Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the decision of the tax commissioner, holding that the sale-for-resale exemption of Ohio Rev. Code 5739.01(E) applied to preclude Cincinnati Reds, LLC (the Reds) from having to pay use tax on promotional items it purchased.The tax commissioner denied the Reds’ request to remove the promotional items from the use-tax assessment, concluding that there was no evidence that the promotional items were resold with admission to games. The BTA affirmed, finding that the promotional items were given away for free and that the cost of the promotional items was not included in the ticket price. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) consideration is given in exchange for the Reds’ agreement to supply fans with the promotional items, and therefore, the transfer of promotional items to fans constitutes a “sale” under section 5739.01(B)(1); and (2) accordingly, the promotional items were subject to the sale-for-resale exemption of section 5739.01(E). View "Cincinnati Reds, LLC v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing Defendant’s conviction after ruling that Defendant’s blackout defense was not an affirmative defense that must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, holding that blackout is an affirmative defense pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2901.05(D)(1)(b).A jury found Defendant guilty of felonious assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed structural error by instructing the jury that blackout is an affirmative defense. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed Defendant’s conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant’s blackout defense was an affirmative defense that would allow the defendant to avoid liability even if the state produced sufficient evidence to support a conviction; (2) the requirement that the state prove that the defendant acted voluntarily is not an additional element or burden on the state; and (3) the trial court properly instructed the jury that the state had the burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial court did not shift to Defendant the state’s burden to prove an essential element of the offense charged. View "State v. Ireland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the tax commissioner’s denial of Willoughby Hills Development and Distribution, Inc.’s (WHDD) request for a commercial-activity-tax (CAT) refund, holding that WHDD fell short of the requirements necessary for the gross-receipts exclusion to apply.Subject to exclusions, the CAT is levied on each entity with taxable gross receipts above a certain threshold for the privilege of doing business in Ohio. At issue was whether WHDD could meet the requirements of the gross-receipts exclusion that applies when a person or entity acts as an agent for another. The tax commissioner concluded that no agency relationship existed and denied the refund claim. The BTA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that WHDD did not meet the CAT statute’s definition of “agent.” View "Willoughby Hills Development & Distribution, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing Appellant’s complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition against Ross County Common Pleas Court Judge Scott Nusbaum, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief in mandamus or prohibition.Appellant, an inmate, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of common pleas. Judge Nusbaum dismissed the petition based on res judicata and for failure to state a claim cognizable in habeas. Appellant later commenced this action against Judge Nusbaum alleging that the judge lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition. The Court of Appeals granted Judge Nusbaum’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the judge lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition. View "State ex rel. White v. Nusbaum" on Justia Law

At issue was whether an order by the General Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas requiring Appellant, a Cuyahoga County court reporter, to submit sealed grand-jury materials for in camera court inspection was a final and appealable under Ohio Rev. Code 2505.02(B)(4).The Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissed Appellant’s appeal for lack of a final, appealable order, concluding that only when the trial court compelled disclosure of the materials would there be a final, appealable order for appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an order for a trial court’s in camera inspection of grand-jury materials is not a final, appealable order. View "Daher v. Cuyahoga Community College District" on Justia Law

In this property tax appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) concluding that the Marion County Board of Revision (BOR) and the River Valley Local School District Board of Education (school board) were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel from seeking to enforce a recorded covenant that purported to prohibit Kohl’s Illinois, Inc., the property owner in this case, from contesting the Marion County auditor’s valuations of the property, holding that the BTA properly applied collateral estoppel.After the Supreme Court remanded this case in Kohl’s I, the BTA remanded the matter to the BOR to determine value. No appeal was taken from this decision. On remand at the BOR, Kohl’s introduced an appraisal report and testimony in support of a reduced value. When the BOR retained the auditor’s valuation, Kohl’s appealed. The BTA held that it had already decided not to enforce the covenant at issue in its earlier decision and that the BOR and school board were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel from seeking enforcement of the covenant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA did make a determination as to the covenant issue. View "Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. Marion County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this real-property-valuation case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the decision of the Clark County Board of Revision (BOR) retaining Clark County auditor’s determination of the current agricultural use valuation (CAUV) for the subject property for tax year 2013, holding that there was no merit to Appellant’s arguments on appeal.Appellant, the property owner, challenged the CAUV. The BOR rejected Appellant’s claims. The BTA affirmed. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that the BTA misapplied the burden of proof and improperly applied a presumption of validity to the BOR’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the BTA, holding that Appellant’s arguments were without merit. View "Johnson v. Clark County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was when Appellees’ claims for negligence, constructive fraud, and fraudulent concealment accrued and whether they were time-barred.Appellees were the Estate of Steven Schmitz and Yvette Smith, individually and as fiduciary of the Estate. Steven died before age sixty after being diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease, and dementia. Appellees alleged that Steven’s diagnoses were caused, aggravated, and/or magnified by repetitive head impacts Steven sustained while playing football for the University of Notre Dame du Lac. The trial court dismissed the claims pursuant to Ohio R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6). The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth District’s judgment reversing the dismissal of Appellees’ claims for negligence, constructive fraud, and fraudulent concealment, holding (1) Rule 12(B)(6) did not warrant the dismissal of Appellees’ claims because the amended complaint did not show conclusively that the claims were time-barred; and (2) Appellees’ fraud-related claims were subject to the same two-year statute of limitations contained in Ohio Rev. Coe 2305.10(A) as Appellees’ negligence claim. View "Schmitz v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n" on Justia Law

In this appeal involving the real-property valuation of a “racino” in Cuyahoga County, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) rejecting the appraisal of the Warrensville Heights City School District Board of Education and adopting that of Harrah’s Ohio Acquisition Company, LLC, the property owner, holding that the BTA committed legal error in assessing the school board’s appraisal evidence.This was the third appeal before the Supreme Court involving the valuation of the property at issue. Unlike the two earlier cases, both the school board and Harrah’s submitted appraisal evidence. The BTA ultimately valued the property at $22 million. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding that the BTA committed legal error in assessing the appraisals presented. View "Harrah's Ohio Acquisition Co., LLC v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) valuing a Red Lobster restaurant in the village of Orange for tax year 2014 according to the sale price, disregarding the appraisal evidence, holding that because the property owner’s appraisal was relevant evidence, the BTA should have considered and weighed it.The property owner (Appellant) brought the property in December 2014 from an LLC that bought the property in August 2014. The county auditor assessed the property at just over $2 million. The Board of Revision (BOR), however, valued the property at $2,925,900 based on the August 2014 sale. Appellant appealed, arguing that the appraisal it presented to the BOR, rather than either of the 2014 sale prices, reflected the true value of the property. The BTA refused to consider the appraisal and retained the BOR’s valuation. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision and remanded the cause for the BTA to weigh and address Appellant’s appraisal evidence based on the changes to Ohio Rev. Code 5713.03 made by 2014 Am.Sub.H.B.No.487. View "Spirit Master Funding IX, LLC v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law