Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This was an appeal from a judgment denying the request of Appellant for a writ of mandamus to compel Appellee, Columbus State Community College, to provide access to its complaint files, litigation files, and certain e-mails, and to award statutory damages and reasonable attorney fees. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not establish by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that Columbus State violated Ohio Rev. Code. 149.43 by denying her record requests and that the court of appeals did not err by (1) denying Appellant's request for access to the requested complaint and litigation files, as Appellant's request was overbroad; (2) denying Appellant's request for e-mails based on her claim that Columbus State had violated section 149.43(B)(2) by not initially organizing its records so that work-related e-mails could be retrieved based on sender and recipient status, as section 149.43(B)(2) does not expressly require public offices to maintain e-mail record so they can be retrieved based on sender and recipient status; and (3) determining that Columbus State had complied with section 149.43(B)(2). View "State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Cmty. Coll." on Justia Law

Appellant requested a writ of manadmus asking that Appellee, the municipal court judge, be ordered to vacate his judgment dismissing a misdemeanor case against Appellant. The court of appeals denied the request, and the dismissal allowed the state to seek a felony indictment against Appellant. Appellant also sought a hearing to consider his 'counterclaim' against dismissal. Appellant appealed the dismissal of the municipal court case. The appeal was dismissed but was reinstated. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the writ, holding (1) Appellant had an adequate legal remedy by way of his reinstated appeal from the judgment dismissing the case, and therefore, mandamus was not appropriate because Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; and (2) insofar as Appellant claimed that the judge failed to comply with Ohio R. Crim. P. 12(F) by failing to state his findings in determining the motion, this contention is regularly addressed on appeal. View "State ex rel. Blanton v. Municipal Court (Hany)" on Justia Law

This was an original action pursuant to Ohio Const. art. XVI, 1 for a writ of mandamus compelling Respondent, the Ohio Ballot Board, including the secretary of state, to reconvene forthwith to replace ballot language previously adopted with ballot language that properly described the proposed redistricting amendment so that it may appear on ballot for the November 6, 2012 general election. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that Relators established that the ballot board's condensed ballot language for the proposed constitutional amendment was defective, and thus invalid, because it contained factual inaccuracies and material omissions that had the effect of misleading the voters. View "State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a county sheriff can meet the constitutional obligation of providing notice of a sheriff's sale to a plaintiff by letter directing the plaintiff's attorney to monitor a website for a listing of the date, time, and location of sale. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in denying plaintiff's motion to set aside the sheriff's sale. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that constructive notice by publication to a party with a property interest in a foreclosure proceeding via a sheriff's office website is insufficient to constitute due process when that party's address is known or easily ascertainable. Remanded. View "PHH Mtge. Corp. v. Prater" on Justia Law

Appellant, who was incarcerated, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming (1) the Adult Parole Authority improperly revoked his parole, and (2) the evidence obtained by his parole officer's search of his e-mail account constituted a criminal act, and the evidence obtained from the search could not be used to revoke his parole. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant's habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's parole was properly revoked; (2) the evidence obtained by Appellant's parole officer's search was lawfully obtained; and (3) habeas corpus is generally not available to challenge parole conditions that allegedly restrained a petitioner's liberty. View "Sullivan v. Bunting" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus action in federal district court, asserting that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at his criminal trial. Respondent, warden of the London Correctional Institution, countered that Petitioner's plea of no contest in the underlying criminal case constituted a waiver of his right to the effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner objected, arguing that under Ohio law, the state may not use his no-contest plea and resulting conviction against him, including using the plea as evidence that he waived his right to effective assistance. Finding there was no controlling precedent on the admissibility of a no-contest plea in a habeas proceeding, the federal district court certified a question for the Supreme Court's resolution. The Supreme Court answered by holding that Ohio R. Crim. P. 11(B)(2) and Ohio R. Evid. 410(A)(2), which prohibit the use of a defendant's no contest plea against the defendant in any subsequent civil proceeding, do not apply to prohibit the use of such a plea in a subsequent civil proceeding which is a collateral attack on the criminal judgment which results from the no contest plea, such as the current habeas corpus action. View "Hollingsworth v. Timmerman-Cooper" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was convicted for criminal offenses, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Appellee, the county common pleas court judge, to issue a new sentencing entry. Defendant asserted that his current sentencing entry was not a final, appealable order because it did not contain a disposition concerning specifications that he was charged with but not convicted of. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied the requested relief, holding that the sentencing entry for Defendant fully complied with Ohio R. Crim. P. 32(C) and Ohio Rev. Code 2505.02 because it stated that he was convicted by a jury of specified crimes, set forth the sentence, was signed by a judge, and was entered upon the journal by the clerk of court. View "State ex rel. Duncan v. DeWeese" on Justia Law

Appellants here were property owners who alleged that a foreign municipality rezoned land that lay in the municipality but that was adjacent to their property in another municipality for the benefit of private enterprise rather than public health. The complaint sought both a declaratory judgment, alleging violations of due process and equal protection, and a writ of mandamus, alleging a regulatory taking for which Appellants were entitled to compensation. The trial court concluded (1) Appellants had standing to bring a declaratory-judgment action, but Appellants' constitutional claims failed; and (2) Appellants' takings claim failed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the property owners lacked standing to bring their claims without distinguishing between the declaratory judgment and mandamus claims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) consistent with the Court's holding in Clifton v. Blanchester, Appellants did not have standing to assert a mandamus claim for appropriation of land outside the territorial limits of municipality; but (2) Appellants did have standing to bring a declaratory-judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinances. View "Moore v. Middletown" on Justia Law

Appellant pled no contest to burglary and was sentenced accordingly. Appellant appealed, contending that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress and to dismiss. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the arrest warrant pursuant to which Appellant had been arrested was invalid because the deputy clerk who issued the warrant impermissibly acted in a dual capacity; but (2) the invalid warrant led to no evidence subject to suppression. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) a person acting in the dual capacities of deputy sheriff for a county and deputy clerk for a municipal court located in the same county is not a neutral and detached magistrate for purposes of determining whether probable cause exists for issuing an arrest warrant; and (2) because the arrest was predicated primarily upon Appellant's pre-arrest confession, the issue of whether the exclusionary rule is an appropriate remedy for an invalidly issued arrest warrant was not properly before the Court. View "State v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Real property owners (Owners) sued Appellant, the county engineer, complaining that their property had been flooded for several years and the water caused damage to their property. Owners alleged that the draining system was improperly designed, constructed, or installed and pleaded that the court require Appellant to upgrade the system to prevent future flooding. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the county engineer was immune from litigation under Ohio Rev. Code 2744, which addresses political-subdivision liability for torts. Owners appealed, arguing that the design, planning, or construction of a sewer system is a proprietary function, which is an exception to political subdivision immunity. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because upgrading a storm-sewer system involves construction and design, such upgrading is a governmental, not a proprietary, function. View "Coleman v. Portage County Eng'r" on Justia Law