Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Relator, a trucking company, sought a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) Registrar and the Department of Public Safety Director, to provide an unredacted, noncertified copy of the driving records of the trucking company's employee at cost. This case was consolidated with a direct appeal from the Tenth District Court of Appeals involving the same parties and the same issues but a different driving record. The BMV refused to provide the copies at cost but instead, following the BMV rule, required Relator to specify the basis for its entitlement to an unredacted copy and to pay a $5 fee for a certified copy. Relator claimed it should be able to receive an unredacted copy at cost under the Public Records Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth District in one case and denied the writ in the other case, holding (1) the BMV properly promulgated the rule at issue under its rule-making procedure; and (2) therefore, disclosure of the records was prohibited under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and its counterpart in Ohio unless Relator could demonstrate a permissible use. View "State ex rel. Motor Carrier Serv., Inc. v. Rankin" on Justia Law

Appellants filed an original action in mandamus in the court of appeals, arguing that they should be eligible for parole hearings at intervals set by the version of Ohio Adm. Code 5120:1-1-10(B), effective as of January 2, 1979, rather than the current version, which did not become effective until after they were incarcerated. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants had no right to parole or to be considered for parole on a particular date because application of the new parole guidelines to Appellants did not constitute a violation of any protected constitutional or statutory interest, and therefore, they had no clear legal right to relief. View "State ex rel. Richard v. Mohr" on Justia Law

Andrea Riffle, then in her third trimester of pregnancy, called the City of Akron Fire Department EMS, reporting serious vaginal bleeding. Department personnel responded to the call but did not assess the unborn child or transport Riffle to the hospital. Instead, they contacted a private ambulance service, which transported Riffle to the hospital. Riffle's baby survived for only three days. The Riffles sued the City and several of its medical-emergency personnel, alleging that each had negligently, recklessly, and wantonly caused the death of their daughter. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming immunity. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Ohio Rev. Code 4765.49(B) provides for an exception to political-subdivision immunity when emergency medical services are provided in a manner constituting willful or wanton misconduct. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that wanton misconduct, pursuant to section 4765.49(B), is an exception to political-subdivision immunity, and the complaint therefore states a claim upon which relief may be granted. View "Riffle v. Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming sentencing error in that he was given two separate sentences for what he argued were allied offenses and that he was denied a right to appeal because his initial appeal was dismissed for a procedural failure and two attempted delayed appeals were denied. The court of appeals dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's failure to attach a complete copy of his commitment papers to the petition was fatally defective; and (2) the claims for which Appellant sought relief had no merit because they were not appropriate for review in habeas corpus. View "Jackson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Relator owned and operated a real-estate-appraisal business and used maps and aerial photographs of properties in making his appraisals in Scioto County. In 2011, Relator requested that the Scioto County engineer (Engineer) provide him, at actual cost, a copy of the office's electronic data compilation for maps and aerial photographs of all the property in the County and to provide paper copies of the maps and photographs. Engineer quoted a charge of $2,000 plus the cost of a hard drive for the records. Relator then filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel Engineer to provide copies of the requested records at actual cost. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relator failed to establish his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus, as Engineer supported his charges with his evidence, and Relator failed to submit clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. View "State ex rel. Gambill v. Opperman" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from an order denying his motion for reconsideration of a magistrate's decision recommending dismissal of his action for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the magistrate's decision recommending dismissal of Appellant's mandamus case was not a final, appealable order because it did not determine the mandamus action and prevent a judgment; (2) nor did the court of appeals order denying Appellant's motion for reconsideration of the magistrate's decision constitute a final, appealable order; and (3) thus, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "State ex rel. Boddie v. Franklin County 911 Adm'r" on Justia Law

Relator submitted to the attorney general's office a written request for copies of records concerning any communication to that office relating to Danny Bubp's simultaneously holding and exercising the public offices of state representative and mayor's court magistrate. The attorney general's office mailed several pages of responsive documents, but many of the documents were withheld and parts of other documents were redacted based on the claim that they were covered by the attorney-client privilege. Relator subsequently filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel the attorney general's office to provide access to those portions of the requested public records that were withheld. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relator did not establish his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief. The Court also denied Relator's request for statutory damages and attorney fees. View "State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine" on Justia Law

Relator made numerous public-records requests, which apparently stemmed from his unsuccessful application for zoning variances and his complaint to the township concerning a township trustee's use of his property, which was near Relator's property, for shooting firearms. The Supreme Court considered Relator's claim in the limited context of two requests. Relator filed his first mandamus action for a writ to compel township officials to provide him with copies of records requested by him. The court of appeals denied the writ based on its holding that the officials had provided Relator with the requested records. Relator then filed a second mandamus action naming several other township officials as respondents. Relator's second mandamus case remained pending. Relator then filed an original action in the Supreme Court requesting a writ of mandamus essentially against the same parties to make his requested records available. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that based on the jurisdictional-priority rule, Relator's previously filed court of appeals mandamus cases prevented the Court from exercising original jurisdiction in mandamus over Relator's claims here. View "State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder and multiple counts of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. Defendant was allegedly one of four men involved in the crimes. As part of the proof to establish Defendant's involvement, the State introduced cell-phone records in an effort to show Defendant's communication with the other co-conspirators and his whereabouts during the morning in question. The appellate court affirmed, holding that even if the admission of the cell-phone records was in violation of Appellant's right to confront witnesses against him, any error was harmless. Defendant appealed, arguing that the cell-phone records were inadmissible as business records without proper authentication. In this motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding (1) the admission of the cell-phone records was unconstitutional under the Confrontation Clause because the records were not authenticated as business records; but (2) the admission of the records was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Hood" on Justia Law

Appellants, contractors and engineers, filed a declaratory judgment action against Appellee, the tax commissioner of Ohio, seeking a judgment declaring that the Ohio commercial activity tax (CAT), as it related to motor-vehicle-fuel sales, violated Ohio Const. art. XII, 5a. The trial court granted summary judgment for the tax commissioner. The appellate court affirmed, applying the rationale of Ohio Grocers Ass'n v. Levin, concluding that the background and history of Section 5a did not support the contention that the CAT was a tax "relating to" motor vehicle fuel sales. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the expenditure of the CAT revenue that was derived from motor-vehicle-fuel sales were "related to" fuels used for propelling motor vehicles on a highway, within the meaning of Section 5a, and consequently, the excise tax violated the Ohio Constitution to the extent that the revenue raised was used for purposes other than those specified in Section 5a. View "Beaver Excavating Co. v. Testa" on Justia Law