Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Employee alleged that his political-subdivision Employer committed an intentional tort against him and engaged in negligent conduct. Employer filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims, alleging immunity from suit under the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. The trial court denied the motion, concluding (1) a genuine issue of material fact existed, and (2) the express exception to immunity contained in the Act did not apply because Employee's claims did not arise out of the employment relationship. The appellate court affirmed and concluded that the express exception to immunity in the Act prevented Employer from raising immunity pursuant to the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the exception to the Act removed the protection of immunity for a political-subdivision employer for injuries to its employees that arise out of the employment relationship, and a political subdivision was at risk for liability in intentional-tort suits that satisfied the terms of Ohio Rev. Code 2745.01. View "Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth." on Justia Law

The Eighth District Court of Appeals certified a conflict between its decision in this case and a decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeals on the question of whether Ohio Rev. Code 2315.21(B), as amended by S.B. 80, was unconstitutional, in violation of the Ohio Constitution, because it was a procedural law that conflicted with Ohio R. Civ. P. 42(B). Section 2315.21(B) created a substantive right to bifurcation in tort actions when claims for compensatory and punitive damages had been asserted. The state Court of Appeals held that section 2315.21(B) was unconstitutional because it conflicted with Rule 24(B), in violation of the separation of powers required by the state Constitution, by purporting to "legislate a strictly procedural matter already addressed by the Civil Rules." The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that section 2315.21(B) creates, defines, and regulates a substantive, enforceable right to separate stages of trial relating to the presentation of evidence for compensatory and punitive damages in tort actions and therefore takes precedence over Rule 42(B) and does not violate the Ohio Constitution, as it is a substantive law that prevails over a procedural rule. View "Havel v. Villa St. Joseph" on Justia Law

Appellant, Marquise Jones, petitioned for writs of mandamus and procendendo to compel Appellee, Sandusdy County Court of Common Pleas Judge Barbara Ansted, to issue a new sentencing entry in Jones's criminal case. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. Jones appealed, arguing that the entry issued in his case was not a final, appealable order because it failed to dispose of every firearm specification of which he was found guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the sentencing entry constituted a final, appealable order because it set forth the fact of Jones's convictions, the sentence, the judge's signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk; and (2) Jones had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error. View "State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Dennis Gould of rape, gross sexual imposition, pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor, and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, all based on images located on the hard drive of Gould's computer. The court of appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the trial court should have excluded all evidence that resulted from the warrantless search of Gould's hard drive. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and reinstated the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court, holding (1) because Gould had abandoned the hard drive, Gould did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the hard drive; and (2) therefore, the warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "State v. Gould" on Justia Law

Petitioner Robert Waters filed a petition to be a candidate for the Warren County Republican Party Central Committee for the 15th Precinct of Lebanon at the March 6, 2012 Republican primary election. Respondent Warren County Board of Elections voted to not certify Waters's candidacy. Waters then filed an expedited-election action for a writ of mandamus to compel the board and its members to certify his candidacy. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Waters was barred from candidacy in the March 6, 2012 Republican primary election because he voted in a primary election as a member of a different political party within the preceding two calendar years. View "State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth" on Justia Law

Terrance House filed complaints for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel a court of common pleas judge to issue final, appealable orders on the judge's denial of Hough's motion for the judge to recuse herself and his motion to supplement his petition for postconviction relief. The court of appeals denied the claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Hough was not entitled to a final, appealable order on the judge's denial of his motion to recuse herself because the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review those decisions; and (2) the judge had no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying Hough's motion to supplement his previously denied, untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief. View "State ex rel. Hough v. Saffold" on Justia Law

A jury found Jack Carlisle guilty of kidnapping and gross sexual imposition (GSI) and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment for kidnapping and one year of imprisonment for GSI, to be served concurrently. The trial court later vacated Carlisle's sentence due to change of circumstances, namely the cost of Carlisle's dialysis, and imposed a sentence of five years of community control. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court lacked authority to modify Carlisle's sentence because his convictions had been affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that the trial court in this case lacked the requisite authority to modify Carlisle's sentence, as absent statutory authority, a trial court is generally not empowered to modify a criminal sentence by reconsidering its own final judgment. Remanded. View "State v. Carlisle" on Justia Law

A three-judge panel convicted Lamont Hunter for the aggravated murder and rape of a three-year-old and child endangerment. The panel sentenced Hunter to death based on two death-penalty specifications: aggravated murder while committing or attempting to commit rape and aggravated murder of a child under the age of thirteen. The Supreme Court affirmed Hunter's convictions and sentence of death, holding (1) Hunter did not meet his burden of demonstrating that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that Hunter had previously abused the child; (3) the panel did not create a miscarriage of justice in convicting Hunter of all counts and specifications; (4) the panel did not err in denying multiple defense motions; (5) the panel did not err in sentencing Hunter to consecutive sentences for his noncapital offenses in violation of his constitutional rights; and (6) the aggravating factors clearly outweighed any mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, and the penalty imposed in this case was appropriate and proportionate when compared to death sentences approved for other rape-murders. View "State v. Hunter" on Justia Law

After Appellant Jermaine McKinney was convicted and sentenced in a criminal case, Appellant petitioned for writs of mandamus and procendendo to compel Appellee, a county court of common pleas judge, to issue a final, appealable order in his criminal case. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the judge's sentencing entry in the criminal case fully complied with Ohio. R. Crim. P. 32(C) by including the findings of the jury upon which Appellant's convictions were based, the sentence, the signature of the judge, and the clerk's time stamp; and (2) Appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise the claim that the judge erred in his sentencing entry. View "State ex rel. McKinney v. McKay" on Justia Law

Relator, Angela Dawson, requested a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent, a local school district, to provide her with access to (1) itemized invoices of law firms providing services to the district in matters pertaining to Dawson and her children, and (2) communications from the school district's insurance carrier identifying the district's legal representative and describing the liability and exposure of the district and insurance company related to a case filed against the district by Dawson on behalf of one of her children. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the requested records were exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act because the school district met its burden of establishing the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to the requested records. View "State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local Sch. Dist." on Justia Law