Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus requested by Jonathan Heavey and Adam Hudak certifying their names to the May 8, 2018 ballot as candidates for the Democratic Party’s nominees for governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, holding that Heavey and Hudak failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, a legal right to have their names placed on the May 8 ballot.Because the county boards of elections verified the validity of only 854 signatures in Heavey and Hudak’s part-petitions, Secretary of State Jon Husted did not certify Heavey and Husted as candidates for the May 8 ballot. In their present action, Heavey and Hudak alleged that Husted and the boards disregarded applicable law by rejecting at least 146 valid signatures. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Heavey and Hudak did not present clear and convincing evidence that they were at least 146 erroneously-rejected signatures. View "State ex rel. Heavey v. Husted" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus requested by Jonathan Heavey and Adam Hudak certifying their names to the May 8, 2018 ballot as candidates for the Democratic Party’s nominees for governor and lieutenant governor, respectively, holding that Heavey and Hudak failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, a legal right to have their names placed on the May 8 ballot.Because the county boards of elections verified the validity of only 854 signatures in Heavey and Hudak’s part-petitions, Secretary of State Jon Husted did not certify Heavey and Husted as candidates for the May 8 ballot. In their present action, Heavey and Hudak alleged that Husted and the boards disregarded applicable law by rejecting at least 146 valid signatures. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Heavey and Hudak did not present clear and convincing evidence that they were at least 146 erroneously-rejected signatures. View "State ex rel. Heavey v. Husted" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus requested by Jason Stevens to compel the Fairfield County Board of Elections to issue a certificate of nomination to certify Stevens’s name for placement on the May 8, 2018 primary-election ballot as a candidate for election to the Ohio Democratic Party State Central Committee.Stevens filed a petition to appear on the May 8 primary ballot as a Democratic candidate. The Board voted to deny Stevens access to the ballot because his voting history did not show he was a member of the Democratic Party. The Supreme Court granted the relief requested by Stevens, holding that, based on the plain language of Ohio Rev. Code 3513.05, Stevens satisfied the statutory requirements to stand for election to the Ohio Democratic Party state Central Committee, and the Board thus abused its discretion and acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions when it disallowed his candidacy. View "State ex rel. Stevens v. Fairfield County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus requested by Jason Stevens to compel the Fairfield County Board of Elections to issue a certificate of nomination to certify Stevens’s name for placement on the May 8, 2018 primary-election ballot as a candidate for election to the Ohio Democratic Party State Central Committee.Stevens filed a petition to appear on the May 8 primary ballot as a Democratic candidate. The Board voted to deny Stevens access to the ballot because his voting history did not show he was a member of the Democratic Party. The Supreme Court granted the relief requested by Stevens, holding that, based on the plain language of Ohio Rev. Code 3513.05, Stevens satisfied the statutory requirements to stand for election to the Ohio Democratic Party state Central Committee, and the Board thus abused its discretion and acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions when it disallowed his candidacy. View "State ex rel. Stevens v. Fairfield County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus sought by Relator to compel Respondent, the Delaware County Board of Elections, to place a referendum on the May 8, 2018 ballot.Relator submitted a petition for a referendum proposing a zoning amendment. The board of elections verified that the petition had a sufficient number of valid signatures and certified the petition to appear on the May 2018 ballot. Two interested parties protested against the legitimacy of the referendum. After a hearing, the elections board approved a motion to sustain the protest and decertify the measure based upon the sufficiency of the summary contained within the petition. As a result, the referendum petition was not certified for placement on the May ballot. Relator then filed the present complaint for a writ of mandamus against the board of elections. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that, on the merits, the elections board erred in refusing to place the referendum on the ballot because the petition satisfied the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 519.12(H). View "State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus sought by Relator to compel Respondent, the Delaware County Board of Elections, to place a referendum on the May 8, 2018 ballot.Relator submitted a petition for a referendum proposing a zoning amendment. The board of elections verified that the petition had a sufficient number of valid signatures and certified the petition to appear on the May 2018 ballot. Two interested parties protested against the legitimacy of the referendum. After a hearing, the elections board approved a motion to sustain the protest and decertify the measure based upon the sufficiency of the summary contained within the petition. As a result, the referendum petition was not certified for placement on the May ballot. Relator then filed the present complaint for a writ of mandamus against the board of elections. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that, on the merits, the elections board erred in refusing to place the referendum on the ballot because the petition satisfied the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 519.12(H). View "State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal of Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus because his claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus.Appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of rape. The common pleas court sentenced Appellant to nine years’ imprisonment for each count and ordered two of the three sentences to run consecutively. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the trial court failed to make the requisite findings under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition because Appellant’s claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Quillen v. Wainwright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) vacating the decision of the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR), which partially reduced the value of certain property for tax year 2012. The BOR partially reduced the value of the property based on a sheriff’s-sale appraisal. The BTA concluded that this evidence was unreliable and that the record contained no other evidence from which a value could be determined. The BTA vacated the BOR’s decision and remanded the case to the BOR with directions to determine a value based on competent and probative evidence. The Supreme Court reinstated the county auditor’s original valuation, holding that that BTA erred in remanding the case to the BOR. View "South-Western City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) erred in adopting the Franklin County Board of Revision’s (BOR) determination of value of Appellee’s property for tax year 2011.For tax year 2011, the Franklin County auditor valued the property at issue at $328,700. Appellee filed a complaint against the valuation, seeking a reduction to $165,000. The BOR reduced the value to $272,000. The BTA adopted the BOR’s valuation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the BTA erred in its application of the rule set forth in Bedford Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 875 N.E.2d 913 (Ohio 2007); and (2) the county auditor’s valuation should be reinstated, rather than the case remanded to the BTA for an independent determination of value. View "South-Western City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

At issue was whether the trial court erred in imposing a sentence, which included both a prison term and community control sanctions at the same time, where the community control sanctions continued after the completion of the prison sentence, which included additional confinement in a community-based-correctional-facility (CBCF).Defendant was sentenced to a prison term for sexual-battery and to community-control supervision for domestic violence. The community-control sentence included several conditions, including the condition that, upon his release from prison for the sexual battery count, Defendant must transfer to a CBCF. The court of appeals vacated the sentence on the domestic-violence count, concluding that the sentence was a split sentence not permitted by statute. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the sentence imposed on the domestic-violence count except for the condition requiring Defendant’s placement in a CBCF upon his release from prison, which the Court vacated, holding (1) the trial court’s imposition of a CBCF term as a community-control sanction, to be served consecutively to a prison term imposed on a separate offense, was improper; but (2) the property remedy is to vacate only the improperly imposed residential sanction and leave the remaining conditions of the community-control sentence intact. View "State v. Paige" on Justia Law