In re Guardianship of Cooper
Citations
- 2019 Ohio 3526
Syllabus
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a neutral, non-related party as appellant's guardian. Ohio does not have statutory preferences in this area. Courts generally appoint the next of kin, those with family ties, or someone acceptable to the ward, based on the theory that these people will be most concerned with the ward's welfare. However, courts have great discretion in this matter and are not required to appoint such persons. Instead, a stranger may be appointed as guardian if it is in the incompetent person's best interest. There was ample evidence that the court's selection of a guardian was in appellant's best interest. Judgment affirmed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a question of fact as to the existence and extent of an individual’s noncompliance with officer’s commands prior to the officer’s use of force precluded grant of qualified immunity
- holding that the district court did not err in ruling -10- that material factual disputes prevented it from determining whether an officer used reasonable force where there were disputes about an individual’s compliance and the level of threat he posed
- applying the same standard of review to the denial of summary judgment when officers assert the defense of qualified immunity
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Welbaum
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.