed because it had prior knowledge that the parties were entering into a settlement.", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "Finally, under Civ.R. 60(B)(5), he should be granted relief from the contempt order based", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "upon the court’s inherent power to relieve a person from an unjust judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "{¶ 39} On review, based upon our disposition of Moore’s first, second, and third", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "assignments of error, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Moore’s", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "motion under Civ.R. 60(B) because Moore failed to present a meritorious claim for relief", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "and the court’s order imposing sanctions was not unjust. Moore’s fifth assignment of", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "error is not well-taken.", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "16.", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "IV. Conclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "{¶ 40} Upon due consideration, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "Common Pleas is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, Moore is ordered to pay the costs of", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "this appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "Judgment affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "Christine E. Mayle, J.", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "JUDGE", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "Myron C. Duhart, J.", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "JUDGE", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "Charles E. Sulek, J.", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "CONCUR. JUDGE", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.", "paragraph_id": "para_356" } ], "word_count": 3977, "cites": [ "496 U.S. 384" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "dec557aa7f4517f5d7151e5a1c946d14fda3d8989f858d6ce3a1896f878e81c6", "source_url": "https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2026/2026-Ohio-152.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-09T13:18:12.482+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "dec557aa7f4517f5d7151e5a1c946d14fda3d8989f858d6ce3a1896f878e81c6", "recomputed_sha256": "dec557aa7f4517f5d7151e5a1c946d14fda3d8989f858d6ce3a1896f878e81c6", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-11T13:50:23.450Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:307091870e3219878d2b33556e8011199263e10bf64d0d32e18f2bed7d39a14b", "version": "legal-2026-10-11", "expires": "2026-10-12T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-11+legal-2026-10-11+2026-10-11T13:43:45", "content_hash": "sha256:307091870e3219878d2b33556e8011199263e10bf64d0d32e18f2bed7d39a14b", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-11T14:50:23.955Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-l-24-1243-2026-01-16" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }