Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking an order releasing him on bond and suspending execution of his sentence pending appeal. Petitioner, who was convicted of aggravated possession of drugs, appealed, seeking the reversal of his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied Petitioner’s motion for bail pending appeal, and the court of appeals denied a similar motion filed by Petitioner. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner failed to show that the court of appeals abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion for bond pending appeal and thus denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied as moot his motion for an expedited ruling. View "Small v. Hooks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting judgment in favor of Michael Clay in this action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the release of autopsy records by the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office’s (ME) under Ohio Rev. Code 313.10(C)(1). On appeal, the ME argued, among other things, that the court should use the in pari material rule of statutory construction in determining the meaning of section 313.10(C)(1), which governs access to records held by a coroner’s office. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the in pari material rule of statutory construction and the absurdity exception to the plain-language rule of statutory construction are not applicable to section 313.10(C)(1); and (2) because section 313.10(C)(1) is plain and unambiguous, it is applied as written. View "State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s original action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) to conduct a new parole-revocation hearing. The court held that because Appellant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 2969.25(A), the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant’s petition. In addition to affirming the dismissal of Appellant’s original action, the court denied the APA’s motion to dismiss Appellant’s appeal, holding that the APA presented no basis for dismissal. View "State ex rel. Robinson v. Adult Parole Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of Appellant for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was granted parole on the condition of “zero tolerance for any positive drug test.” The next month, he tested positive for drug use. After a revocation hearing, Appellant was reincarcerated. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming violations of his due process, equal protection, and confrontation rights. The court of appeals concluded that habeas corpus was not available to grant the relief Defendant sought. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Defendant failed to state a proper claim in habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Womack v. Sloan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the Franklin County Board of Revision’s (BOR) reduced valuation of a residential property in the amount of $65,000 for tax year 2011. The Franklin County auditor assigned a true value of $113,000 for tax year 2011. The owner filed a complaint seeking a reduction. The BOR reduced the property’s value to $65,000. The BTA upheld the BOR’s determination of value as sufficiently supported by the record. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the BTA, holding that the BTA failed to evaluate independently the evidence to determine the value of the subject property. View "South-Western City School District Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals’ (BTA) decision on remand adopting the appraisal valuation of the property owner’s appraiser for the second time. The property at issue was a vacant 22.27-acre parcel that the Delaware County auditor valued at $654,100 for tax year 2011. The property owner challenged the valuation and presented an appraisal determining a value of $580,000 for the property. The Delaware County Board of Revision (BOR) ordered a reduction to $580,000 after adopting the appraisal. The BTA affirmed the adoption of the appraisal. The Supreme Court issued a remand order based on the parties’ stipulation that the BTA should address certain issues. On remand, the BTA addressed those issues and again relied on the appraisal of the property owner’s appraiser. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully when it relied on the appraisal. View "Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Education v. Delaware County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) in this case disputing the valuation of real property retained by an owner after it sold a portion of its property during the tax year at issue and remanded the cause for the BTA to properly determine the value of the subject property. In 2009, the owner of the original parcel conveyed a single condominium unit for the Delaware County Board of County Commissioners for $2 million. For tax year 2009, the Delaware County auditor valued the conveyed parcel at $622,100 and the retained parcel at $1,677,900, for a total value of $2,300,000. The owner argued that the conveyed parcel’s 2009 value must be $2 million, leaving $300,000 as the value of its retained parcel. The Delaware County Board of Revision (BOR) agreed. The BTA reversed and reinstated the auditor’s valuation. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding (1) the BTA’s finding that the sale was not recent to the tax-lien date was reasonable and lawful; but (2) the BTA improperly reinstated the auditor’s valuation because that valuation incorrectly apportioned 2.815 acres of condominium property to the retained parcel. View "Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education v. Delaware County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied writs of mandamus sought by Relators to compel the Mahoning County Board of Elections (BOE) and its individual members (collectively, Respondents) to certify Relators’ petitions to place two proposed amendments to the Youngstown City Charter on the November 2017 ballot: the People’s Bill of Rights for Fair Elections and Access to Local Government and the Youngstown Drinking Water Protection Bill of Rights. The BOE voted not to certify the amendments to appear on the ballot on the grounds that they exceeded the city’s initiative power. In denying the requested writs, the Supreme Court held that the BOE did not violate a clear legal duty when it refused to certify the petitions to place the proposed amendments on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Flak v. Betras" on Justia Law

Under Ohio law, an employer may appeal a determination by the Industrial Commission that an employee has the right to participate in the workers’ compensation fund, and although the employer files the appeal in the common pleas court, the employee is the plaintiff. At issue was whether a provision enacted in 2006 allowing an employee to dismiss an employer-initiated appeal only with the consent of the employer is constitutional.The court of appeals in this case affirmed the trial court’s judgment declaring the so-called “consent provision” of Ohio Rev. Code 4123.512(D) unconstitutional. The trial court concluded that the consent provision was unconstitutional on the grounds of due process and equal protection and violates the doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the consent provision of section 4123.512(D) does not improperly conflict with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, nor does it violate the equal-protection or due-process guarantees of the federal and state Constitutions. View "Ferguson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for a writ of mandamus that Appellant filed against Appellees, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and related parties. In his petition, Appellant alleged that he was denied “fair and meaningful consideration” of his parole application. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, and a court of appeals magistrate recommended dismissal on the grounds that the petition failed to state a claim. The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that he was entitled to a writ of mandamus in this matter. View "State ex rel. Stith v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law