Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Robert Boyd retired from Scotts Miracle-Gro Company in 1983. Boyd received workers’ compensation benefits in 2005 for asbestosis in both lungs. In 2013, Boyd applied for permanent-total-disability benefits. A staff hearing officer at the Industrial Commission denied Boyd’s application. Boyd then filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus that would require the Commission to vacate its decision. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Boyd’s complaint in mandamus failed where Boyd failed to demonstrate that the Commission abused its discretion by entering an order not supported by any evidence in the record. View "State ex rel. Boyd v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co." on Justia Law

Robert Boyd retired from Scotts Miracle-Gro Company in 1983. Boyd received workers’ compensation benefits in 2005 for asbestosis in both lungs. In 2013, Boyd applied for permanent-total-disability benefits. A staff hearing officer at the Industrial Commission denied Boyd’s application. Boyd then filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus that would require the Commission to vacate its decision. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Boyd’s complaint in mandamus failed where Boyd failed to demonstrate that the Commission abused its discretion by entering an order not supported by any evidence in the record. View "State ex rel. Boyd v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co." on Justia Law

The property owners of three undeveloped residential lots in the Westerville City School District filed complaints with the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) seeking reductions in the county auditor’s valuations of all three parcels for tax year 2011. The BOR adopted the the opinion of the owners’ appraiser and granted the requested reductions. The Westerville City School District Board of Education appealed. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) adopted the valuations of the school board’s appraiser, which were higher than the valuations arrived at by both the owner’s appraiser and the auditor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA did not act unlawfully or unreasonably by finding that the school board met its burden of proof at the BTA hearing and did not violate Ohio Const. art. XII, 2, which requires that property “be taxed by uniform rule according to value.” View "Westerville City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Appellant, a private citizen, filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus compelling Appellees, the Columbiana County clerk of courts and the Columbiana County prosecutor, to accept for filing an affidavit alleging a criminal offense and to prosecute a named individual for perjury. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s complaint in mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had no clear legal right to a prosecution where the clerk had no clear duty to accept Appellant’s affidavit for filing and the prosecutor had no clear duty to prosecute the alleged crime. View "State ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio" on Justia Law