Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant, an inmate, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that the court of appeals order the trial court in his underlying criminal case to rule on motions that were allegedly pending. The court’s magistrate recommended that the court dismiss the case for Appellant’s failure to satisfy the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25. The court of appeals accepted and adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals was correct to dismiss the case on the basis recommended by the magistrate. View "State ex rel. Davenport v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant filed two complaints for writs of prohibition and a complaint for a writ of procedendo. Appellant sought the writs to restrain a judge and juvenile court from proceeding in litigation regarding contempt charges in an action pending in the juvenile court, to compel two judges and the juvenile court to rule on various motions in the juvenile proceeding, and to prohibit a judge from exercising jurisdiction in a vexatious-litigator action. The court of appeals dismissed the complaints on the basis that Henderson continued to litigate the cases after he had been declared a vexatious litigator. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments in all three cases because Appellant had been declared a vexatious litigator and failed to fulfill the statutory requirements before continuing litigation in his original actions. View "State ex rel. Henderson v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

James and Tina Renacci filed a joint Ohio tax return for tax year 2000 without reporting and paying Ohio individual income tax on amounts earned by a trust (Trust) that owned shares of three Subchapter S corporations. In 2003, the tax commissioner assessed the Renaccis in relation to the unreported S-corporation income. The Renaccis paid all amounts demanded by the state and then filed a refund claim for the double-interest penalty amount. The tax commissioner denied the refund claim. The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed the denial of penalty remission. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tax commissioner, under the circumstances of this case, abused his discretion in denying the refund request. Remanded with instructions that the penalty be refunded. View "Renacci v. Testa" on Justia Law

Epic Aviation, LLC, a vendor of jet fuel, sold jet fuel to AirNet Systems, Inc., collected sales tax on it, and remitted the tax to the state. Epic, on behalf of AirNet, sought a refund of sales tax paid by AirNet on its purchases of jet fuel from Epic from January 1, 2006 through April 30, 2009. The tax commissioner denied the claim for refund. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed. Epic appealed, arguing that AirNet’s jet fuel purchases were exempt from sales tax because AirNet purchased the fuel intending to use the fuel “directly in the rendition of a public utility service” under Ohio Rev. Code 5739.02(B)(42)(a). The tax commissioner denied the exemption, finding that the business of AirNet, which does not hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the federal government, was not sufficiently regulated to qualify as a “public utility service.” The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision and remanded, holding that Epic should have an opportunity to present evidence to establish the portion of the jet fuel purchased by AirNet that is exempt from taxation under the common-carrier standard as clarified in this opinion. View "Epic Aviation, LLC v. Testa" on Justia Law

For tax years 2002 through 2007, Appellants filed no Ohio tax returns, contending that income was earned outside Ohio. The tax commissioner assessed Ohio individual income tax against Appellants for the tax years at issue but initially failed to give notice of his reliance on the unrebutted presumption that Appellants were, in fact, Ohio residents and domiciliaries. Appellants challenged the commissioner’s assessment. The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed, concluding that Appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an error in the commission’s final determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) all income of Ohio residents is taxable, regardless of where the income is earned or received; and (2) Appellants failed to prove that they do not have to pay the amounts assessed, despite the tax commissioner’s failure to give notice of his reliance on the presumption of Ohio residency. View "Krehnbrink v. Testa" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging several claims of error, including ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court dismissed Appellant’s petition because he had or has adequate remedies at law to raise these claims. Appellant appealed, challenging the appellate court’s dismissal of his habeas action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Appellant’s habeas case because Appellant had or has adequate remedies at law in the form of direct appeal and postconviction relief to raise his claims. View "Kneuss v. Sloan" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a complaint for a writ prohibiting the chief of the collections enforcement section of the Ohio attorney general’s office from enforcing a demand for Appellant to reimburse the state for money paid out of the Crime Victims Reparations Fund. The magistrate recommended dismissing the writ on grounds that Appellant failed to comply with the mandatory filing requirements for seeking a waiver of prepaying full filing fees. The court of appeals adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in dismissing Appellant’s complaint for noncompliance with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C)(1); and (2) Appellant waived all but plain error and failed to preserve his sole argument. View "State ex rel. Ralios v. Iannotta" on Justia Law

After the mayor of Streetsboro resigned, Arthur Scott was appointed to serve as acting mayor. Five months later, Scott was elected to serve for the remainder of the former mayor’s term. Following his reelection, Scott filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that he was underpaid for his service as mayor and acting mayor and that he was entitled to compensation for unused vacation, sick, and personal leave. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of Streetsboro. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals (1) did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant Scott’s motion to strike several documents that Streetsboro attached to its response to Scott’s motion for summary judgment; (2) did not err in granting summary judgment to Streetsboro regarding Scott’s entitlement to additional pay for his service as acting mayor and as the elected mayor of the city; but (3) erred in granting summary judgment to Streetsboro as to Scott’s entitlement to compensation for unused vacation, sick, and personal leave. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Scott v. Streetsboro" on Justia Law

A complaint was filed in juvenile court alleging that A.G. was delinquent for engaging in conduct that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted aggravated robbery and kidnapping, with firearms specifications as to each. A.G. admitted to the allegations in the complaint. The juvenile court found the allegations proved beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered that A.G. be committed to the Department of Youth Services for minimum terms of one year for each of the aggravated robbery and kidnapping adjudications. A.G. appealed, arguing that the juvenile court erred in failing to merge his adjudications for aggravated robbery and kidnapping as “allied offenses of similar import” and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the allied-offenses issue. The Court of Appeals denied relief, concluding that the aggravated robbery and kidnapping would constituted allied offenses of similar import under Ohio Rev. Code 2941.25 if committed by an adult but that criminal statutes do not apply in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that juvenile courts must conduct the same double-jeopardy analysis in delinquency proceedings that other courts apply in adult criminal proceedings to protect a child’s right against double jeopardy. View "In re A.G." on Justia Law

Under the prior version of R.C. 3519.01(A), if the attorney general certified the summary of a proposal to change the law or amend the constitution as fair and truthful, that proposal would be filed with the secretary of state and supporters could begin circulating petitions. The section now provides that a petition is transferred to the Ballot Board, not to the secretary of state, for review after certification, and that “[o]nly one proposal of law or constitutional amendment to be proposed by initiative petition shall be contained in an initiative petition to enable the voters to vote on that proposal separately.” If the Board determines that the petition contains more than one proposed law or constitutional amendment, it must divide the petition into individual petitions and certify its approval to the attorney general; supporters must submit separate summaries for approval. The Board divided Ethics First’s submission into three separate proposed amendments. Ethics First brought a mandamus petition. After holding that it had jurisdiction, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The modest imposition posed by requiring new summaries does not unduly restrict the right of initiative, The “separate petitions” requirement is not content-based. It applies to all petitions. View "Ethics First-You Decide Ohio Political Action Comm.. v. DeWine" on Justia Law