Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court dismissing this complaint brought by the Attorney General alleging that Defendants, including Rover Pipeline, LLC, had illegally discharged millions of gallons of drilling fluids into Ohio's waters, causing pollution and degrading water quality, holding that the lower courts erred.Rover sought a license to construct an interstate pipeline that cross several counts in Ohio. As required by 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1) - section 401 of the Clean Water Act - Rover applied for certification for the state that any discharge into the state's navigable waters would comply with federal law. The state later brought this action against Rover and other companies involved in building the pipeline. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of this lawsuit, holding (1) the state waived its ability to participate in the certification process when it did not respond to Rover's application within one year; but (2) the waiver applies only to issues that are related to the section 401 certification, and therefore, remand was required for a determination of whether any of the state's allegations address issues outside the contours of the section 401 certification. View "State ex rel. Yost v. Rover Pipeline, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing a decision of the Belmont County Court of Common Pleas and holding that amicus curiae Guernsey County Community Development Corporation (CDC) had violated land transfer restrictions that were included in a deed under the CDC's grant agreement with the Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC), holding that there was no error.OPWC appealed the trial court's judgment that the deed restrictions did not apply to the subsurface of the property and the trial court's earlier holding denying OPWC's motion for an injunction. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the transfer restriction in the deed applied to both the surface and subsurface rights of the property and that OPWC had the authority to seek equitable remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the CDC violated enforceable land transfer restrictions included in the deed and thus violated the terms of CDC's grant agreement with the OPWC; and (2) OPWC was entitled to seek remedies at law and in equity to conserve the land for its intended purpose. View "Siltstone Resources, LLC v. Ohio Public Works Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that a recorded will that does not affect title to an interest in land is not a recorded title transaction under Ohio Rev. Code 5301.47(F) and cannot be an exception to the Marketable Title Act under Ohio Rev. Code 5301.49, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court and the appellate court incorrectly concluded that the interest H.J. Jones retained in the oil and gas was a life estate that expired upon Jones's death in 1932; but (2) the lower courts did not err in determining that a recorded will that does not distribute the decedent's oil and gas rights does not affect title and is not a recorded title transaction preventing those rights from being extinguished. View "Peppertree Farms, L.L.C. v. Thonen" on Justia Law

In this case involving two separate deeds to property in which successive grantors conveyed the surface rights and part of the mineral interest while retaining part of the oil and gas rights the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the court of appeals erred in part.Both deeds at osier were executed before 1925 and did not contain words of inheritance. The lower courts concluded that the conveyances created reservations of the oil and gas rights that retained life estates in those rights expiring on the respective deaths of the grantors. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgments in favor of Appellees - Peppertree Farms, LLC and Jay and Amy Moore - and quieting title to the oil and gas rights claimed by Appellants - KOAG, Inc., Richard Reinholtz, and Sylvia Ann Miller. The court further concluded that Miller's and Reinholtz's interests - but not KOAG's - would have been extinguished by operation of the Marketable Title Act, Ohio Rev. Code 5301.47 et seq. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding words of inheritance were not required to retain more than a life estate in excepted interests in the oil and gas; and (2) summary judgment against KOAG was erroneous. View "Peppertree Farms, L.L.C. v. Thonen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Richard Duncan's complaint against American Transmission Systems, Inc. and FirstEnergy Corp. (collectively, ATSI), and the city of Aurora and its mayor, holding that there was no error.Duncan brought this action alleging that if a project proposed by ATSI for installing transmission towers had not been approved, he likely would have acquired an easement from Aurora allowing him to use an abandoned right-of-way to access a public road from his lot. Duncuan's complaint sought a declaration that the power lines were a public and private nuisance resulting in a taking of his property, a preliminary and permanent injunction halting the project's construction, and a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals granted ATSI's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in dismissing the action. View "State ex rel. Duncan v. American Transmission Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's private citizen affidavit seeking the arrest of Appellee, Beth Diefendorf, an Akron municipal employee, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the affidavit for lack of jurisdiction.Appellant filed an affidavit complaint in the court of appeals accusing Diefendorf of grand theft arising from a condemnation proceeding against Appellant's real property. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the affidavit on the grounds that it was not a court of record under Ohio Rev. Code 2935.09. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly construed the statute. View "In re Affidavit of Helms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writs of prohibition and mandamus sought by Relators to order Respondent, the Union County Board of Elections, to remove a zoning referendum from the November 2, 2021 general-election ballot, holding that Relators' arguments were unavailing.This case concerned the proposed rezoning of approximately 139 acres of property in Plain City, Union County, and Relators in this action owned the property, which was zoned rural residential. When the board of trustees voted to rezone the property to a planned-development district, a group of petitioners filed a referendum petition containing a summary of the zoning amendment. The board of elections certified the petition to be placed on the November 2 election ballot. Relators then filed a protest to the referendum petition, contending that it failed to satisfy the "brief summary" requirement of Ohio Rev. Code 519.12(H). The board voted to deny the protest and allow the referendum to appear on the ballot. The Supreme Court denied Relators' writs, holding that Relators did not show that the board abused its discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law in denying their protest. View "State ex rel. T-Bill Development Co. v. Union County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied as moot the writ of mandamus sought by Malcolm and Mary Wood seeking to compel Rocky River Board of Zoning and Building Appeals and its members (collectively, the zoning board) to stay their approval of a development plan and hear their appeals, holding that subsequent events had rendered the case moot.After the planning commission approved a proposed real estate development in Rocky River the Woods, who lived next to the site, filed an appeal. The zoning board declared the notice of appeal void on the grounds that the appeal was not completed or perfected within a timely fashion. The Woods subsequently filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus as moot because the construction of the project was substantially underway. View "State ex rel. Wood v. Rocky River" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the common pleas court adopting the Kings Local School District Board of Education's appraisal as the basis for determining the value of property owned by Appellant that was leased for use as a Lowe's Home Centers store, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Appellant argued that the appraisal introduced by the school board was not competent evidence of the property's value because it did not value the "fee simple, as if unencumbered," as required by Ohio Rev. Code 5713.03. Specifically, Appellant asserted that a property must be appraised under the theory that a hypothetical sale of the property on the tax-lien date would involve the current tenant vacating the property at transfer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the market-lease rule reflects the meaning of the phrase "fee simple estate, as if unencumbered"; and (2) the case law requiring adjustments of leased-fee comparable did not support Appellant's vacant-at-transfer rule. View "Rancho Cincinnati Rivers, LLC v. Warren County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the decision of the tax commissioner denying Appellant's complaint challenging the continuing property tax exemption for a real estate parcel owned by the state and operated as the Ohio State University Airport (OSU Airport), the BTA's decision was reasonable and lawful.On appeal, Appellant argued that, given its use as of the tax lien date, the airport parcel did not qualify for exemption. Specifically, Appellant argued that either the entire airport should be taxed or that certain areas of the parcel should be split-listed as taxable. The Supreme Court affirmed BTA's decision continuing the exemption for the entire airport parcel, holding (1) Ohio Rev. Code 5715.271 placed the burden of proving entitled to continued exemption on OSU, and therefore, the BTA properly required OSU to bear that burden; (2) this Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief to OSU on its evidentiary arguments; and (3) OSU proved that the airport was entitled to exemption under Ohio Rev. Code 3345.17. View "O'Keefe v. McClain" on Justia Law