Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Robert Watson, who was serving a custodial sentence, filed a writ of mandamus to compel Appellees, various correctional officials and employees, to provide certain public and nonpublic records directly related to Watson. The court of appeals conditionally granted the writ, stating that Watson must pay for the copies. After Appellees failed to provide the copies to Watson, Watson requested statutory damages in connection with his mandamus case. The court of appeals denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying Watson's request, as (1) the court did not conclusively determine that Watson had submitted the applicable cost for the copies; (2) the court did not specify that Appellees had breached any duty owed to Watson; and (3) Watson's mandamus claim was based in part on his request for nonpublic records, which claim was not authorized by Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, and therefore, Watson could not be awarded statutory damages for that claim. View "State ex rel. Watson v. Mohr" on Justia Law

Appellant Peggy Hodge sought to compel Appellee, the administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, to pay Vicki Hulbert, a licensed practical nurse, higher wages for the in-home care that Hulbert provided to her. A staff hearing officer (SHO) determined that he had no jurisdiction to order an increase. A few months later, Hodge again moved the Commission to increase Hulbert's wages. A district hearing officer (DHO) dismissed the motion of jurisdictional grounds, citing the SHO order. Thereafter, a different SHO affirmed the DHO's order. Hodge then sought a writ of mandamus against the bureau. The court of appeals denied the writ after finding, among other things, that Hodge's failure to appeal the SHO orders constituted a failure to exhaust her available administrative remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals was correct in denying the writ, as Hodge's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies precluded mandamus. View "State ex rel. Hodge v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Appellants, homeowners, filed suit against Centex Homes, alleging various causes of action, including breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranty, and failure to perform in a workmanlike manner. Centex Homes moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellants had waived all warranties except the specific limited warranty that Centex Homes provided in the sales agreements. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for a trial on Appellants' tort claims that Centex Homes breached its duty to construct their homes in a workmanlike manner using ordinary care, as (1) in Ohio a duty to construct houses in a workmanlike manner using ordinary care is imposed by law on all home builders; and (2) a home buyer cannot waive his right to enforce the home builder's duty to construct the house in a workmanlike manner. Remanded. View "Jones v. Centex Homes" on Justia Law

Employee filed a workers' compensation claim against Employer, which was denied by the Industrial Commission. Employee filed a notice of appeal but failed to name as an appellee the administrator of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation. Employee later filed a motion for leave to amend his petition, this time naming the administrator as a party pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 4123.512. The court of common pleas dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied Employee's motion to amend his petition. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Employee's failure to name the administrator in the notice of appeal did not deprive the court of common pleas of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 4123.412's requirements that a party appealing from an Industrial Commission order name the administrator as a party of the appeal and serve the administrator with notice of the appeal are not jurisdictional requirements; and (2) Employee perfected his appeal by amending the complaint to name the administrator as a party and then notifying him by serving him with a copy of the amended complaint, thus vesting the common pleas court with jurisdiction to rule on his motion to amend. View "Spencer v. Freight Handlers, Inc." on Justia Law

Buckeye Wind filed an application to construct a proposed wind-powered electric generation facility with the power siting board (the board). A group of neighboring landowners (the neighbors) opposed the application. Several other entities, including the county and several local townships (collectively, the county) also intervened. The board approved construction of most of the proposed turbines. The neighbors and county appealed. Buckeye intervened on behalf of the board. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the board acted in accordance with all pertinent statutes and regulations and based its determinations on the evidence in the record, and therefore, the board's decision was reasonable and lawful. View "In re Application of Buckeye Wind, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant Timothy Smith pleaded guilty to forgery. The trial court sentenced Smith to five years of community control and required him to pay court costs, the fee for his court-appointed attorney, and $4,857 in restitution. Smith appealed, asserting that the trial court erred when it did not inform him that if he failed to pay court costs, the court could require him to perform community service. The court of appeals refused to consider this assignment of error on its merits, holding that the issue was not ripe for review because Smith had not yet failed to pay court costs. Smith filed a motion in the court of appeals to certify a conflict, alleging that the court's holding conflicted with the Fourth District Court of Appeals' holding in State v. Moss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, pursuant to precedent, the court's failure to provide Smith the community-service notice required by Ohio Rev. Code 2947.23(A)(1) was ripe for review regardless of whether Smith had failed to pay costs. Remanded. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Robert Clifton owned property contiguous to property owned by J&M Precision Machining. The Village of Blanchester annexed J&M's parcel and rezoned the entire parcel for general industrial use. Clifton filed a complaint alleging that the rezoning of J&M's property resulted in a regulatory taking of his property without just compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Village. The court of appeals reversed and remanded in part after finding that the trial court had failed to inquire as to whether the rezoning resulted in a partial taking. On remand, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Village, finding that Clifton had no standing to bring a taking claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was an insufficient nexus between the rezoning of J&M's property and the alleged diminution in value of Clifton's adjacent property to indicate that Clifton was a proper party to bring a regulatory-taking claim; and (2) furthermore, because Clifton's property was outside the Village limits, the Village had no authority to appropriate his property for an alleged regulatory taking, and therefore, Clifton had no redressable claim against the Village for a regulatory taking. View "Clifton v. Blanchester" on Justia Law

Ohio Edison Company owned a transmission-line easement running over property owned by Kurt Wimmer and the Wimmer Family Trust (the Wimmers). When the company sought to remove the trees in the easement on the Wimmers' property, the family objected. The court of common pleas found in favor of Ohio Edison, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated that judgment on the authority of Corrigan v. Illum. Co., which held that the Public Utilities Commission, not a court, was required to decide whether tree removal was reasonable. The Wimmers then took their complaint to the Commission, which ruled in Ohio Edison's favor and permitted it to remove the trees. The Supreme Court affirmed where the Wimmers did not show any error in the Commission's order. View "Wimmer v. Pub. Util. Comm." on Justia Law

This was an action for a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent, the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer, to provide to Relators, private companies that store and index electronic images of records and officials representing those companies, copies of electronic images of all documents recorded in the Cuyahoga County Recorder's Office for two months in 2010, to provide those copies based on their actual cost rather than $2 per electronic image of each page, and to amend the office's public-records policy to comply with the law. The Supreme Court (1) granted the writ to compel the fiscal officer to provide the requested electronic copies at actual cost, as the requested electronic images constituted records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act and Relators were entitled to copies of those records at actual cost rather than at the higher statutory charge for photocopying documents; and (2) denied the writ insofar as it sought to amend public policy, as the policy it sought to amend was no longer effective and the county's existing public-records policy did not violate the requirement to charge the actual cost of the records. View "State ex rel. Data Trace Info. Servs., LLC. v. Cuyahoga County Fiscal Officer " on Justia Law

Amber Williams and Frederick Ormsby, who were not married, lived together in a house Amber received through her divorce settlement. Frederick eventually paid the remaining mortgage balance, and Amber gave him title to the property by executing a quitclaim deed. As a result of a later separation, Amber and Frederick signed a document in March 2005 to sell the house and allocate the proceeds. The couple subsequently tried to reconcile and, in June 2005, they signed a second document, purportedly making themselves equal partners in the house and providing for property disposition in the event that their relationship ended. After their relationship ended, the parties filed suit against each other. The trial court determined that the March 2005 agreement was supported by consideration but that the June 2005 agreement was not and held that title to the property was vested in Frederick exclusively. The federal court of appeals reversed, concluding that moving into home with another and resuming a relationship can constitute consideration sufficient to support a contract. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that merely moving into a home with another while engaging in a romantic relationship is not consideration for the formation of a contract. View "Williams v. Ormsby" on Justia Law