Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this challenge to the real property valuation of a Walgreens drugstore in Lancaster for tax year 2014 the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) disregarding the property owners’ appraisal and valuing the property according to a recent arm’s-length sale price.Here, as in Terraza 8, LLC v. Franklin County Board of Revision, 83 N.E.3d 916, the school board sought to have the real property valued according to the sale price, while the owners, relying on appraisal evidence, argued that under Ohio Rev. Code 5713.03, as amended by 2012 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 487 (“H.B. 487”), a lease encumbrance precluded use of the sale price to value the property. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the BTA to weigh and address the appraisal evidence, holding that this appeal presented a straightforward application of Terraza. In other words, the recent sale presumptively represented the value of the unencumbered fee simple estate, but the BTA must also weigh the appraisal evidence. View "Bronx Park South III Lancaster, LLC v. Fairfield County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the decision of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) rejecting Appellant’s challenge to the tax-year-2012 valuation of his residential property by the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer.On appeal, Appellant argued that the BTA misplaced the burden of proof and did not give proper consideration to the evidence he presented in support of his claim. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in retaining the fiscal officer’s valuation. View "Schutz v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus requested by Relators seeking to compel Respondents, the Mahoning County Board of Elections and its members (collectively, the Board), to place a proposed amendment to the Youngstown city charter on the May 2018 ballot.The Board voted not to place the proposed amendment on the ballot, finding that the proposed amendment “contained provisions that are beyond the scope of the City of Youngstown’s power” to enact. The Supreme Court held that Relators were entitled to a writ of mandamus because the Board offered no clear support for its conclusion that Relators’ current proposal was beyond the scope of the City’s legislative power. Therefore, Relators had a clear legal right to have their proposal placed on the ballot, and the Board had a clear legal duty to provide that relief. View "State ex rel. Khumprakob v. Mahoning County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for aggravated murder and two counts of attempted murder and Appellant’s sentence of death, imposed after a jury trial. The Court held (1) the prosecutor had no obligation to present allegedly exculpatory evidence to the grand jury; (2) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct before the grand jury or during various phases of the proceedings; (3) the trial court did not err by excusing a Spanish-speaking prospective juror; (4) courtroom closures during individual voir dire and the penalty-phase instructions did not violate Appellant’s constitutional rights to a public trial; (5) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings; (6) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that Appellant be placed in restraints; (7) the trial court properly instructed the jury on transferred intent, aggravated murder, and lesser included offenses; (8) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (9) defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (10) Appellant’s sentence was appropriate and proportional. View "State v. Wilks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirming the tax commissioner’s order of two reductions that decreased Dana Corporation’s amortizable amount against the commercial-activity tax (CAT) to $4,728,051.At issue was the special credit against the CAT set forth at Ohio Rev. Code 5751.53. One factor in calculating the CAT credit was the net operating losses (NOLs) that were incurred by the corporation before the CAT. To take the credit, Dana Corporation was required to file report with the tax commissioner that calculated an amount that would be applied gradually over a period of up to twenty years (amortizable amount) against the CAT. Dana Corporation argued that its amortizable amount was $12,493,003. The tax commissioner ordered two reductions that ultimately decreased the amortizable amount to $4,728,051. On appeal, Dana argued that the second adjustment was not authorized by 5751.53(F). The BTA disagreed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the BTA erred in affirming the reduction of the amortizable amount based on cancellation-of-debt income offset of federal NOLs. View "Dana Corp. v. Testa" on Justia Law

The definition of “claimant” for purposes of Ohio Rev. Code 4123.931(G) is any party who is eligible to receive compensation, medical benefits, or death benefits from the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. Further, a claimant becomes eligible at the time of the injury or death that occurred during the course of employment and remains eligible unless and until a determination that the claimant is not entitled to benefits has been made and has become final or, if no claim is filed, until the time allowed for filing a claim has elapsed.Loretta Verlinger, a benefits applicant, appealed the denial of her application to the Industrial Commission. During the pendency of the appeal, Verlinger settled claims with Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Foremost Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The Commission subsequently allowed Verlinger’s claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for Verlinger, concluding that she was not a claimant pursuant to section 4123.931. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) Verlinger was a claimant at the time she settled with the insurance companies; and (2) Metropolitan and Foremost were jointly and severally liable to the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, a statutory subrogee, for the full amount of its subrogation interest. View "Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. Verlinger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversing the decision of the Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (BOR) rejecting Plaintiff’s challenge to the Cuyahoga County fiscal officer’s valuation of her property for tax year 2013. The BTA reduced the valuation based on a written appraisal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BOR and the BTA had jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s complaint under Ohio Rev. Code 5715.19(A)(1); and (2) the County’s argument that the BTA acted unreasonably and unlawfully in adopting the appraised value because Plaintiff’s husband engaged in the unauthorized practice of law before the BOR was without merit. View "Pavilonis v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

In these two consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s complaints for a writ of mandamus against Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Shannon M. Gallagher.The two appeals here arose out of the same underlying facts. Defendant was convicted on multiple charges. The court of appeals remanded the case several times to correct sentencing errors. After the court of appeals had decided Cowan IV, Defendant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus alleging that the trial court had failed to comply with the appellate court’s mandate in Cowan II. The court of appeals granted Judge Gallagher’s motion for summary judgment and denied the requested writ. In the second complaint, Defendant alleged that before his initial sentencing the trial court failed to consider whether some of the charged offenses were allied offenses of similar import. The court of appeals granted summary judgment for Judge Gallagher and denied the requested writ based on res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed in both cases, holding that the court of appeals did not err in its judgments. View "State ex rel. Cowan v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

In these two consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s complaints for a writ of mandamus against Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Shannon M. Gallagher.The two appeals here arose out of the same underlying facts. Defendant was convicted on multiple charges. The court of appeals remanded the case several times to correct sentencing errors. After the court of appeals had decided Cowan IV, Defendant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus alleging that the trial court had failed to comply with the appellate court’s mandate in Cowan II. The court of appeals granted Judge Gallagher’s motion for summary judgment and denied the requested writ. In the second complaint, Defendant alleged that before his initial sentencing the trial court failed to consider whether some of the charged offenses were allied offenses of similar import. The court of appeals granted summary judgment for Judge Gallagher and denied the requested writ based on res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed in both cases, holding that the court of appeals did not err in its judgments. View "State ex rel. Cowan v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Ohio’s death-penalty scheme does not violate the right to a trial by jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Appellant was sentenced to death. The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a new penalty-phase trial. On remand, Appellant moved to dismiss the capital specification from his indictment, arguing that Ohio’s death-penalty scheme is unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, __ U.S. __ (2016). Hurst invalidated Florida’s former capital-sentencing scheme because it “required the judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance.” The trial court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Ohio law requires the critical jury findings that were not required by the law at issue in Hurst, Ohio’s death-penalty scheme does not violate a defendant’s right to a trial by jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. View "State v. Mason" on Justia Law