Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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