Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A former administrative judge issued an order mandating that the board of commissioners of Lorain County appropriate an amount of money to the county sheriff to add security measures at the the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas’ adult-probation department (APD) and presentence-investigation unit (PIU). The current administrative judge, Mark Betleski, then issued an order giving the commissioners the option to appropriate the money to the court, with the court then giving the money to the sheriff’s office for the same purpose. The commissioners filed this action for a writ of prohibition forbidding enforcement of the order. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that Judge Betleski and the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction, in the absence of a case or controversy, to enforce entries that ordered the commissioners to appropriate money to the sheriff’s office for security at the APD and PIU facilities. View "State ex rel. Lorain County Bd. of Comm’rs v. Lorain County Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

On November 20, 2014, the city council of Fremont, Ohio passed an ordinance authorizing the mayor to proceed with the process of removing the Ballville Dam. A referendum petition was delivered to Paul Grahl, Fremont’s city auditor, but Grahl did not transmit the referendum petition to the board of elections. Appellants sought a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals seeking to compel Grahl to transmit a certified copy of the ordinance, along with the petitions, to the board of elections. The appellate court denied the writ, concluding that the ordinance was not subject to referendum. The Supreme Court reversed and granted the writ, holding that the ordinance was subject to referendum. View "State ex rel. Szymanowski v. Grahl" on Justia Law

J.T., a juvenile, was charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon for carrying a broken pistol in his waistband that was no longer capable of firing a round. J.T. was found delinquent. The Supreme Court vacated the finding of delinquency, holding (1) an inoperable pistol that is not used as a bludgeoning implement is not a “deadly weapon” for purposes of Ohio Rev. Code 2923.12, which prohibits carrying a concealed weapon; and (2) therefore, there was insufficient evidence in this case to support J.T.’s finding of delinquency for carrying a concealed weapon. View "In re J.T." on Justia Law

On May 4, 2015, Bernabei resigned as treasurer for three Democratic campaigns and filed his statement of candidacy and nominating petitions with the Stark County Board of Elections declaring his independent candidacy for Mayor of Canton. Nine protestors filed a protest against Bernabei’s candidacy. The Board of Elections members deadlocked on the protest. Secretary of State Jon Husted broke the tie in favor of certifying Bernabei’s independent candidacy for the November 2015 ballot. Relator, one of the protestors, filed the present suit for a writ of prohibition, asserting that Bernabei was not a genuine resident of Canton on the date he filed his nominating petitions and that he did not actually disaffiliate from the Democratic Party before filing his petitions. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) Relator was not entitled to a writ of prohibition based on an alleged residency defect; and (2) Realtor failed to demonstrate that he presented clear and convincing evidence on the disaffiliation question, that Husted abused his discretion, or that Husted acted in clear disregard of applicable law. View "State ex rel. Morris v. Stark County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

On May 4, 2015, Francis H. Cicchinelli Jr., who had a long history as a Democratic Party candidate and officeholder in the city of Massillon, filed a statement of candidacy and nominating petitions with the Stark County Board of Elections declaring his independent candidacy for Mayor of Massillon in the November 2015 election. Four protestors filed a protest of Cicchinelli’s candidacy. The Board of Elections members deadlocked on the protest. Secretary of State Jon Husted broke the tie in favor of certifying Cicchinelli’s independent candidacy for the November ballot. Relators, two of the protestors, filed suit in the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent Husted and the Board of Elections from placing Cicchinelli’s name on the ballot, arguing that Cicchinelli’s claim of independence could not have been made in good faith. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relators failed to present any evidence that the declaration was not made in good faith. View "State ex rel. Richards v. Stark County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the tax year 2008 valuation of an office-warehouse building in west Columbus. The Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) reduced the value assigned to the property from the $2,750,000 found by the auditor to the $1,520,000 advocated in an appraisal submitted by the property owner. The Columbus City Schools Board of Education (BOE) appealed. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the BTA, holding (1) alleged defects in the wording of the BTA’s decision do not establish it to be unreasonable or unlawful; (2) the BTA is not required to issue formal findings of fact and conclusions of law; (3) alleged errors in the appraisal furnish no basis for reversal; and (4) the BOE failed to satisfy its burden under the rule announced in Bedford Bd. of Educ. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision. View "Columbus City Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

In two separate criminal cases, Appellant was convicted of aggravated menacing and unauthorized use of property. Judge Albert S. Camplese presided over both cases. Appellant filed actions in prohibition against Judge Camplese in both cases, arguing that Judge Camplese lacked jurisdiction over both cases. The court of appeals dismissed both of Appellant’s complaints for prohibition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant has alternate remedies at law by way of appeal from the underlying convictions; (2) Judge Camplese did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over either case; and (3) there was no defect in the criminal complaints in either case. View "State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from an order of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio authorizing the East Ohio Gas Company (“Dominion”) to discontinue the availability of the “standard choice offer” for its nonresidential customers. In so doing, the Commission took another step toward deregulation of the company’s “commodity-sales services.” To take this step, the Commission modified one of its previous orders. Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy (OPAE), an advocacy group representing its members who are nonresidential customers of Dominion, appealed, arguing that the Commission lacked statutory authority and an evidentiary basis to modify its previous order and also erred in adopting a stipulation that OPAE did not sign. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s order, holding (1) Dominion was entitled to a modification of an exemption order under Ohio Rev. Code 4929.08(A); and (2) the order did not violate Ohio Rev. Code 4903.09. View "In re Application to Modify the Exemption Granted to E. Ohio Gas Co." on Justia Law

In 2011, Appellant purchased a two-family dwelling from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for $5,000. The Cuyahoga County fiscal officer valued the property at $126,800 for tax year 2011. Appellant sought a reduction to $30,000. The County Board of Revision retained the fiscal officer’s valuation. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the BTA acted unreasonably when it found that the property’s 2011 sale price was not the best evidence of its tax year 2011 value. Remanded with instructions that the $5,000 sale price be used as the property’s value for tax year 2011. View "Schwartz v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from two related class-action lawsuits that were first brought by Appellees almost fifteen years ago. Appellees sought damages from Appellants, Ganley Chevrolet and Ganley Management Company, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA). The trial court eventually certified a class of plaintiffs and ruled that all class members could recover damages. The trial court then ruled that Appellants violated the OCSPA and awarded damages to each class member. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order certifying the class without squarely addressing Appellants’ claim that there was no showing that all class members had suffered damages. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and vacated the trial court’s order certifying the class, holding (1) all members of a plaintiff class must have suffered injuries as a result of the conduct challenged in the suit; and (2) because the class certified in this case included plaintiffs whose damages were inchoate, the class as certified was inconsistent with the law. View "Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc." on Justia Law