Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Relator submitted a public-records request to the records clerk for the police department of the City of Avon Lake relating to a police report about a skate-park incident. Relator claimed that he hand-delivered a written request to the clerk on December 30, 2014 and that the police department did not respond to the request until Relator filed this original action for a writ of mandamus on February 5, 2015. The department, in response, asserted that Relator never submitted a written request. The Supreme Court denied Relator’s request for a writ because the only documents requested but not produced no longer existed, and therefore, the case was moot. View "State ex rel. Pietrangelo v. Avon Lake" on Justia Law

Relators filed petitions proposing the adoption of county charters in Athens, Meigs, and Portage Counties. Each of the boards of elections reviewed the petitions and, while determining that the petitions contained sufficient signatures, rejected the petitions as invalid. Secretary of State Jon Husted denied Relators’ protests and instructed the boards not to place the proposed charters on the ballot. Relators then initiated this action seeking a writ of mandamus requiring Husted and the boards of elections to place the proposed charters on the ballot. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the secretary of state and boards of elections did not abuse their discretion in determining that the proposed county charters failed to satisfy the requirements under Ohio Const. art. X, 3 for a valid charter initiative. View "State ex rel. Coover v. Husted" on Justia Law

In this mandamus action Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel Secretary of State Jon Husted to restore more than 21,000 previously invalidated signatures in part-petitions supporting the Ohio Drug Price Relief Act. This action was a companion case to Ohio Mfrs. Ass’n v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act, in which the Supreme Court found that the petition contained an insufficient number of signatures. In the instant case, the Supreme Court granted the requested writ in part and denied it in part, holding (1) the finding in Ohio Mfrs. Ass’n was based on the limited evidence before the Court in that case; (2) Husted is ordered to validate additional signatures from several counties, therefore establishing that the petition filing exceeded the minimum-signature threshold; and (3) Husted is ordered to rescind his transmission of the initiative to the General Assembly and is ordered instead to accept for verification the supplementary part-petitions, and if they are found to contain sufficient valid signatures, to place the matter on the November 2017 general-election ballot. View "State ex rel. Jones v. Husted" on Justia Law

In 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed an order of the Ohio Power Siting Board granting a certificate to Buckeye Wind, LLC to construct a wind farm in Champaign County. Buckeye subsequently filed an application to amend the certificate in part so that the wind farm could share portions of its facilities with another authorized wind farm. After a hearing, the Board approved Buckeye’s amendment. Champaign County and associated townships (collectively, the County) appealed, contending that the Board unlawfully approved the requested amendment without holding a hearing on all of the proposed changes in the amendment application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the County forfeited its right to challenge the scope of the hearing on appeal; and (2) the Board acted reasonably and lawfully in limiting the scope of the hearing. View "In re Application of Buckeye Wind, LLC" on Justia Law

Relators filed a petition with the Medina County Board of Elections proposing the adoption of a county charter. The Director of the Board of Elections voted on whether to certify the proposed charter petition to the Board of County Commissioners, which resulted in a two-to-two tie. Secretary of State Jon Husted broke the tie against the motion to certify the proposed charter petition to the County Commissioners. Relators sought a writ of mandamus requiring the Secretary of State and the Board to place the proposed charter on the November 2016 ballot. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relators were not entitled to a writ of mandamus because there was an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law through which Relators could have challenged the Board’s decision. View "State ex rel. Jones v. Husted" on Justia Law

The Meigs County Homes Rule Committee and its members (collectively, the committee) sought to place a proposed charter for Meigs County on the November 2016 ballot. The committee submitted the petition to the Meigs County Board of Elections (the board), which certified the petition. The Meigs County Board of Commissioners and its members (collectively, the commissioners) refused to certify the initiative for placement on the ballot, concluding that the board failed to act within the time frame required by Ohio Rev. Code 307.94. The committee sought of a writ of mandamus compelling placement of the proposed charter on the ballot. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court reversed and granted the writ, holding that the board’s initial letter to the commissioners certifying the petition satisfied the requirements of section 307.94. View "State ex rel. Meigs County Home Rule Comm. v. Meigs County Bd. of Comm’rs" on Justia Law

Victoria Ullman filed an action requesting a declaration that the JobsOhio Act, which authorized the creation of a nonprofit corporation for the purposes of promoting economic development, was unconstitutional. Ullman, who was counsel and then amicus curiae in previous cases involving the same issue, filed this action on her own behalf. Respondents filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint, finding that Ullman lacked standing to proceed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Ullman lacked standing under the public-right doctrine as articulated in State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward and State ex rel. Trauger v. Nash. View "State ex rel. Ullmann v. Husted" on Justia Law

Following a mistrial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary and rape. Judge Ethna Cooper presided over the mistrial and the retrial. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant later filed a motion to issue a final appealable order and to vacate a void judgment. Judge Cooper denied the motion. Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals was correct in dismissing Appellant’s petition because Appellant had available an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. View "State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper" on Justia Law

In 1995, Jeffrey Keith was found guilty of arson and grand theft. In 2015, after a long procedural history, Keith petitioned the Court of Appeals to order the original judge in his case, Judge Gaul, to rule on his motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial. When Keith filed his motion in 2002, Judge Gaul had been assigned to the case, but the case was later assigned to Judge Russo. Judge Russo filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court of appeals granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because a ruling on Keith’s 2002 motion would be constrained by the law-of-the-case doctrine, issuing a writ ordering such a ruling would be a “vain act.” View "State ex rel. Keith v. Gaul" on Justia Law

After he retired, Robert Marmaduke filed a disability-benefit application with the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund (OP&F). Finding that Marmaduke was permanently and partially disabled, the Disability Evaluation Panel recommended awarding Marmaduke a permanent-partial disability benefit. Marmaduke appealed, but the OP&F’s board of trustees reaffirmed its award of a permanent-partial disability benefit. The court of appeals affirmed the board’s determination that Marmaduke was entitled to a permanent-partial, rather than permanent-total, disability benefit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OP&F did not abuse its discretion in awarding Marmaduke a permanent-partial disability benefit. View "State ex rel. Marmaduke v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund" on Justia Law