Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming sentencing error in that he was given two separate sentences for what he argued were allied offenses and that he was denied a right to appeal because his initial appeal was dismissed for a procedural failure and two attempted delayed appeals were denied. The court of appeals dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's failure to attach a complete copy of his commitment papers to the petition was fatally defective; and (2) the claims for which Appellant sought relief had no merit because they were not appropriate for review in habeas corpus. View "Jackson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A truck driver (Driver) was injured in 2005 in a traffic accident for which he was cited. Because it was his third moving violation in one year, Driver was dropped from his employer's liability insurance policy, and consequently, the employer fired him. The Industrial Commission initially concluded that Driver was not eligible for temporary total disability (TTD) compensation because his discharge was a voluntary abandonment of employment. A year later, a staff hearing officer approved a request for TTD compensation, concluding that Driver's discharge was not voluntary abandonment under the recently decided State ex rel. Gross v. Indus. Comm'n. The Commission invalidated the hearing officer's decision. The court of appeals issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission to award benefits or to reconsider the denial of benefits in accordance with Gross. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Driver was discharged for the same misconduct that caused his industrial injury, the discharge was not tantamount to a voluntary abandonment of employment that precludes TTD compensation; and (2) the Commission abused its discretion when it reconsidered the order on the basis of res judicata. View "State ex rel. Haddox v. Indus. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Defendant in the underlying proceeding sought to disqualify Judge Ralph Winkler from presiding over any further proceedings in his case, pending for a resentencing hearing in the court of common pleas. Defendant argued, among other things, that Judge Winkler should be disqualified from resentencing him because he made "biased and prejudiced" comments about him at his initial sentencing. The Supreme Court granted the affidavit of disqualification and ordered that Judge Winkler participate no further in the underlying proceeding, as the nature and extent of Judge Winkler's comments, along with the other facts in the record, made it necessary to remove Judge Winkler to "avoid even an appearance of bias, prejudice, or impropriety, and to ensure the parties, their counsel, and the public the unquestioned neutrality of an impartial judge." View "In re Disqualification of Winkler" on Justia Law

Relator owned and operated a real-estate-appraisal business and used maps and aerial photographs of properties in making his appraisals in Scioto County. In 2011, Relator requested that the Scioto County engineer (Engineer) provide him, at actual cost, a copy of the office's electronic data compilation for maps and aerial photographs of all the property in the County and to provide paper copies of the maps and photographs. Engineer quoted a charge of $2,000 plus the cost of a hard drive for the records. Relator then filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel Engineer to provide copies of the requested records at actual cost. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relator failed to establish his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus, as Engineer supported his charges with his evidence, and Relator failed to submit clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. View "State ex rel. Gambill v. Opperman" on Justia Law

K&D Enterprises, through its manager, Mid-America, contracted to purchase an apartment complex. Prior to the closing, K&D Enterprises created a new company, Euclid-Richmond Gardens, and assigned its rights under the purchase agreement to that new company. Euclid-Richmond Gardens hired K&D Group, Inc., a property-management company, to manage the apartment. K&D Group hired former employees of Mid-America and assumed the operations of the complex. The Bureau of Workers' Compensation later conducted an audit and determined K&D Group was the successor in interest to the business operations of Mid-America, a determination that authorized the Bureau to base K&D Group's experience rating, in part, on Mid-America's past experience, which included a large workers' compensation claim. After K&D Group's administrative appeal was denied, K&D Group unsuccessfully filed a mandamus action in the court of appeals. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and issued the writ of mandamus, holding that K&D Group was not a successor in interest for purposes of workers' compensation law, and thus, the Bureau abused its discretion when it transferred part of Mid-America's experience rating to K&D Group. View "State ex rel. K&D Group, Inc. v. Buehrer" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from an order denying his motion for reconsideration of a magistrate's decision recommending dismissal of his action for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the magistrate's decision recommending dismissal of Appellant's mandamus case was not a final, appealable order because it did not determine the mandamus action and prevent a judgment; (2) nor did the court of appeals order denying Appellant's motion for reconsideration of the magistrate's decision constitute a final, appealable order; and (3) thus, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "State ex rel. Boddie v. Franklin County 911 Adm'r" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the 2007 tax-year valuation of six properties owned by Appellant. Appellant filed six valuation complaints regarding the properties. The county board of revision (BOR) retained the auditor's valuation for five parcels and ordered a reduction for one. On appeal, the board of tax appeals (BTA) concluded (1) in the case of the one parcel, the complaint's failure to state an actual dollar amount of value reduction was a jurisdictional defect, and thus the case was remanded to the BOR for dismissal; and (2) with respect to the other five parcels, the evidence offered by Appellant was insufficient to find a value different from that determined by the BOR. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA properly ordered dismissal of Appellant's appeal of the case of the one parcel; and (2) the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in adopting the BOR's valuation with respect to the other parcels. View "Shinkle v. Ashtabula County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Cincinnati Community Kollel, an educational institution for purposes of Ohio Rev. Code 4709.121(A)(2), sought exemptions for three residential apartment buildings based on the claim that the properties were being used in furtherance of its educational purposes. The statute provides that real property belonging to an educational institution is exempt from taxation if it is made available under the direction of the institution for use in furtherance of or incidental to its educational purposes and not with a view to profit. The tax commissioner denied the exemptions, and the board of tax appeals (BTA) affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the BTA applied the wrong legal standard and failed to cite reliable and probative evidence to support its decision. Remanded to the BTA to review the evidence submitted in this case and determine whether the subject property was used in furtherance of the kollel's educational purposes. View "Cincinnati Cmty. Kollel v. Levin" on Justia Law

After a portion of an oil and gas lease's interest was assigned to Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, the Ohio Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management (Division) issued a permit to Chesapeake to drill an oil and gas well on the lease property. Summitcrest, Inc., who originally entered into the lease with the assignor, appealed to the Oil and Gas Commission (Commission). The Division filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, claiming that the issuance of permits to drill oil and gas wells did not constitute an appealable order. Chesapeake joined in the Division's motion to dismiss. The Commission denied the motion to dismiss. Chesapeake filed this action for a writ of prohibition to prevent the Commission from exercising further jurisdiction in the appeal and to vacate the Commission's actions in the appeal. The Commission subsequently heard the appeal and affirmed the issuance of the drilling permit. Thereafter, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the prohibition case based on mootness, which the Supreme Court denied. The Supreme Court then granted the writ, holding that the Commission patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over the appeal from the Division's issuance of the permit. View "Chesapeake Exploration, LLC v. Oil & Gas Comm'n" on Justia Law

Relator submitted to the attorney general's office a written request for copies of records concerning any communication to that office relating to Danny Bubp's simultaneously holding and exercising the public offices of state representative and mayor's court magistrate. The attorney general's office mailed several pages of responsive documents, but many of the documents were withheld and parts of other documents were redacted based on the claim that they were covered by the attorney-client privilege. Relator subsequently filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel the attorney general's office to provide access to those portions of the requested public records that were withheld. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relator did not establish his entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief. The Court also denied Relator's request for statutory damages and attorney fees. View "State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine" on Justia Law