Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Damien L. Peterson was convicted of multiple felonies in November 2019, stemming from four armed robberies in Cleveland. He was arrested by Shaker Heights Police in April 2019 and charged with aggravated robbery. His case was transferred to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, where he was convicted and sentenced to 39 to 41.5 years in prison. In May 2023, Peterson petitioned the Eighth District Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition against Judge Sherrie Miday, alleging that she lacked jurisdiction over his case due to procedural errors, including the absence of a preliminary hearing and bindover order from the municipal court.The Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissed Peterson's petition, citing res judicata, as his claims had been previously raised and found meritless. The court also denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings and declared him a vexatious litigator under its local rules due to his repetitive and baseless filings.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Eighth District's judgment but for different reasons. The Supreme Court found that Judge Miday did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over Peterson's criminal case, as the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas has general jurisdiction over felony cases. The procedural issues Peterson raised, such as the lack of a preliminary hearing and bindover order, did not divest the court of its jurisdiction. Additionally, Peterson had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of the law, such as appeals, to address his claims.The Supreme Court also upheld the Eighth District's decision to declare Peterson a vexatious litigator, noting that his repeated filings of the same arguments constituted frivolous conduct. The court concluded that the Eighth District did not abuse its discretion in making this determination. View "State ex rel. Peterson v. Miday" on Justia Law

The relator, Jumaane Scott, filed an action requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the Toledo Correctional Institution (TCI) to produce public records. Scott claimed that between April and July 2023, he made four separate requests for public records, including body-camera footage from three different correction officers and a vegetarian diet menu. He alleged that TCI staff denied his requests or failed to respond. Scott sought the production of these records, statutory damages, and court costs.The case was initially reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. TCI filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied, leading to the issuance of an alternative writ. TCI conceded most of Scott’s factual allegations but argued that the requested body-camera footage did not exist. TCI’s evidence included an affidavit from Derek Burkhart, the warden’s assistant, stating that the footage was not saved and therefore did not exist. Scott did not provide contrary evidence to rebut this claim.The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Scott’s request for a writ of mandamus, finding that the body-camera footage did not exist and that TCI had no obligation to produce nonexistent records. The court also denied Scott’s request for the vegetarian diet menu because his petition did not explicitly seek relief for that request. Additionally, the court denied Scott’s requests for statutory damages and court costs, concluding that Scott failed to demonstrate that TCI did not meet its obligations under the Public Records Act or acted in bad faith.In summary, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that TCI had no duty to produce nonexistent records and that Scott was not entitled to statutory damages or court costs. The court denied the writ of mandamus and all associated requests for relief. View "State ex rel. Scott v. Toledo Corr. Inst." on Justia Law

The Stark County Board of Elections considered and voted to purchase Dominion Voting Systems equipment during four meetings. These discussions and decisions occurred in executive sessions, which are closed to the public. Look Ahead America and Merry Lynne Rini filed a complaint alleging that the board violated Ohio’s Open Meetings Act by not limiting its executive-session discussions to matters where premature disclosure would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage.The Stark County Court of Common Pleas upheld the board’s actions, interpreting R.C. 121.22(G)(2) to mean that the premature-disclosure clause applied only to the last-listed reason for entering executive session, not to the purchase of property. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing with the trial court’s interpretation.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and disagreed with the lower courts. The court held that the premature-disclosure clause in R.C. 121.22(G)(2) applies to all the permissible reasons listed for entering executive session, not just the last one. The court reversed the Fifth District’s judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial applying this interpretation. View "Look Ahead Am. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Marc D. Curtis, an inmate at the North Central Correctional Complex, requested records from the Cleveland Municipal Court Clerk, Earle B. Turner, related to his criminal case. Curtis sought documents including arrest warrants, DNA search warrants, and cellphone search warrants. The clerk provided some documents but withheld others, citing that Curtis, as an inmate, could not access certain records without a judge's approval per R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Curtis filed a mandamus complaint to compel the clerk to produce the remaining records or confirm their nonexistence.The Eighth District Court of Appeals denied Curtis's writ of mandamus. The court relied on an affidavit from Ronald Tabor, the clerk’s assistant director, who stated that the clerk did not possess the requested records. The court found this affidavit sufficient to establish that the records were not in the clerk’s possession and noted that respondents are not required to create or provide access to nonexistent records.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Eighth District's judgment. The court held that Curtis failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the clerk possessed the requested records. The court also denied Curtis's motion to take judicial notice of new documents and granted the clerk's motion to strike certain personal information from the record. The court concluded that the clerk had adequately demonstrated that the requested records were not in his possession, and Curtis did not rebut this evidence. View "State ex rel. Curtis v. Turner" on Justia Law

Brian M. Ames sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Three Rivers Local School District Records Commission to produce records in response to his public-records request. Ames requested meeting notification rules, meeting minutes, meeting notices, and records retention schedules for the years 2021, 2022, and 2023. The commission provided some documents but not all, leading Ames to file this action.The commission initially provided Ames with a 2023 meeting-notification policy and unsigned meeting minutes via a website link. After Ames filed his complaint, the commission provided additional documents, including a policy effective in 2021 and 2022, signed minutes for 2022, and records retention schedules for 2021 and 2022. The commission stated that no separate meeting-notification rules for the commission existed, no minutes for 2021 existed, and the 2023 meeting had not yet occurred at the time of the request.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that the commission had produced all documents in its possession responsive to Ames’s request. The court denied the writ of mandamus as moot, as Ames did not provide evidence to refute the commission’s claims. The court also denied Ames’s requests for statutory damages, attorney fees, and court costs. The court noted that Ames, as a pro se litigant, was not entitled to attorney fees and that he waived his request for court costs by not arguing for them in his merit brief. The court also denied Ames’s motion to strike certain exhibits submitted by the commission. View "State ex rel. Ames v. Three Rivers Local School Dist. Records Comm." on Justia Law

In April 2012, Arnold Black was arrested during a traffic stop by East Cleveland police officers without any legitimate reason. Detective Randy Hicks violently assaulted Black and detained him in a storage room for four days. Black sued Hicks, Chief Ralph Spotts, and the City of East Cleveland for his injuries. In August 2019, a jury awarded Black $20 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages against Hicks and Spotts each. The trial court also awarded Black $5.2 million in prejudgment interest.The City of East Cleveland and Spotts appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction over their discretionary appeal, and the United States Supreme Court denied the city’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Despite these rulings, the city failed to satisfy the judgment or take steps to appropriate the necessary funds.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and granted Black’s request for a writ of mandamus. The court held that Black had a clear legal right to enforcement of the civil judgment and that the city had a legal duty to pay the judgment, including pre- and postjudgment interest. The court ordered the city to satisfy the judgment or take the necessary steps to appropriate the funds as described in R.C. 2744.06(A). The court rejected the city’s argument that a pending trial-court motion could reduce the amount owed, noting that Black had established the exact amount of money owed with sufficient evidence. View "State ex rel. Black v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

Kimani E. Ware filed a mandamus action under Ohio’s Public Records Act, seeking an order compelling John Pierce to produce certain public records and requesting statutory damages. Pierce is employed by Aramark Correctional Services, a private company providing food services to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (ODRC) facilities. Ware had requested a copy of the food menu and calorie counts for meals served at Trumbull Correctional Institution (TCI), but Pierce responded that such information was either not available or could be obtained from dieticians.The case was initially reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Ware’s application for default judgment was denied, and an alternative writ was granted, requiring both parties to submit evidence and briefs. Pierce argued that he was not a public official and thus had no duty to respond to Ware’s requests under the Public Records Act. The court ordered the parties to provide additional evidence and briefs, which they did.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ware failed to meet his burden of proving that Aramark, Pierce’s employer, was the functional equivalent of a public office. The court applied the functional-equivalency test, which considers factors such as whether the entity performs a governmental function, the level of government funding, the extent of government involvement or regulation, and whether the entity was created by the government. The court found insufficient evidence to determine that Aramark was the functional equivalent of a public office. Consequently, Pierce had no duty to provide the requested records, and Ware’s request for a writ of mandamus was denied. View "State ex rel. Ware v. Pierce" on Justia Law

Elvin Maldonado was convicted in 2019 of multiple counts of felonious assault and discharging a firearm, with accompanying firearm specifications, and was sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to register as a violent offender. Maldonado successfully appealed, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to vacate the firearm specification sentence and the violent offender registration requirement. On remand, the trial court refused to hold a hearing and issued a new sentencing entry as directed.Maldonado appealed again, arguing that he was entitled to a hearing and that the trial court failed to properly calculate his jail-time credit. The Eighth District Court of Appeals identified a conflict between two of its prior decisions on whether a defendant is entitled to a hearing when part of a sentence is vacated. Before the panel issued its decision, the court decided to resolve the conflict en banc. The en banc court held that a defendant does not have a right to a resentencing hearing in such circumstances, and the panel affirmed the trial court’s judgment based on this en banc decision.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and agreed that the Eighth District violated App.R. 26(A)(2) by conducting en banc review before the panel decision was released. However, the Supreme Court found that Maldonado was not prejudiced by this procedural error. The court noted that even if a hearing had been held, Maldonado’s sentence would not have changed, as the remand was only to vacate specific parts of the sentence without altering the overall sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. View "State v. Maldonado" on Justia Law

A labor dispute arose between the City of Cleveland and the Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (the union representing dispatch supervisors) over overtime scheduling. The dispute was submitted to arbitration, where the arbitrator denied the union's grievance. The union then sought to vacate the arbitration award by filing an application in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, serving the city but not the attorneys who represented the city in the arbitration.The Common Pleas Court initially denied the city's motion to dismiss the union's application, but later reversed its decision after the Eighth District Court of Appeals ruled in a different case that failure to serve the adverse party's counsel deprived the court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Common Pleas Court dismissed the union's application and confirmed the arbitration award in favor of the city. The Eighth District affirmed this decision, citing two defects: the union's application was in the form of a pleading rather than a motion, and it failed to serve the city's arbitration counsel.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that under R.C. 2711.13, a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award must serve either the adverse party or its counsel, not necessarily both. However, the court also held that the union's application did not meet the statutory requirements because it was filed as a pleading (a complaint) rather than a motion. The court emphasized that a motion must state with particularity the grounds for the requested order, which the union's filing failed to do. Thus, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Eighth District's decision regarding the service requirement but affirmed the decision that the union's application did not meet the statutory form requirements, leaving the arbitration award in favor of the city intact. View "Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a public-records request dispute between Kimani Ware and Glenn Booth, the public-information officer at the Trumbull Correctional Institution. Ware alleges that he personally handed over a request for public records to Booth, who signed for it and promised to process it the following week. However, Ware claims he never received the records and, after sending three follow-up letters to Booth, decided to sue him for a writ of mandamus and statutory damages. Booth, on the other hand, denies receiving any follow-up letters from Ware and asserts that Ware has submitted fabricated evidence to the court.Previously, Booth filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Ware failed to verify his mandamus complaint with a proper affidavit and that the evidence of delivery of Ware's public-records request is at best "evenly balanced". However, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied the motion, stating that a motion for judgment on the pleadings does not allow a court to weigh the evidence; instead, it simply tests the sufficiency of the complaint.The Supreme Court of Ohio decided to grant an alternative writ and refer the case to a master commissioner for a full evidentiary hearing. This decision was made due to Booth's allegations that Ware has committed fraud and submitted a fraudulent document. The court noted that either Booth or Ware is lying, and the best way to determine the truth is to conduct an evidentiary hearing where witnesses can be called to testify and be subject to cross-examination. The hearing will also allow the court to decide whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate and if Ware should be sanctioned for presenting fabricated evidence. View "State ex rel. Ware v. Booth" on Justia Law