Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dennis Varnau, an independent candidate for sheriff of Brown County, filed a protest against Dwayne Wenninger's candidacy for sheriff in the 2008 elections. The board of elections denied the protest because it was not filed by a member of the appropriate party. Following the election victory by Wenninger, Varnau filed a complaint for a writ of quo warranto to oust Wenninger from the office and to place Varnau in that office. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Varnau did not establish that Wenninger lacked the qualifications under Ohio Rev. Code 311.01(B) to hold the office of sheriff for his third four-year term, and the court of appeals properly denied the writ; and (2) the court of appeals did not err by denying Wenninger's request for attorney fees when he prevailed on Varnau's quo warranto claim. View "State ex rel. Varnau v. Wenninger" on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced, and Mother was granted custody of Child. Husband made child support payments until 2007. Afterwards, he sent Child a Christmas and birthday gift. Mother's husband, Stepfather, subsequently filed a petition to adopt Child. The probate court determined that Father's gifts to Child did not constitute maintenance and support for purposes of R.C. 3107.07(A), that Father had failed without cause to provide maintenance and support preceding the filing of the adoption petition, and thus, Father's consent was not needed for the adoption. The appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the judgment of the probate court, holding (1) de minimis monetary gifts from a biological parent to a minor child do not constitute maintenance and support for purposes of section 3107.07(A); and (2) a probate court determination of whether a financial contribution constitutes maintenance and support for purposes of section 3107.07(A) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, but whether justifiable cause for the failure to pay child support has been proved by clear and convincing evidence is a separate question for the probate court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. View "In re Adoption of M.B." on Justia Law

Law Firm filed a verified petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Housing Authority to provide copies of all records that documented any and all instances of lead poisoning in the last fifteen years in any dwelling owned or operated by Housing Authority. The court of appeals (1) granted Law Firm's motion for summary judgment regarding the request for lead-poisoning documents and ordered Housing Authority to produce the documents, and (2) granted $7,537 in attorney fees to Law Firm. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) to the extent that Law Firm's request properly sought the lead-poisoning records, the court of appeals did not err in granting the writ of mandamus to compel Housing Authority to provide access to them; (2) the personal identifying information in Housing Authority's lead-poisoning documents was not obtainable under the Public Records Act, but the remainder of the completed forms was subject to disclosure; and (3) the court of appeals erred in awarding attorney fees to Law Firm. Remanded. View "State ex rel. O'Shea & Assocs. Co., L.P.A. v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth." on Justia Law

Appellant, Marquise Jones, petitioned for writs of mandamus and procendendo to compel Appellee, Sandusdy County Court of Common Pleas Judge Barbara Ansted, to issue a new sentencing entry in Jones's criminal case. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. Jones appealed, arguing that the entry issued in his case was not a final, appealable order because it failed to dispose of every firearm specification of which he was found guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the sentencing entry constituted a final, appealable order because it set forth the fact of Jones's convictions, the sentence, the judge's signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk; and (2) Jones had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise his claim of sentencing error. View "State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Dennis Gould of rape, gross sexual imposition, pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor, and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, all based on images located on the hard drive of Gould's computer. The court of appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the trial court should have excluded all evidence that resulted from the warrantless search of Gould's hard drive. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and reinstated the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court, holding (1) because Gould had abandoned the hard drive, Gould did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the hard drive; and (2) therefore, the warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "State v. Gould" on Justia Law

After an at-large village council member resigned from his office, the village law director swore Respondent Scott Richardson into the office of member of village council to fill the vacancy. One day later, the mayor appointed Relator, Terry Johnson, to the office. Johnson then filed this action for a writ of quo warranto to oust Richardson from the office and to declare Johnson entitled to possession of that office. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the pertinent facts were uncontroverted and established Johnson's entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief where (1) Richardson did not receive enough votes to fill the vacancy on the village council under the plain language of the village charter; and (2) Johnson established that he was entitled to the office under the charter. View "State ex rel. Johnson v. Richardson" on Justia Law

The Madison County Board of Commissioners filed an appropriation action against Greg and Marcia Bell. The common pleas court entered judgment in favor of the Board. The court of appeals affirmed. The Bells then filed a civil action against various Defendants, including the Board and the common pleas court judge. The common pleas court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The court of appeals affirmed. Greg Bell subsequently sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court judge that presided over the earlier action, a magistrate, and certain attorneys and entities, from proceeding in the case. The court of appeals denied Bell's request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Bell could prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested writ of prohibition. View "State ex rel. Bell v. Court of Common Pleas (Pfeiffer)" on Justia Law

Petitioner Robert Waters filed a petition to be a candidate for the Warren County Republican Party Central Committee for the 15th Precinct of Lebanon at the March 6, 2012 Republican primary election. Respondent Warren County Board of Elections voted to not certify Waters's candidacy. Waters then filed an expedited-election action for a writ of mandamus to compel the board and its members to certify his candidacy. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Waters was barred from candidacy in the March 6, 2012 Republican primary election because he voted in a primary election as a member of a different political party within the preceding two calendar years. View "State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth" on Justia Law

Appellant filed for disability-retirement benefits with Appellee, the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund (OP&F), claiming that he was disabled as a result of the performance of his official duties of the police department. The OP&F board denied Appellant's application for benefits. Appellant subsequently requested a writ of mandamus to compel the OP&F board to award him disability-retirement benefits. The court of appeals denied the writ, determining that the report of a psychiatrist supported the board's determination that Appellant was not permanently and totally disabled due to a psychiatric or psychological impairment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) OP&F did not abuse its discretion by relying on the psychiatrist's report to support its decision; and (2) Appellant waived his argument that the OP&F board abused its discretion in denying him benefits because he was also physically disabled from continuing work. View "State ex rel. Kolcinko v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund" on Justia Law

In an underlying civil case, Appellant filed a notice of dismissal, voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice. Minutes later, a deputy clerk responsible for processing the queue of electronically transmitted documents clicked on the court of common pleas judge's journal entry granting summary judgment in favor of the respondents, which had been transmitted earlier that day. The judge subsequently struck Appellant's notice of dismissal and held that the summary judgment was the final judgment on the merits of the case. Appellant requested a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus, which the court of appeals denied. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals erred in denying Appellant's request for (1) a writ of prohibition to prevent the judge from proceeding on the merits of the underlying case where the judge lacked jurisdiction because, pursuant to Ohio R. Civ. P. 58(A), the entry of summary judgment was not effective until after Appellant's notice of dismissal; and (2) a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to vacate her entry striking the notice of dismissal and her entry of summary judgment in the underlying case and to compel the judge to reinstate her notice of dismissal. View "State ex rel. Engelhart v. Russo" on Justia Law