Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ denial of Appellant’s complaint for a writ of prohibition against Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Richard McMonagle, holding that the jurisdictional-priority rule has no applicability when the cases at issue are pending in the same court.Appellant, Consortium for Economic and Community Development for Hough Ward 7, owned real property (“the parcel”) in Cuyahoga County that was adjacent to property owned by the Oak Leadership Institute. Oak Leadership filed an action in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to quiet title to the parcel. Thereafter, a tax foreclosure suit relating to the parcel was filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Appellant sought a writ of prohibition against Judge McMonagle, arguing that, even though the quiet-title lawsuit was filed first, the foreclosure lawsuit had jurisdiction priority because it first perfected service of process over all the interested parties. The court of appeals denied the writ, thus rejecting Appellant’s theory of jurisdictional priority. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jurisdictional-priority rule has no applicability when the cases are pending in the same court. View "State ex rel. Consortium for Economic & Community Development For Hough Ward 7 v. Russo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that the exclusionary rule is not the appropriate remedy when police executing a valid search warrant violate the requirements of the knock-and-announce statute, Ohio Rev. Code 2935.12.The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants’ motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the search of an apartment. The trial court found that police had violated section 2935.12 without any exigent circumstances justifying the violation. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings, holding that the exclusion of evidence is not the proper remedy for a violation of the knock-and-announce statute. View "State v. Bembry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Joseph Simonetti seeking to compel the Summit County Board of Elections and Secretary of State (collectively, Respondents) to place his name on the November 7, 2017 ballot as a candidate for a city council position. Respondents refused to certify Simonetti’s candidacy after finding that Simonetti did not sign the statement of candidacy that appeared on his fourth petition paper, which contained twenty-one electors’ signatures, before the electors signed the nominating petition. In denying the writ, the Supreme Court held (1) Respondents properly attributed weight to the fourth petition paper itself, which, on its fact, indicated a failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 3513.261; and (2) Simonetti failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Respondents abused their discretion by crediting less weight to the contrary evidence. View "State ex rel. Simonetti v. Summit County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied writs of mandamus sought by Relators to compel the Mahoning County Board of Elections (BOE) and its individual members (collectively, Respondents) to certify Relators’ petitions to place two proposed amendments to the Youngstown City Charter on the November 2017 ballot: the People’s Bill of Rights for Fair Elections and Access to Local Government and the Youngstown Drinking Water Protection Bill of Rights. The BOE voted not to certify the amendments to appear on the ballot on the grounds that they exceeded the city’s initiative power. In denying the requested writs, the Supreme Court held that the BOE did not violate a clear legal duty when it refused to certify the petitions to place the proposed amendments on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Flak v. Betras" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ of prohibition to halt an action for an assignment for the benefit of a disbarred attorney’s creditors (the ABC action) pending before a Hamilton County probate judge. In 2004, nineteen judgment creditors filed a lawsuit alleging that the attorney at issue had stolen millions of dollars in settlement funds while representing them. A Kentucky trial court ruled that the attorney was jointly and severally liable for $42 million. The court of appeals affirmed. In 2013, the Kentucky Supreme Court permanently disbarred the attorney for his conduct in the underlying representation. In 2015, a Boone County circuit court judge ordered the attorney to transfer his beneficial interest in a company, which were held in trust for the purpose of winding up operations, to the creditors. The attorney did not transfer the shares to the creditors, and the shares were later transferred. The Supreme Court granted the creditors’ motion for a peremptory writ of prohibition barring further proceedings in the ABC action, holding that the necessary elements for a writ of prohibition to issue were all present in this case. View "State ex rel. McGirr v. Winkler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction for aggravated murder and the death sentence imposed in connection with the aggravated murder, holding that the trial court committed plain error in admitting into evidence five knives that Defendant owned that were unrelated to his crimes of felony aggravated murder and other felonies at issue on appeal. The court concluded that the evidence at issue painted Defendant as someone with bad character and allowed the jury to convict him on the basis that he acted in conformity with it, thus violating Ohio R. Evid. 404(B). The court remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Under Ohio law, an employer may appeal a determination by the Industrial Commission that an employee has the right to participate in the workers’ compensation fund, and although the employer files the appeal in the common pleas court, the employee is the plaintiff. At issue was whether a provision enacted in 2006 allowing an employee to dismiss an employer-initiated appeal only with the consent of the employer is constitutional.The court of appeals in this case affirmed the trial court’s judgment declaring the so-called “consent provision” of Ohio Rev. Code 4123.512(D) unconstitutional. The trial court concluded that the consent provision was unconstitutional on the grounds of due process and equal protection and violates the doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the consent provision of section 4123.512(D) does not improperly conflict with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, nor does it violate the equal-protection or due-process guarantees of the federal and state Constitutions. View "Ferguson v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2953.52(B)(4), a trial court may seal the records in a case dismissed without prejudice before the statute of limitations has expired.Here, the State filed a complaint against Defendant charging him with arson, among other crimes. The State later dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Defendant filed an application to seal the official records of the case pursuant to section 2953.52. The trial court denied the application on the grounds that the case had been dismissed without prejudice and the statute of limitations had not yet expired. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 2953.52 does not require the relevant statute of limitations to expire before a trial court can grant an application to seal the records of a case dismissed without prejudice. View "State v. Dye" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for a writ of mandamus that Appellant filed against Appellees, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and related parties. In his petition, Appellant alleged that he was denied “fair and meaningful consideration” of his parole application. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, and a court of appeals magistrate recommended dismissal on the grounds that the petition failed to state a claim. The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that he was entitled to a writ of mandamus in this matter. View "State ex rel. Stith v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

In this original action, Relator sought a writ of prohibition to bar the Twelfth District Court of Appeals from hearing the State’s appeal of the trial court’s judgment of acquittal under Ohio R. Crim. P. 29(A). The appellate court filed a motion to dismiss, and Relator asked for leave to amend his complaint. The Supreme Court granted Relator’s motion for leave to amend, denied the appellate court’s motion to dismiss, and granted a peremptory writ of prohibition barring the Court of Appeals from hearing the State’s appeal, holding that the Twelfth District failed to show that it had jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal. View "State ex rel. Ramirez-Ortiz v. Twelfth District Court of Appeals" on Justia Law