Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of tampering with evidence for concealing heroin within a body cavity. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s tampering conviction, concluding that at the time Defendant concealed the heroin in her body cavity, Defendant had constructive knowledge of an impending investigation. At issue on appeal was whether a person who hides evidence of a crime that is unmistakable to him or her commits tampering with evidence in the absence of evidence that a victim or the public would report a crime. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Ohio law does not impute constructive knowledge of an impending investigation based solely on the commission of an offense, and therefore, the fact that an act was unmistakably a crime does not in itself establish that the defendant knew of an investigation into that crime or that such an investigation was likely to be instituted; and (2) in this case, Defendant’s tampering conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence because there was no evidence that, at the time she concealed the heroin in her body, Defendant knew or could have known that a state trooper would stop her car and begin an investigation of her for drug trafficking and drug possession. View "State v. Barry" on Justia Law

Appellees damaged their vehicle when they collided with a deer in the roadway. Appellant insured the vehicle. Appellees had their vehicle repaired using aftermarket replacement parts that were not produced by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Appellant, however, refused to pay for OEM parts after providing an estimate that was based on the use of non-OEM parts. Appellees filed a complaint alleging eight causes of action related to Appellant’s estimate and its refusal to pay for OEM parts. The trial court granted summary judgment to Appellees on their claim that Appellant violated the Consumer Sales Practices Act by failing to obtain one of Appellees’ signatures on the bottom of the estimate, and Appellees voluntarily dismissed the remainder of their claims. The trial court awarded Appellees actual damages, statutory treble damages, attorney fees, and expenses. The court of appeals modified and affirmed the trial court’s award of damages. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and dismissed the cause, holding that Appellant’s provision of a repair estimate to Appellees was not in connection with a consumer transaction and, therefore, was not an “unfair or deceptive act or practice” pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 1345.02. View "Dillon v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was a 2010 assessment of personal property issued by the Pike County auditor against Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. (LMES) for tax year 1993. The tax commissioner canceled the assessment. LMES prevailed before the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) on appeal. LMES prosecuted its appeal to the Supreme Court based on the BTA’s failure to address its contentions that the auditor issued the assessment frivolously and in bad faith. The county auditor cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA lacked the authority to make a finding of frivolous conduct or bad faith on the auditor’s part; (2) LMES had standing as an aggrieved party to prosecute its appeal to the Supreme Court; and (3) the tax commissioner properly canceled the assessment, as affirmed by the BTA, because LMES was never shown to qualify as a “taxpayer” as that term is statutorily defined for purposes of the personal property tax. View "Snodgrass v. Testa" on Justia Law

Relator was indicted on two counts of felonious assault and one count of aggravated burglary. One of the felonious-assault counts was subsequently amended. After a jury trial, Relator was convicted of aggravated burglary and one count of felonious assault, the jury being unable to reach a verdict as to the amended felonious-assault count. The sentencing entry did not dispose of the amended felonious-assault charge. The state later indicted Relator on two new charges under the same case number. The sentencing entry memorializing a plea deal involving the posttrial indictments failed to address the unresolved felonious-assault charge from trial. The trial judge finally signed an entry dismissing the felonious-assault charge, but the court’s order dismissed the charge “as indicted,” without disposing of the charge as amended before trial. Relator sought a writ of mandamus compelling the issuance of a final, appealable order in his criminal case. The County filed a motion to dismiss based on res judicata. The Supreme Court denied the County’s motion to dismiss - as res judicata did not apply where the trial court never issued a final, appealable order - and issued a peremptory writ directing the County to issue a final, appealable order disposing of all the charges against Relator. View "State ex rel. McIntyre v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

Mary Siegel, a registered elector, filed a challenge to the voter registration of Randy Simes. The Board of Elections voted to reject the challenge. Barbara Holwadel and Steven Johnson (together, Holwadel) subsequently filed an action in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus overturning the board’s decision. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that Holwadel failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Board had a clear legal duty to strike Simes from the voter rolls. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly refused to dismiss this case for lack of standing; and (2) the court of appeals properly refused to grant a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of Elections and its members to remove Simes from the voter rolls. View "State ex rel. Holwadel v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Craig Conley faxed a letter to Judge Dixie Park requesting full and legible copies of documents from the court’s electronic docket. Judge Park returned the request, stating that the court did not accept faxed filings without the court’s prior approval. Conley responded that his request was not a filing but a public-records request. Conley subsequently filed this action requesting a peremptory or alternative writ of mandamus ordering Judge Park to provide the copies of the requested records. Before Judge Park responded to the complaint and before twenty-eight days had elapsed the court of appeals issued a peremptory writ and closed the case. Judge Park filed a motion for relief from judgment and then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. The court of appeals concluded that, because of the appeal, it was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion for relief from judgment unless the case was remanded. Conley moved the Supreme Court to remand the case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals acted prematurely before allowing Judge Park to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Conley v. Park" on Justia Law

In 1994, Appellant was injured in the course and scope of his employment. In 2010, during the course and scope of his employment for a new employer, Appellant was injured. In 2012, Appellant requested temporary-total-disability compensation for the period beginning December 8, 2011. The Industrial Commission denied compensation, concluding that Appellant had not presented persuasive medical evidence establishing that Appellant’s 1994 industrial injury rendered him temporarily and totally disabled as of December 8, 2011. Appellant filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus that would require the Commission to vacate its order denying compensation and to award temporary-total-disability benefits beginning December 8, 2011. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s request for compensation for the period beginning December 8, 2011. View "State ex rel. Ritzie v. Reece-Campbell, Inc." on Justia Law

A landowner filed a complaint for breach of contract against the predecessor in interest to Huntington National Bank. The trial judge ruled in favor of the landowner and awarded damages. The court of appeals reversed on the issue of the proper standard for calculating damages and remanded the case for a recalculation. On remand, the trial judge ordered a new evidentiary hearing on damages, concluding that the court could not arrive at a proper measure of damages without additional testimony. Huntington filed this action in procedendo and prohibition in the court of appeals and filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order. The court of appeals (1) dismissed the appeal on grounds that the order requiring a new hearing was not a final appealable order, and (2) dismissed the procedendo and prohibition petition, concluding that Huntington had an adequate remedy by way of appeal and that the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction by ordering an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Huntington had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal and that the trial judge’s jurisdiction to order the evidentiary hearing and to determine damages based on new evidence was not patently and ambiguously lacking. View "State ex rel. Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Kontos" on Justia Law

The Ohio Republican Party (ORP) sent a public-records request to Cuyahoga County seeking the County’s key card swipe data for five individuals, including Edward FitzGerald, the County’s former county executive. At the time of the ORP’s request, the key-card-swipe data were security records exempted from release because FitzGerald had received threats and release of that data would have diminished the County’s ability to protect him and maintain the security of the office of the county executive. Subsequent to receipt of the public-records request, the County moved its administrative offices to a new building, FitzGerald’s term of office expired, and the County released the records to members of the media. The ORP filed this mandamus action alleging that the County had failed to respond to its public-record requests. The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus and ordered the release of the records, holding that FitzGerald’s key-card-swipe data were public records, and the County failed to demonstrate that they were exempt from disclosure. View "State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. FitzGerald" on Justia Law

Appellant participated in a program called the Percentage of Income Payment Plan (“PIPP”) that provided assistance to low-income residential customers. Most PIPP customers pay a fixed percentage of their monthly income rather than the actual cost of service. Appellant later left PIPP but continued to receive gas service from Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc. at the standard rate. Appellant was reinstated in PIPP seven months after her departure. Vectren subsequently informed Appellant that she had to pay the difference between the charges she paid during the time she was not in the program and the monthly PIPP installment payments that would have been due had she remained in PIPP. Appellant filed a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission alleging that Vectren’s attempt to charge her for the missed PIPP installments was unlawful and unreasonable. The Commission found in favor of Vectren. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Commission’s orders were unreasonable or unlawful. View "Toliver v. Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc." on Justia Law