Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This action raised several challenges to recently enacted legislation and administrative rules related to gambling in the state. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against several state entities challenging the constitutionality of video lottery terminals and H.B. 1, the act that authorized them, and legislative actions that related to Ohio’s four casinos, particularly H.B. 277 and H.B. 519. Lastly, Plaintiffs claimed that Ohio Const. art. XV, 6, H.B.1, H.B. 277, and H.B. 519 violate equal protection by granting a monopoly to the gaming operators whom the state approved. The trial court granted the state’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of standing and for failure to state claim, concluding that none of the plaintiffs had standing. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Plaintiffs failed to establish that they had organizational standing or standing based on their status as individuals experiencing the negative effects of gambling, parents and a teacher of public-school students, and contributors to the commercial-activity tax; and (2) one plaintiff, however, sufficiently alleged standing to survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss his equal protection claim. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Walgate v. Kasich" on Justia Law

Based on investigations by law enforcement officials, a grand jury returned an indictment against several individuals and companies alleging that they had used an Internet gambling system to conceal illegal gambling by presenting it as an Internet sweepstakes. The prosecuting attorney then mailed letters to Plaintiff and other proprietors of Internet sweepstakes cafes threatening criminal prosecution if they did not immediately cease to run the sweepstakes. Plaintiff filed this action seeking to prohibit the prosecuting attorney from enforcing gambling laws against it with respect to Internet sweepstakes. Plaintiff sought to compel discovery of information related to the ongoing criminal investigation. The trial court ordered the prosecuting attorney to produce the information. The prosecuting attorney filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals balanced the competing interests of Plaintiff and the prosecuting attorney and affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that certain information being sought was not protected by the law enforcement investigatory privilege. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the law enforcement investigatory privilege is not absolute; and (2) the balancing test the Court adopted in Henneman v. Toledo for weighing the interests of law enforcement in keeping the information confidential against the needs of a civil litigant who requests the information in discovery remains valid. View "J & C Marketing, LLC v. McGinty" on Justia Law