Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this property-tax appeal concerning the 2014 tax valuation of a shopping center consisting of five separate real estate parcels, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), holding that the BTA erred by excluding evidence offered to show the value of one parcel and by failing fully to consider the appraisal evidence.The auditor in this case assigned an aggregate value to the parcels of $22,233,850 as of the tax-lien date. Thereafter, the center was sold along with other properties. Both the Board of Revision and the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) valued the individual parcels by reference to the aggregate price of $47,479,830. Property owner Beavercreek Towne Stations, LLC and one of its tenants, Kohl’s Illinois, Inc., appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the BTA erred by excluding Kohl’s as a party and excluding the appraisal evidence concerning the value of the Kohl’s parcel. The Supreme court agreed, holding (1) the BTA erred by excluding evidence offered to show the value of the Kohl’s parcel; and (2) the BTA’s failure to fully consider the appraisal evidence necessitated vacating the BTA’s decision and remanding the cause pursuant to Terraza 8, LLC v. Franklin County Board of Revision, 83 N.E.3d 916 (Ohio 2017), and Bronx Park S. III Lancaster, LLC v. Fairfield County Board of Revision, __ N.E.3d __ (Ohio 2018). View "Beavercreek Towne Station, LLC v. Greene County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this challenge brought by a property owner seeking a decrease in the valuation of its property, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopting the value determined by the Montgomery County Board of Revision (BOR), holding that the BTA did not misapply the principles delineated in Bedford Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 875 N.E.2d 913.The Huber Heights City Schools Board of Education (BOE) objected to Globe Products, Inc.'s requested decrease, but the BOR lowered the property value in line with what Globe sought. On appeal, the BTA found the testimony presented by the BOE that was critical of Globe’s evidence lacking and adopted the value determined by the BOR. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA did not err in concluding that the Bedford elements were satisfied; and (2) because Globe presented competent and at least minimally plausible evidence to the BOR, the BOE could not invoke the auditor’s original valuation as a default. View "Huber Heights City Schools Board of Education v. Montgomery County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In this property-tax appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) arriving at an independent valuation of the subject property by using probative aspects of the two expert reports presented by the two parties, holding that the BTA’s determination was valid and did not violate constitutionally required uniformity.At the hearing before the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR), the Property Owner presented appraiser testimony regarding the value for 2014 and 2015 of the property. Groveport-Madison Local Schools Board of Education presented testimony from a different appraiser, as well as a consulting report. The BOR adopted the Property Owner’s appraisal value. On appeal, the BTA arrived at its independent valuation of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA discharged its duty to perform an independent valuation of the property; and (2) the BTA’s independent determination of value did not violate the uniformity required by Article XII, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution. View "Groveport Madison Local Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s complaint for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Richard L. Collins Jr. from proceeding with a hearing to determine whether Appellant should be designated a sexual predator pursuant to Megan’s Law, holding that Appellant failed to show entitlement to a writ of prohibition.In this action, Appellant argued that since the General Assembly enacted the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), Megan’s Law has been repealed and could not be applied to him. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Judge Collins did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to conduct a sexual-predator adjudication hearing relating to Appellant’s 1986 convictions for kidnapping and involuntary manslaughter because Megan’s Law continues to apply to offenders convicted before 2008; and (2) Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to challenge Judge Collins’s exercise of jurisdiction. View "State ex rel. Grant v. Collins" on Justia Law

In this case concerning the 2014 value of a KeyBank branch located in Hilliard, The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopting the appraisal presented on behalf of the Hilliard City Schools Board of Education (school board), holding that it was not legal error for the BTA to rely on this appraisal.In the proceedings below, two appraisals were presented, one of behalf of the landowner and building owner (collectively, Appellants), and the other on behalf of the school board. The board of revision adopted Appellants’ appraisal, but the BTA adopted the school board’s appraisal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, contrary to the arguments raised by Appellants on appeal, it was not legal error for the BTA to rely on the school board’s appraisal. View "Hilliard City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) remanding this cause to Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) with instructions for the BOR to dismiss the underlying valuation complaint, holding that there was no merit to Appellant’s arguments on appeal.The BTA found that where Appellant's complaint was prepared and filed by a nonlawyer, the complaint constituted the unauthorized practice of law and failed to invoke the BOR’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) nonlawyers who are not specified by Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(A) are not authorized to file on behalf of a property owner, and therefore, the complaint in this case failed to invoke the BOR’s jurisdiction; and (2) the BTA did not exceed its statutory authority by considering the board of education’s motion to dismiss, nor did the BTA violate Appellant’s right to due process by failing to hold a hearing on the jurisdictional issue. View "Greenway Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s complaint for a writ of mandamus against the Lake County Common Pleas Court, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the complaint.Appellant was convicted in the Lake County Common Pleas Court on several criminal counts. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant brought this action for a writ of mandamus against the Lake County Common Pleas Court, raising numerous objections to his convictions and sentences but requesting no specific mandamus relief. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim in mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Sands v. Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

The Supreme court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s motions to issue a show-cause order and to hold Appellees, Ohio Adult Parole Authority and the Chair of the Ohio Parole Board, in contempt for failing to conduct a new parole hearing, holding that there was no basis for ordering Appellees to take action or find them in contempt.Appellant, then an inmate, filed an original action seeking a writ of mandamus, alleging that he had been denied meaningful parole consideration because Appellees had relied on incorrect information in his parole record. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court reversed, ordering Appellees to correct any information on Appellant’s parole record that was incorrect. Appellant later filed a motion for contempt and a motion for a show-cause order. The court of appeals denied the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellees complied with this Court’s original order, and therefore, there was no basis for ordering them to take additional action, much less a finding of contempt. View "State ex rel. Keith v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus to compel the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund to award Appellant on-duty-percentage disability benefits for injuries he alleged were sustained during the course of his employment, holding that the Fund’s board of trustees did not abuse its discretion in denying benefits.Appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus challenging the board’s decision not to award on-duty disability benefits for his injuries. The court of appeals adopted the decision of the magistrate recommending denying the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because some evidence supported the board’s decision, the court of appeals did not err in denying the requested writ. View "State ex rel. Wegman v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss Relator’s original action in mandamus and issued an alternative writ, holding that, although Relator was an inmate who had filed a civil action against a state employee and Relator did not attach an affidavit of prior civil actions to his complaint, Respondent was not entitled to have the complaint dismissed.Relator, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correction Facility, alleged that he submitted a public-records request to Respondent, the public-records custodian for the facility, but never received the requested documents. Relator filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus asking the Supreme Court to compel Respondent to provide him the requested documents. Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint based on Relator’s failure to comply with the filing requirements set forth in Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25. The Supreme Court held (1) section 2969.25 does not apply to this matter, and because it does not apply, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is denied; and (2) Relator is entitled to an alternative writ. View "State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene" on Justia Law