Plibrico Company, LLC, a brick-making enterprise, has been embroiled in a legal battle with its neighbor over property disputes that escalated into threats of damage and obstruction. On January 22, 2026, the Ohio Fourth Appellate District Court dismissed an appeal filed by Roy Clyde Hall, Sr., against Plibrico Company, LLC. The dismissal came after a civil protection order (CPO) granted to Plibrico expired on October 29, 2025.
The case originated from ongoing property line and easement disagreements between Plibrico and Hall. In July and August of 2024, Hall allegedly threatened Michael Phipps, an independent contractor for Plibrico, with damage to equipment and obstruction of access roads vital to the company’s operations. These threats prompted Plibrico to file for a CPO on October 1, 2024, under R.C. 2903.215 to protect its employees and contractors from potential harm.
During the court proceedings, Phipps testified about his concerns regarding Hall’s actions and previous suspicious incidents involving equipment breakdowns and unauthorized presence on company property. Despite Hall filing a counter-protection order against Phipps claiming threats of physical harm if he entered the company’s premises again, the trial court found insufficient evidence for Hall’s claims but ruled in favor of Plibrico’s petition.
The court issued a one-year protection order following a full hearing on October 29, 2024. However, Hall contested this decision arguing procedural missteps such as lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient employee representation in the petition and absence of factual findings supporting menacing behavior by him.
Despite these objections being overruled by the trial court in March 2025 after further hearings, Hall pursued an appeal claiming that no final appealable order existed without detailed findings from the magistrate. The appellate court disagreed with Hall’s interpretation of procedural requirements under Civ.R.65.1 which governs such protection orders without necessitating detailed findings or conclusions.
Ultimately though moot due to expiration before resolution at appellate level – making any further relief unattainable – this case underscores complexities surrounding protective orders involving organizational entities versus individuals where allegations intersect with business operations continuity concerns amidst personal disputes turned litigious confrontations over perceived threats.
Representing parties included James R. Kingsley from Kingsley Law Office for appellant Roy Clyde Hall Sr., while Frederick C Fisher Jr., McCown Fisher & Cremeans LPA advocated on behalf of appellee Plibrico Company LLC before Judges Kristy S Wilkin alongside Smith PJ Hess J presiding over Lawrence County Case No:25CA11
Source: 2026Ohio284_Pilbrico_Company_LLC_v_Hall_Sr_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf