Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff was at Indian Lake State Park, which is open to the public without an admission charge, when he was seriously injured by a rock thrown by an Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) boom mower that struck him in the eye. Plaintiff sued ODNR for negligence. The court of claims granted summary judgment for ODNR, concluding that because Plaintiff was a recreational user, ODNR had no duty to keep the park safe for Plaintiff’s entry or use. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that because Plaintiff claimed he was injured by the negligence of a park employee and not by a defect in the premises, the recreational user statute did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence in this case showed that Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the alleged negligent operation of a boom mower, not from the condition of the premises; and (2) therefore, the recreational user statute does not preclude liability for Plaintiff’s negligence claim if Plaintiff can establish that negligence. View "Combs v. Ohio Dep’t of Natural Res., Div. of Parks & Recreation" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of murder. While incarcerated, Appellant filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. When the trial court took no action on his motion, Appellant filed a petition in procedendo in the court of appeals. Thereafter, the county court of common pleas judge denied Appellant’s trial court motion. The judge then filed a motion to dismiss in the procedendo action. The motion was converted to one for summary judgment, and the writ was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s action in procedendo was moot, as the trial judge ruled on Appellant’s motion to vacate. View "State ex rel. Morgan v. Fais" on Justia Law

John Nye was convicted of a violation of a city ordinance. Judge Lisa Coates, the trial court judge in the case, adopted and approved the magistrate’s decision. However, there was no order in the record that set forth a finding of guilt with the imposition of a sentence. Nye appealed. While the appeal was questioned for want of a final, appealable order, it was ultimately dismissed for failure to prosecute. Thereafter, Nye filed an action in precedendo against Judge Coates. The court of appeals granted the writ, concluding that, in a criminal matter, a trial court must enter judgment separately on all claims and may not simply refer to the magistrate’s decision. Judge Coates subsequently filed a new order that complied with Ohio R. Crim. P. 32(C). Nye appealed, asserting, as he did in the court below, a right to a magistrate’s decision that complies with the form requirements of Ohio R. Crim. P. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii) and a right to findings of fact and conclusions of law from the magistrate. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Nye had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, precluding a writ. View "State ex rel. Nye v. Coates" on Justia Law

Christian Voice of Central Ohio operated a radio station from offices located in New Albany. In 1991, the tax commissioner granted an exemption for the property on the grounds that it was being used for church purposes. In 2007, following the relocation of Christian Voice’s offices to Gahanna, a complaint was filed challenging the continued exemption of Christian Voice’s New Albany property. The tax commissioner denied the complaint. In 2008, Christian Voice applied for the same exemption for its Gahanna property. The tax commissioner denied the exemption, finding no evidence that people assembled to worship together on the subject property. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the BTA should have allowed the exemption under Ohio Rev. Code 5709.07(A)(2) because the primary use of the property was for public worship. View "Christian Voice of Cent. Ohio v. Testa" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of disorderly conduct. In appealing that judgment pro se, Appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus under the same case number as the appeal. Appellant also filed a motion for a stay of the appeal proceedings pending resolution of the mandamus action. The court of appeals struck the complaint on the grounds that a mandamus action is not properly filed as a pleading in a pending appeal. Appellant appealed the court of appeals’ entry striking the mandamus complaint as well as subsequent entries issued by the court of appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) as to four of the court of appeals’ entries, Appellant’s appeal is dismissed because his notice of appeal is untimely; and (2) to the extent that later entries pertain to Appellant’s mandamus action, the court of appeals is affirmed. View "State v. Henry" on Justia Law

Chester Township and its trustees (collectively, Relators) sought to prohibit Judge Timothy Grendell (Respondent) from issuing or enforcing rulings against them in the case that created the Chester Township Park District, arguing that the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue orders attempting to correct activities by the park-district commissioners and the township trustees that frustrated the purpose of the original probate court order creating the park district. The probate court, in turn, asserted that it had continuing subject matter jurisdiction over the case creating the park district. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the township trustees failed to show that the probate court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to issue the orders at issue. View "State ex rel. Chester Twp. v. Grendell" on Justia Law

Mother filed a complaint in an Ohio court seeking to establish paternity and an allocation of parental rights. Father lived in Virginia. Father filed a petition for custody in a Virginia court and moved to dismiss Mother’s complaint in the Ohio court. The Ohio and Virginia courts decided that Virginia was the children’s “home state” under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The Ohio court then dismissed Mother’s Ohio case. The Ohio court of appeals reversed the dismissal, and, on remand, the Ohio court found that Ohio was the home state of the parties’ children. Father filed this original action in prohibition arguing that the Ohio court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with a custody determination because the Virginia court had already taken jurisdiction and determined custody. The court of appeals granted the writ. Mother, who was not named as a party in the prohibition case, filed a motion to intervene a motion for relief from the judgment. The court of appeals denied both motions. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the denial of Mother’s motion to intervene, holding that the court of appeals erred in denying this motion; and (2) denied Father’s motions strike Mother’s notice of appeal and to dismiss the case and to impose sanctions. View "State ex rel. N.G. v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a pleading in the court of appeals entitled “Eighth Admendment [sic] Violation” seeking an order compelling a county jail to send medical records pertaining to treatment he received while he was there to the correctional institution where he is currently incarcerated. The court of appeals construed Appellant’s pleading as a petition for a writ of mandamus and then dismissed his case for failing to follow procedural requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err by dismissing Appellant’s mandamus petition because he failed to comply with the mandatory filing requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25. View "State v. Henton" on Justia Law

The Ohio Power Siting Board granted a certificate to Champaign Wind, LLC to construct a wind farm in Champaign County. Appellants, a collection of local governmental entities and residents, appealed the Board’s decision, challenging various discovery and evidentiary rulings by the Board and the Board’s determination that the proposed wind farm meets the statutory criteria for siting a major utility facility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants failed to demonstrate that the Board’s decision was unreasonable or unlawful or that the Board’s discovery and evidentiary rulings meaningfully affected the outcome of the proceeding. View "In re Application of Champaign Wind, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ohio Power Siting Board granted a certificate to Champaign Wind, LLC to construct a wind farm in Champaign County. Appellants, a collection of local governmental entities and residents, appealed the Board’s decision, challenging various discovery and evidentiary rulings by the Board and the Board’s determination that the proposed wind farm meets the statutory criteria for siting a major utility facility. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants failed to demonstrate that the Board’s decision was unreasonable or unlawful or that the Board’s discovery and evidentiary rulings meaningfully affected the outcome of the proceeding. View "In re Application of Champaign Wind, LLC" on Justia Law