Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) abating a tax penalty imposed against Appellee by the Tax Commissioner of Ohio, holding that the BTA's abatement of the penalty was clearly erroneous.The tax commissioner assessed unpaid tax in the amount of $4,821 as against Appellee and exercised his statutory discretion to impose a fifteen percent penalty amounting to $723. The BTA upheld the tax assessment against Appellee but found that the tax commissioner had abused his discretion in assessing a penalty. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the BTA's holding that the tax commissioner abused his discretion and that the BTA's order abating the penalty were clearly erroneous. View "Karr v. McClain" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Petitioners showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission on January 22, 2022 violated Ohio Const. Art. XI, 6(A) and (B) and ordered the Commission to adopt a new plan.On January 12, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Commission in September 2021 was invalid and that the Commission had not drawn a district plan that met neither of the standards set forth in sections 6(A) and 6(B) and ordered the Commission to adopt a new plan. On January 22, the Commission adopted a new plan. The Supreme Court again ordered the Commission to be reconstituted and to adopt yet a newer plan, holding that the new plan violated sections 6(A) and 6(B). View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting a writ ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order awarding compensation to Cami Bowman, holding that the court of appeals correctly concluded that the Commission abused its discretion.Bowman sought compensation for the permanent partial loss of her sight based on a seventy percent bilateral loss of vision. The Commission awarded compensation based on only a forty-five percent loss of sight in the left eye, maintaining a prior award based on a sixty-seven percent loss of sight in the right eye. The court of appeals granted Bowman a writ ordering the Commission to vacate its order and award her requested compensation, ruling that the Commission abused its discretion by relying on a portion of a physician's report that the physician had disclaimed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission failed to base its decision on medical evidence. View "State ex rel. Bowman v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Gauge County auditor to issue warrants on the county treasurer to pay for court-ordered expenditures, holding that Timothy Grendell, judge of the Geauga County Common Pleas Court's juvenile and probate divisions, was entitled to the writ.Judge Grendell sought a writ of mandamus ordering Charles E. Walder, the Geauga County auditor, to issue warrants for five categories of expenditures relating to the juvenile and probate divisions of the Geauga County Common Pleas Court. The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering Walder to issue warrants for payment of the contested expenditures, holding that Judge Grendell presented valid claims and that he was entitled to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Grendell v. Walder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Appellant's request for a writ of mandamus ordering Police Chief Michael Kilbane and the City of Independence (collectively, the City) to produce documents relating to the City's implementation of a traffic-ticket quota, holding that Appellant failed to show her entitlement to the writ.In addition to the writ, Appellant sought statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs. The Supreme Court denied Appellant's request for the writ, denied her requests for attorney fees and costs, and awarded her $1,000 in statutory damages, holding (1) the writ must be denied as to all of Appellant's requests; (2) because the City's delay in producing certain documents was unreasonable, Appellant was entitled to $1,000 in statutory damages; and (3) Appellant was not entitled to attorney fees or costs. View "State ex rel. Horton v. Kilbane" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the General Assembly-district plan (the plan) adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission in September 2021 to be effective for the next four years was invalid under Ohio Const. art. XI, 6(A) and 6(B).The complaints in these three cases alleged that the plan was invalid because the Commission did not attempt to draw it to meet the standards of partisan fairness and proportionality. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the plan was invalid because the Commission did not attempt to draw it to meet the proportionality standard in article XI, section 6(B) and did not attempt to draw it to met the standard in section 6(A) that no plan shall be drawn primarily to favor a political party. View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Committee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's motion for an award of statutory damages under the Ohio Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, holding that Appellant was entitled to statutory damages.Appellant, an inmate, sent a request to the Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory (CPFL) for three categories of public records. When CPFL did not respond to his request, Appellant filed a mandamus action and sought statutory damages under section 149.43(C)(2). The court of appeals granted a writ of mandamus compelling the production of some of the requested records and denied Appellant's request for statutory damages. The Supreme Court reversed and granted Appellant's application for an award of statutory damages, holding that, given the length of time during which the CPFL failed to respond, Appellant was entitled to the maximum amount permitted under the statute. View "State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus against the Portage County Board of Revision for lack of standing, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed the complaint for lack of standing.Appellant brought his complaint asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Portage County Board of Revision to create hearing boards, to record the name of the board member assigned to each board, and to revoke any and all designations of alternates made by the board. The court of appeals granted the board's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant lacked standing to bring this mandamus action. View "State ex rel. Ames v. Portage County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied as moot Alexander Maxwell's request for a writ of prohibition to prevent the village of Brice from adjudicating an alleged traffic violation through an administrative hearing, holding that the prohibition claim was moot.In support of the village's contention that this case was moot, the village's mayor attested that the village was no longer holding administrative hearings. After the village filed its merit brief, Maxwell moved to strike portions of the brief and the village's evidence. The Supreme Court denied Maxwell's motion to strike, granted his motion for leave to submit supplemental evidence, and denied the writ of prohibition as moot, holding that the evidence supported the mayor's testimony that the village had ceased conducting administrative hearings on traffic citation and that this prohibition action was moot. View "State ex rel. Maxwell v. Brice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals compelling the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) to reverse its denial of Appellant's application for disability benefits, holding that there was no error.After sustaining a fall while working for the state as a highway technician Appellant applied to OPERS for disability benefits. OPERS denied Powell's application. Appellant then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus asking the Tenth District to issue a writ compelling OPERS to reverse its denial of his application. The Tenth District found that OPERS's decision was supported by some evidence in the record and denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that some evidence supported OPERS's decision, and Appellant did not establish that any evidence should have been excluded from OPERS's consideration. View "State ex rel. Powell v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System" on Justia Law