Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group of qualified electors and residents of Sidney sought to amend the city charter to establish a procedure for recalling elected officials. They filed a petition with the city clerk containing 561 signatures, which they believed met the threshold for submission to the voters. Their proposal was submitted under a provision in the Sidney Charter allowing amendments as provided by the Ohio Constitution. However, the city clerk rejected the petition, citing noncompliance with Ohio Revised Code section 731.32, which she interpreted as requiring a certified copy of the proposed amendment to be filed before circulating the petition.Following this rejection, the electors initiated a mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio. They requested an order compelling the city council to certify the petition to the county board of elections and further sought to have the board verify the signatures and place the amendment on the ballot if sufficient. They also sought attorney fees and court costs. The respondents argued that the petition was invalid for procedural reasons, including the application of R.C. 731.32. The board of elections had not yet reviewed the petition, as it had not been transmitted by the city clerk.The Supreme Court of Ohio found that R.C. 731.32 does not apply to proposed amendments to a city charter unless the municipal charter incorporates that statute into its amendment process; the Sidney Charter does not do so. Thus, the city clerk erred in rejecting the petition on this basis. The court granted a limited writ of mandamus, ordering the city clerk to transmit the petition to the county board of elections for a determination of sufficiency. If the petition is found sufficient, the city council must provide by ordinance for submission of the proposed amendment to the voters within the constitutional timeframe. The requests for attorney fees and court costs, and relief against the law director and board of elections, were denied. View "State ex rel. Turner v. Barhorst" on Justia Law

An inmate at Lebanon Correctional Institution submitted five separate requests for public records to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC). His requests included copies of ViaPath Technologies’ terms of use and its contract with ODRC, body-worn and stationary-surveillance camera footage from a cell search, Aramark’s food-services contract proposal, recent employee rosters for all departments, and the current recreation schedule. Some requests were denied, while others were partially or fully fulfilled by ODRC, including providing access to certain records or allowing inspection rather than providing physical copies.After receiving responses he considered inadequate, the inmate initiated a mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio. He sought a writ ordering ODRC to produce the requested records and to award him statutory damages for each request. ODRC argued it either did not maintain some of the requested records, had already provided the responsive records, or, in the case of video footage, allowed inspection as required by policy. ODRC also contended that it did not have a legal duty to provide records it did not possess or that no longer existed.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the inmate was not entitled to a writ or statutory damages for records he failed to show were maintained by ODRC, for body-worn-camera footage not shown to exist, for surveillance footage he had already been permitted to inspect, for records already provided, or for an out-of-date recreation schedule when the current one was supplied. However, the court granted a limited writ regarding the Aramark proposal, ordering ODRC either to provide the document or certify its nonexistence, and deferred ruling on statutory damages for that request until compliance. The inmate’s remaining claims and motions were denied. View "State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr." on Justia Law

Six wind farms located in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa, all subsidiaries of Avangrid Renewables, sought certification from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to be recognized as eligible Ohio renewable-energy-resource-generating facilities. Such certification would allow these out-of-state wind farms to sell renewable energy in Ohio. Carbon Solutions Group, L.L.C. (CSG), representing Ohio-based renewable energy interests, opposed the applications, arguing that the applicants failed to demonstrate their energy was physically deliverable into Ohio as required by state law.PUCO conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing in December 2022, during which staff, the applicants, CSG, and other interested parties presented testimony and evidence. The central issue was whether the energy generated by these noncontiguous out-of-state facilities could be shown to be deliverable into Ohio. The commission relied on its established Koda test, which uses distribution-factor (DFAX) power-flow studies conducted by regional transmission organizations (RTOs) to determine whether a facility’s energy is physically deliverable into Ohio. After review, PUCO found that the applicants’ DFAX studies, performed by PJM Interconnection, met the required deliverability thresholds and approved all six applications.CSG appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that procedural errors occurred, including denial of a subpoena and improper reliance on hearsay. The Supreme Court of Ohio found that PUCO’s order was supported by sufficient evidence and complied with statutory requirements for findings and reasoning. The court held that the commission’s use of the Koda test and reliance on the PJM DFAX studies was reasonable and not against the manifest weight of the evidence or contrary to law. The court also found that CSG’s procedural objections were either waived or jurisdictionally barred. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed PUCO’s order. View "In re Application of Moraine Wind, L.L.C." on Justia Law

A homeowners association challenged an order issued by a joint board of county commissioners from Licking and Franklin Counties, which directed the Franklin County Engineer to prepare reports and plans for a proposed improvement of Cole Ditch, a waterway affecting both counties. The association alleged procedural deficiencies, including lack of notice to all affected landowners, and claimed that its rights were violated during the first hearing on the improvement petition. The engineer’s preliminary report found the improvement feasible and beneficial, but most landowners opposed it. The joint board nonetheless found the improvement necessary and ordered the project to move forward.The association appealed the joint board’s order in both the Licking County and Franklin County Courts of Common Pleas. Both courts dismissed the appeals. On further appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeals held that the Licking County court was not required to convene a joint panel of judges, that the association had no right to appeal the order after the first hearing, and that the matter was not ripe for review. In contrast, the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed the Franklin County dismissal, holding that a joint panel of judges should have been convened and that the association had standing and statutory authority to appeal. The Tenth District remanded for further proceedings, and certified a conflict with the Fifth District’s ruling.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case, affirming the Tenth District’s judgment. It held that any appeal from an order of a joint board of county commissioners not involving compensation or damages must be heard by a panel of judges from each affected county. It further held that any affected landowner, including a homeowners association whose procedural rights were allegedly violated, has standing and statutory authority to appeal any order issued after a first hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for the joint panel to hear the appeal. View "Colt's Neck Homeowners Assn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs." on Justia Law

An individual requested a public record from a county board of commissioners, specifically seeking a paper copy of a statement that the county prosecutor was required to prepare and send to the board. The board denied the request, stating that the same individual had already received the requested record from the prosecutor’s office following an earlier, identical request. After the denial, the requester initiated an action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the board to provide the record and to award him statutory damages. While the lawsuit was pending, the board provided the requested record to the requester.The Tenth District Court of Appeals, after referring the case to a magistrate, granted the board’s motion to dismiss the mandamus claim as moot because the board had provided the record after the lawsuit was filed. The appellate court also denied the request for statutory damages, reasoning that the board’s initial denial was based on a reasonable reliance on existing case law suggesting that a public office need not respond to duplicative requests for the same record from the same requester. The requester’s objections to the magistrate’s findings focused on whether the board and prosecutor are legally distinct and whether both are required to respond to identical requests for the same record.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed only the denial of statutory damages, as the mootness of the mandamus claim was uncontested on appeal. The court held that the appellate court did not abuse its discretion in finding that, based on existing case law, the board reasonably believed its conduct did not violate its obligations under Ohio’s Public Records Act. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment dismissing the writ as moot and denying statutory damages. View "State ex rel. Mobley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs." on Justia Law

An inmate submitted a written request to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for four specific records: emails between corrections officers about him, a “Certificate of Disposal,” an “Authorization for Crisis Precaution” form, and a “Mental Health Protocol I-8.” The institution’s public-information officer responded by informing the inmate that the emails and protocol could be provided if he paid the copying costs, the certificate of disposal did not exist, and the authorization-for-crisis-precaution form was not a public record. The inmate did not pay for the copies or inquire about the cost, but instead initiated a mandamus action seeking to compel production of all four records and requesting statutory damages.Prior to review by the Supreme Court of Ohio, the director moved to dismiss the suit. The court denied the motion, ordered an answer from the director, and required submission of the contested authorization-for-crisis-precaution form under seal for in camera review. The parties proceeded to submit evidence and briefs as scheduled.The Supreme Court of Ohio determined that the director had not proven the authorization-for-crisis-precaution form was exempt as a medical record under Ohio law, so the inmate was entitled to that record. However, the court denied the writ as to the emails and protocol, finding the records custodian had complied with the Public Records Act by agreeing to provide them upon advance payment of copying costs; the Act does not require proactive statements of cost. The writ was also denied for the certificate of disposal because the inmate did not prove it existed. The court further denied statutory damages, finding the director’s assertion of the medical-record exemption reasonable and consistent with public policy. The disposition was a grant of the writ in part and denial in part. View "State ex rel. Mobley v. Banks" on Justia Law

A roughly 600-space parking garage on the Scioto Peninsula in Columbus was owned by RiverSouth Authority, which is a “new community authority” and a “body corporate and politic.” RiverSouth owned the garage, which sat on city-owned land, and leased it to the City of Columbus under a long-term ground lease. The city then entered into a management agreement with Capitol South, a private nonprofit entity, to manage and operate the garage. Capitol South, in turn, hired LAZ Parking Midwest, a private for-profit operator, to handle day-to-day operations. The agreements required Capitol South to operate the garage in a manner consistent with city obligations, with many operational decisions ultimately subject to city oversight.The Ohio Tax Commissioner denied RiverSouth’s request for a real property tax exemption, concluding that the garage was not entitled to exemption because it was managed by a private, for-profit entity, LAZ. RiverSouth appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, which affirmed the denial, but for a different reason: the Board found the garage was under the direction and control of Capitol South, the nonprofit manager, rather than the city. This basis for denial was raised by the Board on its own initiative, without prior notice to the parties.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the Board of Tax Appeals erred by affirming the Tax Commissioner’s decision based on a new issue not raised below and without following statutory remand procedures. The Court further held that the city’s use of a management company to operate the garage did not deprive the city of direction or control over the property for exemption purposes. The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Tax Commissioner to grant the exemption and calculate the appropriate refund. View "RiverSouth Auth. v. Harris" on Justia Law

An inmate submitted four separate public records requests to employees of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Bureau of Sentence Computation between October 2024 and March 2025. He sought various documents, including a court journal entry, specific prison kites, and grievances. He alleged that he did not receive the requested records and, in August 2025, filed a mandamus action seeking to compel production of the records and to obtain $4,000 in statutory damages.After the complaint was filed, the respondents answered and evidence was submitted. The record showed that the inmate had received one of the requested records before filing suit, and he received the remaining records after filing. The Supreme Court of Ohio noted that the inmate had also filed a motion for leave to file revised evidence after briefing closed, which the court considered untimely and improper.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the inmate was not entitled to a writ of mandamus for the record he received before filing his complaint, as there was no actionable claim at that time. For the records provided after the action commenced, the court found the mandamus claim moot because the records had been produced. The court also denied the inmate’s request for statutory damages, applying amendments to the Public Records Act that eliminated statutory damages for inmates in actions filed after April 9, 2025. The court concluded that these amendments were remedial and applied prospectively to all actions filed after their effective date, regardless of when the records were requested. Finally, the court denied the motion for leave to file revised evidence. The writ was denied in part, denied as moot in part, and statutory damages were denied. View "State ex rel. Bates v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

The case concerns a public-records request made in March 2020 by the Center for Media and Democracy and its research director, David Armiak, to the Ohio Attorney General’s office. The request sought records related to the office’s involvement with the Republican Attorneys General Association and the Rule of Law Defense Fund. The Attorney General’s office initially produced some documents, submitted others for in camera review, and refused to search for or produce additional records, arguing that the requested documents were not records of the office as defined by Ohio law.After the Attorney General’s office declined further production, Armiak filed a mandamus action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals to compel release of the records. The Attorney General moved to dismiss, asserting that the sought documents were not “records” under Ohio’s Public Records Act and that some categories did not exist. The court’s magistrate denied dismissal, set a briefing schedule, and allowed discovery. Armiak conducted depositions of staff and sought further discovery, including compelling responses to interrogatories and requests for production. The Attorney General objected, citing relevance and proportionality concerns under Civil Rule 26(B)(1), and requested a protective order against his own deposition. The magistrate granted Armiak’s motion to compel and denied the protective order, a decision upheld by the Tenth District Court of Appeals.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the appellate court’s discovery order. It held that discovery in public-records mandamus actions must conform to the purpose and scope of discovery as set forth in Civil Rule 26(A) and 26(B)(1), limiting discovery to information about the nature of the office’s search for records or relevant claims and defenses. The court found the Tenth District misapplied the law and abused its discretion by ordering overly broad discovery and compelling the Attorney General’s deposition. The Supreme Court vacated the discovery order and remanded for proper consideration. View "State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost" on Justia Law

Oak Run Solar Project, L.L.C. sought approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board to construct a solar-powered electric generation facility in Madison County, Ohio. The proposed facility would occupy approximately 4,400 acres and include an 800 MW solar array, a 300 MW battery energy storage system, and two transmission lines. Oak Run entered agreements with landowners for the project site and committed to an agrivoltaics program, maintaining agricultural productivity alongside solar generation. Local governments and other parties intervened, raising concerns about environmental, visual, water, plant, wildlife, and safety impacts. The board’s staff issued a report, and a hearing was held, resulting in project approval subject to conditions for landscape screening and safety.Prior to reaching the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Ohio Power Siting Board considered Oak Run’s application and allowed intervenors, including several township boards and the county board of commissioners, to participate. After a hearing and review, the board granted Oak Run’s certificate for construction, finding the statutory requirements satisfied and imposing conditions related to visual screening and emergency response. The local governments filed an application for rehearing, which was denied. They then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing the board failed to obtain necessary information, especially regarding visual impacts and environmental effects.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case, applying a standard of review for “unlawful or unreasonable” board orders. The court held that Oak Run failed to provide required photographic simulations or sketches of substations, as mandated by administrative rules, thereby depriving the board of necessary information to assess visual impacts. The court affirmed the board’s orders in part, reversed in part regarding the visual-impact information, and remanded the matter to the board for further consideration of the project’s visual effects. View "In re Application of Oak Run Solar Project, L.L.C." on Justia Law