Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Fadi Salem, who was convicted of third-degree-misdemeanor sexual imposition in February 2021. As per Ohio law, this conviction classified him as a Tier I sex offender, requiring him to register and report to the sheriff. However, the judgment entry of conviction did not explicitly state this classification. Salem later filed a motion to terminate his Tier I sex-offender classification and registration requirements, arguing that the initial judgment did not impose this classification. The trial court denied this motion and issued a nunc pro tunc judgment entry designating Salem a Tier I sex offender.Salem appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals. The court of appeals upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the trial court had provided Salem with the required notice of his Tier I sex-offender classification and registration requirements during the sentencing hearing. The court also held that the trial court was permitted to issue a nunc pro tunc judgment entry reflecting the imposition of the Tier I classification.While his appeal was pending, Salem filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the court of appeals, asking for a writ compelling the sheriff to enforce the initial judgment without the Tier I sanction. The court of appeals dismissed this complaint, stating that Salem's appeal was an adequate remedy that precluded relief in mandamus.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals. The court held that Salem's appeal from the trial court's judgment denying his motion to terminate his Tier I sex-offender classification and registration requirements was an adequate remedy. The court also noted that the fact that Salem's appeal was unsuccessful did not render that remedy inadequate. View "State ex rel. Salem v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the appellant, Jeffery Woods, who filed a legal malpractice lawsuit in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. The defendant in the lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss the suit. Woods then attempted to remove the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. However, a United States magistrate judge recommended denying Woods's petition for removal and remanding the matter back to the state court. The federal court eventually adopted this recommendation. Meanwhile, before the federal court had ruled on Woods's objections, Judge Heekin of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granted the motion to dismiss Woods's legal malpractice lawsuit.Woods then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus against Judge Heekin in the First District Court of Appeals, arguing that the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction over his legal malpractice lawsuit once he filed his notice of removal to federal court. He sought an order for Judge Heekin to vacate the judgment of dismissal. Judge Heekin filed a motion to dismiss Woods's mandamus complaint, arguing that Woods did not perform the necessary steps for effecting removal to federal court, and thus the common pleas court still had jurisdiction. The court of appeals dismissed Woods's mandamus complaint, but not for the reasons set forth in Judge Heekin’s motion. Instead, the court of appeals dismissed the complaint on the basis that “mandamus cannot be used to compel a particular ruling from a judge.”The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, but disagreed with its reasoning. The Supreme Court held that if Woods was correct that Judge Heekin patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the legal-malpractice action, a writ of mandamus would be an appropriate remedy. However, the Supreme Court found that Woods did not complete all the necessary steps for removal to federal court, and thus the common pleas court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to dismiss the legal-malpractice action. Therefore, the dismissal of Woods's mandamus complaint was correct. View "State ex rel. Woods v. Heekin" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Deonta Boyd, an inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to aggravated murder with a firearm specification, felonious assault, and aggravated burglary. The trial court accepted Boyd's pleas and sentenced him to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 41 years. Boyd did not appeal his convictions or sentence but has attempted unsuccessfully to withdraw his guilty pleas multiple times. In March 2023, Boyd filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition, claiming that the trial court violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and their counterparts in the Ohio Constitution. He alleged that the trial court failed to inform him that he was waiving his constitutional right to compulsory process at the 2006 plea hearing.The Sixth District Court of Appeals dismissed Boyd's prohibition complaint, holding that Boyd could have challenged any defect in the plea colloquy on direct appeal and that any issue concerning the trial court’s alleged failure to advise him of his right to compulsory process is therefore barred by res judicata. Boyd appealed the dismissal of his complaint.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Sixth District Court of Appeals' judgment. The court found that Boyd had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of the law to raise his claim, including a direct appeal, a petition for postconviction relief, and a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The court also found that the trial court did not patently and unambiguously lack subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him. Therefore, Boyd was not entitled to a writ of prohibition, and the Sixth District correctly dismissed the prohibition action. View "State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a workers' compensation claim filed by Billy J. Ottinger, who suffered a severe injury while working for B&B Wrecking & Excavating, Inc. Ottinger fell from a roof and landed on his legs, resulting in significant weakness and immobility. The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation awarded Ottinger compensation for the loss of use of both legs. However, the Industrial Commission of Ohio later vacated this decision, denying Ottinger's request for loss-of-use compensation.The Bureau's decision was initially challenged by the Industrial Commission, which argued that there was a lack of medical evidence to support the award for loss-of-use compensation. The Commission exercised its continuing jurisdiction and vacated the Bureau's decision, citing a clear mistake of fact and law. The Commission found that the Bureau's decision was based on an incorrect diagnosis of paraplegia, leading to the incorrect conclusion that Ottinger was completely paralyzed.Ottinger appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus to reinstate the Bureau's decision. However, the court of appeals denied the request, concluding that the Commission's decision was supported by some evidence and that awarding Ottinger loss-of-use compensation based on that evidence was a clear mistake of law.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Tenth District's judgment. The court found that the Commission did not abuse its discretion by exercising its continuing jurisdiction to vacate the Bureau's order awarding Ottinger loss-of-use compensation based on a clear mistake of fact. The court also concluded that the Commission did not abuse its discretion by denying Ottinger's motion for loss-of-use compensation, as the decision was supported by some evidence. View "State ex rel. Ottinger v. B&B Wrecking & Excavating, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over workers' compensation. The appellant, Brian Caldwell, was injured while working for the appellee, Whirlpool Corporation. After a successful initial workers’ compensation claim, Caldwell sought coverage for additional conditions a few years later. However, his claim for these additional conditions was denied after administrative hearings before the commission. Caldwell then appealed to a court of common pleas under R.C. 4123.512. The trial court and the court of appeals, in granting and affirming summary judgment in favor of Whirlpool, determined that Caldwell’s claim had expired as a matter of law because a separate statute, R.C. 4123.52, limited the commission’s continuing jurisdiction to five years from the date of the last payment of compensation on Caldwell’s initial claim and that five years had passed.The Supreme Court of Ohio disagreed with the lower courts' interpretation. The court held that when a workers’ compensation claimant perfects an appeal under R.C. 4123.512, the subsequent expiration of the commission’s five-year period of continuing jurisdiction under R.C. 4123.52 does not cause the claim that is pending in court to expire as a matter of law. The court reasoned that R.C. 4123.52, which establishes the continuing jurisdiction of the commission, does not affect R.C. 4123.512 court proceedings once they have been properly initiated. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Caldwell v. Whirlpool Corp." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Derrick Martre, who was arrested in May 2017 for domestic abuse and possession of sexually explicit images of children on his cellphone. The arrest was prompted by a police report filed by Martre’s then-girlfriend, who discovered two videos on Martre’s cellphone showing Martre touching a naked female child. Martre was subsequently indicted on six felonies and sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 years in prison. In March 2021, Martre filed a motion for the return of his seized cellphone and its memory card, arguing that his cellphone was unlawfully seized.The Allen County Court of Common Pleas granted Martre's motion for the return of his property, subject to certain limitations. The court did not address Martre’s contention that the search warrant was void. Martre appealed this decision to the Third District Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court's order for the return of his property should have also vacated his convictions. The Third District rejected Martre’s argument and affirmed the trial court's decision.Martre then petitioned the Third District for a writ of mandamus against the trial judge and the Allen County prosecutor, asserting that he had a right to a suppression hearing and a right to findings of fact and conclusions of law from the judge. The Third District dismissed Martre’s petition, concluding that Martre had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law to raise his arguments, either through direct appeal or postconviction motions. Martre appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court affirmed the Third District’s judgment, stating that Martre had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law because he could—and did—appeal the trial court's decision. The court also denied Martre’s motion for judicial notice. View "State ex rel. Martre v. Reed" on Justia Law

The case involves appellant Marcus D. White's appeal against the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus or procedendo against appellee, Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Carl A. Aveni II. White had filed a postconviction petition and a motion in the trial court, which he claimed were not addressed in a timely manner. Judge Aveni responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that he had not unnecessarily delayed in proceeding.The Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissed White's complaint as moot, based on the trial court's docket entry indicating that the postconviction petition and the motion had been addressed. However, White argued that the docket entry did not constitute a decision on his motion.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed in part and reversed in part the Tenth District’s judgment. The court agreed that White's claim regarding his postconviction petition was moot as it had been addressed. However, it disagreed with the lower court's conclusion that the trial court's docket entry itself disposed of the motion. The court clarified that a docket entry was not sufficient to constitute a decision by the judge on the motion. Therefore, the case was remanded to the appellate court for consideration of White's claim regarding his motion.Judge Aveni's motion to declare White a vexatious litigator was denied by the Supreme Court of Ohio, citing a lack of precedent in which the court declared a party a vexatious litigator in a case in which the party prevailed on one of his or her claims. View "State ex rel. White v. Aveni" on Justia Law

Vandercar, L.L.C. entered into a $36 million purchase contract for the Millennium Hotel in Cincinnati and then assigned its interest in the hotel to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority. The agreement stipulated that the Port would pay Vandercar a $5 million redevelopment fee if the Port issued bonds to redevelop the hotel within a year of its acquisition. The Port acquired the hotel and issued acquisition bonds, but it denied that the bonds were for redevelopment of the hotel, so it refused to pay the redevelopment fee. Vandercar sued the Port for breach of contract for failing to pay the redevelopment fee and also moved for prejudgment interest.The trial court found that Vandercar was entitled to the redevelopment fee and granted Vandercar’s motion for summary judgment on that issue. However, the trial court denied Vandercar’s motion for prejudgment interest, concluding that prejudgment interest could not be imposed on the Port since it was “an arm/instrumentality of the state.” Both parties appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decisions.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals. The court held that the Port, a port authority created under R.C. 4582.22(A), is not exempt from the application of R.C. 1343.03(A), which entitles a creditor to prejudgment interest when the creditor receives a judgment for the payment of money due under a contract. Therefore, the Port may be held liable to pay prejudgment interest. The court remanded the case to the trial court to evaluate Vandercar’s motion for prejudgment interest under the correct standard. View "Vandercar, L.L.C. v. Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Timothy Williams, who was 16 years old when he committed the offense in question. Williams rang the doorbell of Everett and Leslie Lawson's home, pretending to have been injured in a car accident. When Leslie opened the door to help, Williams shot her twice, killing her instantly. Williams was charged in juvenile court for conduct that would constitute murder and felonious assault if committed by an adult. The state did not charge Williams in the juvenile-court complaint for conduct that would constitute tampering with evidence.The juvenile court found probable cause to believe that Williams committed all the offenses and transferred the case to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. A grand jury then indicted Williams for murder, felonious assault, and tampering with evidence. Williams eventually pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and tampering with evidence. He was sentenced to an aggregate 17-year prison term.Williams appealed his tampering-with-evidence conviction to the First District, arguing that his statutory and constitutional rights were violated when he was indicted for and convicted of tampering with evidence, because that charge had not been transferred from the juvenile court to the adult court. The First District, relying on a previous decision, held that the adult court had lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the tampering-with-evidence charge because the juvenile court had not found probable cause on that charge. The appellate court thus vacated Williams’s tampering-with-evidence conviction.The state appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which reaffirmed its previous holding that a defendant who was a juvenile when he committed an offense may be charged for and convicted of that offense in adult court even though a charge for the offense was not brought in juvenile court and considered in a bindover proceeding, if the charge is rooted in the same acts that were the subject of the juvenile complaint. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to that court for it to resolve any remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a public-records request made by Randy Ludlow, a reporter for the Columbus Dispatch, to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH). Ludlow requested a digital spreadsheet copy of the Electronic Death Registration System (EDRS) database, which contains information for all death certificates delivered to ODH. While ODH provided a spreadsheet with details such as decedents’ sex, age, race, birth date, marital status, and date, time, place, manner, and cause of death, it withheld the names and addresses of the decedents, claiming that this information was exempt from disclosure under R.C. 3701.17 as "protected health information."The Court of Claims initially ordered ODH to provide the requested records, arguing that the information was not exempt from disclosure as it was public information under a different statute, R.C. 3705.23(A). However, the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the names and addresses of the decedents, when combined with their causes of death, were properly withheld as protected health information.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The court held that the names and addresses of a decedent, when combined with information regarding his or her cause of death, are protected health information under R.C. 3701.17 and are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. The court noted that while this information may be obtainable under other statutes, those statutes require the requester to satisfy certain requirements before they may receive the information requested. View "Ludlow v. Ohio Dept. of Health" on Justia Law