Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence (OVI) of a drug of abuse. After a trial, Defendant was convicted. The court of appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment, finding that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s OVI conviction because there was no evidence to connect Defendant’s use of hydrocodone, a widely known drug of abuse, with his impairment. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that expert testimony was necessary to support the OVI conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the OVI conviction and that no expert testimony was required to link the ingestion of hydrocodone with Defendant’s impairment. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law

Ross Linert sustained severe injuries when Adrien Foutz, an intoxicated driver, struck Ross’s vehicle from behind, triggering a fuel-fed fire. At the time of the accident, Ross, a veteran police officer, was on patrol in a 2005 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor (CVPI) manufactured by Ford Motor Company. Ross and his wife, Brenda Linert, sued Foutz. The Linerts subsequently added product liability and malice claims against Ford. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford on all of the Linerts’ claims. The Linerts appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on Ohio Rev. Code 2307.76(A)(2), Ohio’s statute governing manufacturers’ postmarked duty to warn consumers of risks associated with a product that are not discovered until after the product has been sold. The appellate court ordered a new trial on the Linerts’ postmarketing failure-to-warn claim, concluding that the there was sufficient evidence to warrant a jury instruction on the Linerts’ postmarketing failure-to-warn claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court properly refused to instruct on a postmarketing duty to warn in this case. View "Linert v. Foutz" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with three counts of violating Ohio Rev. Code 2923.13. The statute makes it illegal for a person to possess firearms when the person is under indictment for or has been convicted of certain felonies. During trial, Defendant sought to limit how much the jury could learn about his underlying offenses upon which the weapons charges were based. A jury returned a guilty verdict on all three counts. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it did not require the State to stipulate to Defendant’s indictment and prior convictions and by admitting the full record of his prior offenses. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred in refusing Defendant’s stipulation offer, and the error was not harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing Defendant to stipulate to his prior convictions and indictment. View "State v. Creech" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging three civil claims brought under Ohio Rev. Code 2307.60. Plaintiff sought recovery for damages arising out of Defendants’ alleged violation of a criminal statute. The trial court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, ruling that civil actions for damages may not be predicated upon an alleged violation of a criminal statute. The Ninth District Court of Appeals then certified a question to the Supreme Court as to whether the current version of Ohio Rev. Code 2307.60 independently authorizes a civil action for damages caused by criminal acts unless otherwise prohibited by law. The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative. View "Jacobson v. Kaforey" on Justia Law

The T. Ryan Legg Irrevocable Trust appealed a tax on the trust’s 2006 income. The tax commissioner moved to dismiss, arguing that the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the trust had not shown that the trustee had authorized the filing of the notice of appeal and the petition for reassessment. The BTA denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated the BTA’s decision in part, holding (1) the tax commissioner failed to prove that the trust’s counsel lacked authority to file the tax appeals; (2) the trust’s capital gain was subject to Ohio income tax on an apportioned basis, but the trust had a legal basis for seeking a reduced Ohio allocation; and (3) the tax assessment did not violate due process or equal protection rights. Remanded to the tax commission for a determination of the proper Ohio allocation. View "T. Ryan Legg Irrevocable Trust v. Testa" on Justia Law

Ernest and Louann Giddens resided in Missouri but paid Ohio income tax as owners of shares in a corporation that did some of its business in Ohio. In 2008, that corporation was an S corporation, and therefore, its income passed through for tax purposes. The tax commissioner reduced the amount of the “nonresident tax credit” that relates to a distribution from the corporation. The Giddenses had allocated the distribution outside Ohio, arguing that it constituted a dividend that was “nonbusiness income” allocable to Missouri. The tax commissioner determined that the distribution should be treated as “business income” and concluded that a portion of it was taxable by Ohio based on the proportion of the corporation’s business in Ohio. The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Giddenses properly treated the income as nonbusiness - rather than business - income. View "Giddens v. Testa" on Justia Law

Property owners challenged the Lorain County auditor’s valuation of their single-family residence for tax year 2012, alleging that their 2011 purchase of the property was a recent arm’s-length sale that established a lower true value. The Lorain County Board of Revision (BOR) retained the auditor’s valuation, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the property owners’ complaint. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed and valued the property according to the sale price, concluding that the transaction was recent, arm’s-length, and constituted the best indication of the property’s value. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the BTA and reinstated the BOR’s valuation, holding that the BTA’s decision was unreasonable and unlawful because it mischaracterized and disregarded evidence showing that the sale was a forced sale. View "Utt v. Lorain County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

As part of an independent investigation into the murder conviction of Adam Saleh, Donald Caster, an Ohio attorney engaged by the Ohio Innocence Project, requested police records related to the arrest and investigation of Saleh. The Division of Police of the City of Columbus rejected the request, stating that no records could be produced until the “completion” of Saleh’s criminal case. By the time Caster made his request for public records, Saleh’s direct appeals had been exhausted for more than four years. Caster then filed this original action in mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that the specific-investigatory-work-product exception from required disclosure of public records set forth in Ohio Rev. Code 149.43(A)(2)(c) does not extend beyond the completion of the trial of the underlying criminal case at issue. View "State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus" on Justia Law

At issue in this real property valuation case was the proper valuation for tax year 2012 of an unused office warehouse property. The county auditor assigned a value of $1,388,700 to the property. The property owner (Appellant) sought a sale price valuation of $50,000 and an appraisal valuation of either $450,000 or $588,000. The board of revision (BOR) rejected the sale price on the grounds had not been consummated. The transfer allegedly occurred after the hearing held by the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). The BTA rejected the sale price because the evidence of transfer was presented after the close of its hearing. The BTA then valued the property at $588,000. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding that the BTA erred by (1) declining to consider Appellant’s post hearing evidence of the consummation of the sale for a price of $50,000; and (2) concluding that the BTA’s initial decision was based on a clerical error that could be corrected without weighing the conflicting evidence of the value of the property. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Emerson Network Power Energy Systems, North America, Inc. v. Lorain County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

At issue in this real property valuation case was the proper valuation for tax year 2009 of sixteen unsold units of a twenty-unit condominium development. The auditor assigned a value of $5,986,400 to the units. Before the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR), the property owner presented an appraiser’s valuation of $2,900,000. The BOR adopted the appraisal valuation. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) reversed the decision of the BOR and reinstated the auditor’s valuation. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding (1) the BTA reasonably rejected the appraiser’s opinion of value; but (2) the BTA should have performed an independent valuation of the property. Remanded with instructions that the BTA perform and independent valuation of the property. View "Columbus City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law