Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of Appellant for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel Appellees, the court of common pleas judge and the common pleas court, to issue a valid, final judgment in one of his criminal cases and to vacate his sentence in another of his criminal cases. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's sentencing entries constituted final, appealable orders; (2) the sentences Appellant challenged complied with Ohio R. Crim. P. 32(C) by specifying that Appellant was convicted upon his no-contest pleas; and (3) insofar as Appellant argued that one of his sentences was erroneous because there was no authorization for consecutive six-month jail sentences, Appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error. View "State ex rel. Culgan v. Common Pleas Court (Kimbler)" on Justia Law

Appellee, together with four codefendants, was indicted for murder, aggravated robbery, involuntary manslaughter, and theft. The defendants' initial convictions were reversed due to a Batson violation. On retrial, the trial court declared a mistrial. The state proceeded to retry three of the defendants, including Appellant, and a third jury returned verdicts finding them guilty of all charges. The court of appeals again reversed their convictions. In Appellee's case, the court held (1) the trial court should have declared a mistrial after the second trial because a statement of a state's witness from a previous trial, which had not been admitted into evidence, had inadvertently been submitted to the jury; and (2) double jeopardy barred retrial because there had not been a manifest necessity for the mistrial declared at the second trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals to the extent that it held the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial, holding (1) the trial judge erred during the second trial by improperly declaring a mistrial; and (2) the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the retrial of Appellee. View "State v. Gunnell" on Justia Law

In 2008, Craig Ali was a police officer for appellant, the village of Oakwood. That spring, his department assigned him to perform traffic-control duties on a highway-construction project overseen by appellee, Kokosing Construction Company, Inc. Ali was injured while performing those duties. At issue was which entity was Ali's employer for purposes of his workers' compensation claim. A district hearing officer with the Industrial Commission of Ohio found that Kokosing was Ali's employer at the time of injury. A staff hearing officer reversed, finding the correct employer was Oakwood Village. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the commission, when confronted with two potential employers, may, but is not required to, use any of the State ex rel. Lord v. Daugherty and Fisher v. Mayfield factors it believes will assist analysis; (2) therefore, the commission did not abuse its discretion by not directly discussing the three enumerated Lord/Fisher factors; and (3) the staff hearing officer's decision was supported by evidence in the record. View "State ex rel. Oakwood v. Indus. Comm'n" on Justia Law

This matter arose out of a controversy over a phrase in a trust. The language at issue established the calculation of the price of trust property offered for sale to certain trust beneficiaries. One of the trust beneficiaries filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking judicial interpretation of the disputed provision. The trial court concluded that the disputed phrase was unambiguous and that the option price was the fair market value as determined by the appraisal. The court of appeals reversed after reviewing the trust document de novo, finding that the option language was susceptible to more than one interpretation and that the option price was the federal and/or Ohio qualified-use value. At issue on appeal was what standard of review an appellate court should employ in reviewing legal issues in a declaratory-judgment action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the de novo standard of review is the proper standard for appellate review of purely legal issues that must be resolved after the trial court has decided that a complaint for declaratory judgment presents a justiciable question. View "Arnott v. Arnott" on Justia Law

Appellee Trumbull Industries, Inc. was an Ohio corporation. Appellees Murray Miller and Sam H. Miller (Sam H.) were shareholders of Trumbull. Appellant Sam M. Miller (Sam M.) was also a shareholder of Trumbull. Murray and Sam H. filed a complaint against Sam M. for injunctive relief and damages arising from a business venture. Sam M. subsequently reimbursed himself for his legal expenses pursuant to an "undertaking" executed pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 1701.13(E)(5)(a) (the statute), which governs the advancement of litigation expenses by a corporation to one of its directors. The trial court held that Sam M. was entitled to the advancement of expenses. The appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) based on the unambiguous language of the statute, Trumbull was required by law to advance expenses to Sam M., as Trumbull's articles of incorporation did not state by specific reference that the statute did not apply to Trumbull; (2) thus, Appellees failed to show that Trumbull opted out of the mandatory advancement requirement; and (3) Trumbull's statutory duty to advance Sam M.'s fees arose upon receipt of Sam M.'s undertaking. View "Miller v. Miller" on Justia Law

The issue presented in this appeal was whether the filing of a pretrial motion to suppress by a co-defendant automatically tolls the time within which a defendant must be brought to trial. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions of aggravated robbery and felonious assault, concluding that Defendant was timely tried on those charges, as the time to bring Defendant to trial was tolled when his co-defendant filed a pretrial motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the time in which to bring Defendant to trial was not automatically tolled when his co-defendant filed pretrial motions to suppress. Remanded for the court of appeals to determine whether the setting of the trial date beyond the statutory time was reasonable. View "State v. Ramey" on Justia Law

Appellant, Rebecca Nelson-Miller, as administrator of the estate of Norman Miller, cross-appealed from a decision of the court of appeals that held that the 2005 agreed judgment entry of divorce between Norman and cross-appellee, Beth Miller, was void for noncompliance with Ohio R. Civ. P. 58(A) due to the trial court's improper delegation of its judgment-entry signatory duties to a magistrate. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the trial court's 2005 judgment entry decree of divorce, holding (1) where a court possesses jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, mechanical irregularities regarding the trial court's signature render the judgment voidable not void; (2) therefore, the trial court's noncompliance with the signature requirement of Rule 58(A) caused the 2005 judgment entry to be merely voidable; and (3) because neither party sought any timely objection or appeal from the 2005 divorce decree, Appellee's attempted collateral attack on the trial court's voidable judgment entry in 2009 was untimely and improper. View "Miller v. Nelson-Miller" on Justia Law

In this case, Appellants, Cincinnati Golf Management, Inc. (CGMI) and the City of Cincinnati, challenged a consumer's use-tax assessment issued by the tax commissioner against CGMI. The commissioner assessed tax with respect to purchases that the commissioner deemed to be taxable under the sales and use tax laws of Ohio. Appellants asserted that because CGMI made the purchases as an agent for the City, the purchases were exempt as sales to a political subdivision pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 5739.02(B)(1). Both the commissioner and the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) found that CGMI, acting in its capacity as an independent contractor under the management agreement between it and the City, did not qualify as an agent of the City with respect to the sales at issue. Accordingly, the BTA upheld the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants' arrangements did not satisfy the elements of agency for purposes of section 5739.02(B)(1); and (2) purchases by CGMI did not constitute sales to the City under the sales tax law's definition of a sale. View "Cincinnati Golf Mgmt., Inc. v. Testa " on Justia Law

In this appeal, a property owner challenged an increase to the 2006 valuation of its property that was ordered by the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) at the instigation of the Bedford Board of Education. The BTA reversed the decision of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR), which had retained the auditor's valuation of $3,713,500. The BTA valued the property by using the allocated portion of the March 2006 sale price, which increased the valuation to $4,835,000. The owner appealed, contending that the allocated sale price was not reflective of market value. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the BTA erred by ignoring and failing to weigh the significance of testimony regarding the seller's tax motivations in allocating the sale price to the subject property; and (2) because it is the duty of the BTA to weigh the evidence and determine the facts concerning valuation, the case was remanded for proper consideration of the effect of that testimony. View "Bedford Bd. of Educ. v. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Appellant was indicted on twelve counts of deception to obtain a dangerous drug. Appellant moved for intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC). The trial court ordered an intervention plan, and Appellant pled guilty to the charges, pending successful completion of her intervention program. After Appellant successfully completed the intervention program, the trial court dismissed the twelve pending charges against her. Appellant then filed an application for sealing of her record after dismissal of the proceedings. The trial court denied Appellant's application. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a trial court has discretion to determine that successful completion of the ILC program entitles the defendant to immediate sealing of his or her record under Ohio Rev. Code 2953.52(A)(1) or to impose the waiting period set forth in Ohio Rev. Code 2953.23(A)(1). View "State v. Niesen-Pennycuff" on Justia Law