Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss this original action in mandamus brought by Relator and issued an alternative writ, holding that Respondent was not entitled to have the complaint dismissed.Relator, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional 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 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 that section 2969.25 does not apply to this matter, and because it does not apply, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is denied and Relator is entitled to an alternative writ. View "State ex rel. Martin v. Greene" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals correctly determined that Appellant’s petition was defective on its face.In 2009, Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple theft offenses. In 2010, Appellant pleaded guilty to four charges in two separate cases. In 2017, Appellant filed a petition fro a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was entitled to immediate release because he had served his sentences. The court of appeals dismissed the petition for number of procedural and substantive reasons, including Appellant’s failure to attach all his commitment papers in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2725.04(D). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s petition failed to comply with section 2725.04(D). View "State ex rel. Cannon v. Mohr" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals denying Appellant’s complaint for a writ of procedendo against Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Donnelly, holding that Appellant was not entitled to the relief he sought.In his complaint for a writ of procedendo, Appellant alleged that his postconviction petition had been pending before Judge Donnelly for more than six months without decision. Thereafter, Judge Donnelly denied Appellant’s postconviction petition. The Court of Appeal denied the writ on the ground of mootness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that Appellant’s complaint failed to state a claim in procedendo. View "Thompson v. Donnelly" on Justia Law

In this case concerning property that was the subject of a 2011 valuation complaint, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the Board of Revision’s (BOR) denial of the property owner’s request for a hearing for tax year 2012, holding that the BOR had continuing-complaint jurisdiction under Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(D).Appellant, the owner of the property at issue, filed a 2011 valuation complaint. The BOR issued its decision on the complaint more than ninety days after it was filed, and the matter was not finally resolved until after an appeal to the BTA. The next year, Appellant sought to invoke the BOR’s continuing-complaint jurisdiction for tax year 2012 pursuant to section 5715.19(D). The BOR denied the request, and the BTA affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause to the BOR for a determination of the subject property’s tax-year-2012 value, holding that the BOR had continuing-complaint jurisdiction under the facts of this case. View "Molly Co. v. Cuyaohga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant stated no basis for relief in habeas corpus.After a retrial, Appellant was convicted of murder and aggravated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the trial court in which he was convicted lacked jurisdiction. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, finding that Appellant was convicted by a “court of competent jurisdiction.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief in habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Swain v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus against Appellee, Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Ethan Cooper, holding that Appellant had - and had used - an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.Appellant’s mandamus claim challenged the credibility of the evidence on which his aggravated-robbery conviction was based. On direct appeal, however, Appellant challenged his conviction on insufficient-evidence and manifest-weight grounds. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of mandamus and that res judicata barred his claims concerning the insufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. View "State ex rel. Simpson v. Cooper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant’s second-degree application for DNA testing, holding that Appellant was not entitled to the relief he sought.Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. This appeal was taken from the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s second-degree application for DNA testing. On appeal, Appellant presented two propositions of law for the Supreme Court’s consideration. The Court denied relief, holding (1) this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s first proposition of law; and (2) Appellant failed to show any of the evidence he sought to have tested could be outcome determinative. View "State v. Bonnell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed Appellant’s petition for failure to attach the statement of his inmate account that is required by Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C).The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Appellant’s petition due to his failure to abide by the mandatory filing requirements of section 2969.25. On appeal, Appellant argued that the Court should excuse his noncompliance with the technical requirements of the statute and challenged the constitutionality of the statute on its face and as applied. The Supreme Court rejected Appellant’s arguments on appeal, holding that Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly dismissed. View "Rogers v. Eppinger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals properly determined that res judicata precluded Appellant from raising his claim in this habeas corpus petition.In his petition, Appellant argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because the juvenile court had not conducted a bindover proceeding as required by Ohio Rev. Code 2152.12 and Juv. R. 30. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law through which he could raise his bindover claim and that his habeas claim was barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed on res judicata grounds, holding that res judicata precluded Appellant from using habeas corpus to gain successive appellate review of this previously litigated issue. View "Lopez v. Warden" on Justia Law

At issue was whether a general contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy that is nearly identical to the one considered in Westfield Insurance Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc., 979 N.E.2d 269 (Ohio 2012), covers claims for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty work.The Supreme Court resolved the issue by applying the holding of Custom Agri which provides that property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty work is not an “occurrence” under a CGL policy because it cannot be deemed fortuitous. The Court then reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, which reversed the trial court’s conclusion that the insurer in this case had no duty to defend the CGL policy owner, a general contractor. The Supreme Court held that the insurer was not required to defend the insured against suit by the property owner or indemnify the insured against any damage caused by the insured’s contractor. View "Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc." on Justia Law