Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was convicted of rape, gross sexual imposition, kidnapping, and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. The court of appeals reversed, holding (1) pursuant to State v. Curry, other acts evidence offered to show a scheme, plan, or system is inadmissible unless it shows the background of the alleged crime or proves the identity of the accused; and (2) under Curry, the admission of evidence of a prior sexual relationship Defendant had with a different minor was precluded because the sexual acts of that relationship had been "chronologically and factually separate occurrences" and the identity of the accused was not an issue at trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) pursuant to Ohio R. Evid. 404(B), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of an accused may be admissible to prove intent or plan, even if the identity of an accused or the immediate background of a crime is not at issue; and (2) consequently, evidence that Defendant had engaged in sexual relations with a teenage boy could be admissible to prove Defendant had a plan to groom boys for sexual activity with the intent of sexual gratification. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of forcible rape of a child, gross sexual imposition, and kidnapping. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years to life in prison. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions but reversed the trial court's judgment not to merge the kidnapping and rape offenses, holding that the convictions for rape and kidnapping were allied offenses of similar import that should have merged at sentencing. At issue on appeal was whether the appellate court erred in applying a de novo review of the trial court's determination that Defendant's offense should merge, or whether the court should have applied an abuse-of-discretion standard. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an appellate court should apply a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court's Ohio Rev. Code 2941.25 merger determination. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Appellant was a sex offender, originally classified under Megan's Law, who violated former Ohio Rev. Code 2950.99 by failing to give proper notice of an address change. At issue in this case was whether current section 2950.99 or former section 2950.99 governed the penalty for Appellant. The appellate court (1) reversed the sentence imposed by the trial court, and (2) applied the penalty provision in place when Defendant was classified rather than the penalty provision in place immediately before Megan's Law was replaced by the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), holding that current section 2950.99 does not apply to sex offenders originally classified under Megan's Law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that for a defendant whose sex-offender classification was determined under Megan's Law, the penalty for a violation of the reporting requirements of former section 2950.05 that occurs after Megan's Law was supplanted by the AWA is the penalty set forth in the version of section 2950.99 in place just before the effective date of the AWA. View "State v. Howard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the city and two of its firefighters. The action arose out of the death of Plaintiff's husband and grandson, who died when a city fire engine operated and commanded by the defendant firefighters collided with Plaintiff's husband's vehicle. The trial court court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding (1) the city had a full defense to liability pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2744.02(B)(1)(b) because the operation of the fire truck did not constitute willful or wanton misconduct; and (2) the firefighters were entitled to immunity pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2744.03(A)(6)(b) because Plaintiff presented no evidence that the firefighters had acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. The court of appeals reversed, holding that reasonable minds court find that the firefighers' actions in this case were reckless and that the willful or wanton misconduct referred to in section 2744.02(B)(1)(b) was the functional equivalent of recklessness. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the willful or wanton misconduct and recklessness degrees of care have different meanings, involve different degrees of culpability, and are not interchangeable. After the Court's clarification of the terms, the matter was remanded. View "Anderson v. Massillon" on Justia Law