Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Relator to compel Kent State University to comply with her records request under Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, holding that Relator was not entitled to additional records beyond those that she had already received pursuant to her request.After Kent State responded to Relator’s records request, Relator filed this mandamus complaint. Following the complaint, Kent State provided additional records. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Kent State did not fail to uphold its duties under section 149.43. The Court granted Relator an award of statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 and granted Relator’s request for reasonable attorney fees but denied her request for court costs. View "State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State University" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Relator seeking to compel Kent State University with certain records regarding student-athletes under the Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, holding that Relator failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Kent State failed fully to respond to her records request.Kent State provided several hundred pages of records in response to Relator’s records request. Relator later filed her mandamus complaint alleging that Kent State failed fully to respond to her request. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) despite Kent State’s failure fro comply with Relator’s request within a reasonable period of time, Kent State’s eventual production of all the requested records rendered Relator’s mandamus claim moot; and (2) Relator was entitled to $1,000 in statutory damages and reasonable attorney fees but was not entitled to an award of court costs. View "State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State University" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that reduced the taxable value of a piece of property for tax year 2015, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider a portion of this appeal and that the remainder of the challenge had merit.The BTA reduced the taxable value of the property from $66,000 to $48,000 and then imposed an additional ten percent reduction to arrive at a value of $43,210. The Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) and the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer (collectively, the county) appealed. The Supreme Court held (1) because the county did not challenge the initial reduction to $48,000 in its notice of appeal, the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the county’s challenge to that reduction advanced in the county’s briefing; and (2) the record provided no basis for the BTA to apply an additional ten percent reduction to the property value. View "Yanega v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question of law by holding that a defendant is not entitled to jail time credit for pre-sentence detention time when held on bond if, during the same period of time, he is serving a sentence on an unrelated case.On appeal from his sentence, Defendant argued that he was entitled to an award of jail time credit from the time that his bond was revoked on felony charges, regardless of the fact that he was already incarcerated for a probation violation. The appellate court determined that Defendant was entitled to credit for the entire time he was incarcerated since his bail was revoked. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to jail time credit while held on bond because, at the same time, he was serving a sentence on an unrelated case. View "State v. Cupp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the Power Siting Board granting a motion filed by Black Fork Wind Energy, LLC requesting a two-year extension of Black Fork’s certificate to construct a proposed wind farm, holding the Board’s extension of the certificate constituted an “amendment” under Ohio Rev. Code 4906.06(E) and 4906.07(B) and, therefore, the Board erred by granting Black Fork’s motion rather than following the statutory procedures for amending a certificate.On appeal, Appellants argued that extending Black Fork’s certificate was an “amendment” because it modified a material condition of the original certificate. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the two-year extension of the certificate amount to an “amendment,” and therefore, the Board acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the statutory process for amending a certificate; and (2) because there was the possibility of a different outcome but for the Board’s error, Appellants established that they were prejudiced by the Board’s orders. View "In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) concluding that because Great Lakes Bar Control’s service of cleaning beer-tap lines was primarily a maintenance service, any cleaning was merely incidental to that maintenance and was therefore not subject to sales tax as a “building maintenance and janitorial service” under Ohio Rev. Code 5739.01(B)(3)(j), holding that the beer-line service did not fit the plain meaning of “cleaning” in the context of providing a “janitorial service.”Great Lakes provided services related to selling, installing, and servicing beer-dispensing systems and provided a beer-line maintenance service to remove buildup of sediment and prevent lines from becoming blocked. The Ohio Department of Taxation determined that the beer-line service involved cleaning of tangible personal property under section 5730.01(II) and was subject to the sales tax. The BTA reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the beer-line service did not fit the plain meaning of “cleaning” in the context of providing a “janitorial service.” View "Great Lakes Bar Control, Inc. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s complaint for a writ of mandamus against Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Judge Dennis J. Langer, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law and thus was not entitled to relief in mandamus.Appellant was convicted of four counts of rape and other offenses. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus asking the court of appeals to compel Judge Langer to issue a revised sentencing entry that complied with Crim.R. 32(C), asserting that his sentencing entry was not a final, appealable order. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint, concluding that Appellant could have raised his mandamus claim in an appeal from the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the entry denying Appellant’s motion for a new sentencing order was a final, appealable order pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2505.02(B)(1), and therefore, Appellant was not entitled to relief in mandamus. View "State ex rel. Henley v. Langer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence of Appellant, who murdered his mother, but reversed an aggravated robbery charge against him that was used as one of three specifications supporting the prosecution’s effort to seek the death penalty.The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) no prejudicial error occurred during jury selection; (3) the trial court erred in admitting certain other acts evidence, but the errors were harmless; (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument; (5) Defendant’s sentence was appropriate; (6) any error on the part of defense counsel during the penalty phase was harmless; (7) cumulative errors did not render Defendant’s trial unfair; and (8) the evidence failed to support the finding that Defendant “deprived” the victim of property or that Defendant’s “purpose” was to deprive the victim of the property at issue. View "State v. Tench" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s petition for writs of mandamus and/or procedendo that he filed against Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge John J. Russo, holding that Appellant could not prove entitlement to either writ because the record demonstrated that he had an adequate remedy by way of an appeal from the denial of his motion for a final, appealable order.Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated murder and two counts of aggravated burglary. Appellant later filed a motion in the trial court for a final, appealable order, arguing that the sentencing entry in his case violated Crim.R 32. Judge Russo denied the motion. Appellant then filed this action. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of Judge Russo and denied the writs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Appellant was not entitled to a writ of mandamus or procedendo because he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law in the form of a direct appeal from Judge Russo’s entry denying Appellant’s motion for a new sentencing entry. View "State ex rel. Daniels v. Russo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the writ of mandamus requested by Relators to compel the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (DRC) to release records related to DRC’s acquisition and supply of lethal-injection drugs, holding that Relators had a clear legal right to access certain sealed records with protected information redacted but that other information was exempt from public disclosure.At issue was sealed records identified in DRC’s Exhibit 7 log and Exhibit 8 log. The Supreme Court held (1) Relators had a clear legal right to access the sealed records in the Exhibit 7 log with only protected information redacted that could identify an entity requesting confidentiality under Ohio Rev. Code 2949.221; (2) because one letter in Exhibit 7 contained protected information that was inextricably intertwined with nonprotected information, it was exempt from disclosure; and (3) Relators failed to establish a clear legal right to compel DRC to produce the sealed records identified in the Exhibit 8 log, which were created or received by DRC after the date of Relators’ request. View "State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., LLP v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law