Friday First District Roundup 6-11-21

In re: T.S. 
Case #C200267
Quote from Judge Myers' Opinion:
In this appeal, the state of Ohio challenges the decision of the juvenile court dismissing a delinquency action against appellee T.S. The complaint alleged that when he was 17 years old, T.S. engaged in behavior that would have constituted felonious assault and two firearm specifications if he had been an adult.
The state filed a motion for relinquishment of jurisdiction. Following a hearing, the juvenile court determined that no probable cause existed to believe that T.S. committed the offenses and dismissed the complaint.
The state now appeals. Because the state presented sufficient evidence of probable cause, we reverse the juvenile court’s judgment.

John Yeager, Steve Yeager, Mike Yeager v. U.S. Bank, as Trustee of the Sara Lee Yeager Trust Dated October 23, 1990 
Case #C200262 
Quote from Judge Zayas' Opinion:
Plaintiffs-appellants John Yeager, Steve Yeager, and Mike Yeager (“the Yeagers”) appeal from the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, which dismissed their amended complaint against defendant-appellee U.S. Bank, as trustee of the Sara Lee Yeager Trust dated October 23, 1990 (“U.S. Bank”). For the following reasons, we affirm in part as modified and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the law.
Sara Lee Yeager established a generation-skipping, irrevocable trust on October 23, 1990 (“the trust”). Upon Sara’s death, Robert L. Yeager became the primary beneficiary of the trust. In February of 2017, upon the death of Robert, the Yeagers became the “beneficiaries” of the trust.
In 2011, U.S. Bank discovered that one or more of its trust officers embezzled funds from various trusts held and administered by U.S. Bank, including the trust at hand. On July 1, 2011, U.S. Bank made a cash deposit into the trust in the amount of $453,366. A trust statement for the period of July 1, 2011, to September 30, 2011, showed the deposit and listed a description with the deposit as “Cash Receipt Miscellaneous Receipt Reimb Cash Due to Loss.”

Cyrusone, LLC, Cincinnati Bell, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company 
Case #C200162 
Quote from Judge Bock's Opinion: These appeals arise from an insurance-claim dispute under a crimeand-fidelity policy (“the policy”) issued by defendant-appellant/cross-appellee Great American Insurance Company to plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants Cincinnati Bell, Inc., and CyrusOne, LLC, (collectively, “CyrusOne”). The policy insures against losses caused by the acts of a “dishonest employee.”
CyrusOne submitted a claim under the policy reporting that its employee, Dennis Scheib, had engaged in an elaborate self-dealing scheme in which he received “kickbacks” from CyrusOne’s vendors and directly or indirectly passed the costs of the kickbacks to CyrusOne.
After Great American failed to cover the claim, CyrusOne sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that CyrusOne’s claim was a covered loss under the policy and alleging bad faith and breach of contract. CyrusOne alleged that its loss stemmed from Scheib, acting as CyrusOne’s purchasing agent, accepting kickbacks from vendors in exchange for awarding them construction work and having a financial interest in several of the vendors to whom Scheib awarded work.
The trial court entered judgment in favor of CyrusOne and awarded it $4,654,560 in damages. Both parties appeal from this judgment.
For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Michael Brophy v.  Abubakar Atiq Durrani, M.D., Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc., Christ Hospital, Children's Hospital 
Case #C190745
Quote from Judgment Entry:
The consolidated appeals now before us represent two of among a multitude of cases filed against Dr. Abubakar Atiq Durrani and several area hospitals for claims stemming from the alleged malpractice of Dr. Durrani.
[...] Plaintiffs-appellants now appeal, raising a sole assignment of error that the trial court erred by granting defendants-appellees’ motions to dismiss and dismissing their respective negligent-credentialing and fraud claims. In support of this contention, they present four issues for review, all of which have been previously decided by this court.