Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction this appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals that dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Appellant, holding that the notice of appeal was untimely.The court of appeals dismissed the action in this case because Appellant had failed to include certain commitment papers with his petition. The court of appeals then denied Appellant’s application for reconsideration. Appellant purported to appeal both decisions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely; and (2) Appellant’s application for reconsideration could not cure the untimeliness of his appeal. View "State ex rel. White v. Richard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s complaint for a writ of mandamus against Erie County Common Pleas Court Judge Roger E. Binette and denied Appellant’s motions for judgment on the pleadings and for an order to the clerk of courts, as well as Binette’s motion to dismiss.Appellant filed this original action for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Binette to vacate his sentence and conduct a new sentencing hearing on the grounds that his sentence was void. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the complaint as frivolous. The Supreme Court denied the motions filed by Appellant and Binette and affirmed the judgment, holding that the court of appeals properly denied Appellant’s complaint. View "State ex rel. Hunter v. Binette" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s complaint for a writ of procedendo against Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Jenifer French, holding that the intermediate appellate court properly dismissed Appellant’s complaint for failure to attach the statement of inmate account required by Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C).In his complaint, Appellant alleged that he had filed a petition for postconviction relief and that Judge French had not yet ruled on the petition, as required by Ohio R. Crim. P. 35(C). The court of appeals dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Appellant had failed to comply with the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s noncompliance with section 2969.25(C) required dismissal of his complaint. View "State ex rel. Neil v. French" on Justia Law

This suit fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, rather than the court of common pleas, because Plaintiff sought legal relief rather than equitable relief.This suit challenged the legality of fees that were incurred by some recipients of workers’ compensation benefits when accessing their benefits. In this appeal, however, the Supreme Court was required to determine only whether the suit was properly brought in the court of common pleas or whether it should have been brought in the Court of Claims, which has exclusive jurisdiction over many suits against state entities such as the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. The Supreme Court held that Plaintiff’s claim was equitable because it sought full payment of the benefit lawfully awarded to him by the Bureau, and therefore, the Court of Common Pleas had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. View "Cirino v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal of Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus that he filed against LaShann Eppinger, warden of the Grafton Correctional Institution, where Appellant was incarcerated, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim.In his petition, Appellant argued that he was entitled to immediate release because his aggregate minimum sentence for his 1992 convictions exceeded the allowable limit under former Ohio Rev. Code 2929.41(E). The court of appeals granted Eppinger’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant had not completed his aggregate maximum sentence, the court of appeals correctly dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim. View "State ex rel. Fuller v. Eppinger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s request for writs of mandamus and/or procedendo against Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Hollie L. Gallagher and Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts Nailah Byrd and denied the motions filed by Appellant during the pendency of this case.Appellant filed an original action in the court of appeals against Judge Gallagher alleging that his 1995 sentencing entry was void for several reasons. Appellant sought writs of mandamus and/or procedendo to compel Judge Gallagher to conduct a de novo resentencing and issue a new final, appealable order, and to compel Byrd to journalize the new sentencing entry once it was created. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of Judge Gallagher and Byrd. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief. View "State ex rel. Arnold v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal of Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed against the warden of the correctional facility where Appellant was incarcerated.Appellant claimed that he was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he had served more than sixteen years’ imprisonment on a fifteen-year prison sentence. Specifically, Appellant claimed that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction unilaterally extended his sentence by running his two prison terms consecutively without judicial sanction. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant’s sentences ran consecutively by operation of statute, and therefore, the Department did not change Appellant’s sentence or aggregate his sentences on its own initiative. View "State ex rel. Smith v. Schweitzer" on Justia Law

At issue was whether a utility company provided its customer adequate notice that natural-gas service to the customer’s property had been disconnected by hanging two notices on the front door of the property.The customer, who was not occupying the property, did not realize that the gas had been disconnected and did not discover the utility’s notices until the pipes froze and burst, causing damage. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) determined that the utility gave adequate notice of the disconnection by hanging tags on the property’s front door. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was nothing “unlawful or unreasonable” in the PUCO’s determination that the door-tag notice was adequate. View "Harris Design Services v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that an order appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) for an adult is not a final, appealable order under Ohio Rev. Code 2505.02(B) and vacated the trial court’s order appointing a GAL to act on Appellant’s behalf in her divorce case.The court of common pleas, domestic relations division, issued an order appointing a GAL to represent Appellant in her divorce case without providing her with prior notice or an opportunity to be heard on the issue. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, holding (1) because the order was issued during a special proceeding and affects a substantial right and because Appellant will not be provided adequate relief if she is not permitted immediately to appeal the order, the order is a final, appealable order under section 2505.02(B)(2); and (2) the order violated Appellant’s due process rights. View "Thomasson v. Thomasson" on Justia Law

The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) acted reasonably and lawfully in applying collateral estoppel to Appellant’s continuing complaint for tax years 2013 and 2014.Appellant, the owner of the real property at issue in this case, filed an original complaint for tax year 2012, asserting that the purchase price constituted the property’s true value. The county board of revision (BOR) and the BTA retained the fiscal officer’s valuation, concluding that the sale was not at arm’s length. Appellant then invoked the BOR’s continuing-complaint jurisdiction for tax years 2013 and 2014. The BOR retained the original value for tax years 2013 and 2014. On appeal, the BTA held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, barring Appellant from relitigating the arm’s-length-sale issue on the continuing complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA properly applied collateral estoppel. View "Julia Realty, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law