Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant filed a complaint against the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. A magistrate with the Ohio Court of Claims recommended judgment in favor of the Department. Appellant filed objections to the factual findings in the magistrate’s report and recommendation, but his objections did not include a transcript or affidavit as required by Ohio R. Civ. P. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). The Court of Appeals entered judgment in favor of the Department. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and also filed a proposed Ohio R. App. P. 9(C) statement of facts in the court of claims. The court of claims rejected the proposed App.R. 9(C) statement and accepted the magistrate’s factual findings as the statement of the evidence. Appellant failed to file his brief in the appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed Appellant’s appeal. Appellant then commenced this mandamus action to compel the court of claims to settle and approve his Rule 9(C) statement and transmit it to the Court of Appeals as a supplemental record. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant waived his appeal as to the magistrate’s findings by failing to follow the procedures set forth in Rule 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). View "State ex rel. Pallone v. Ohio Court of Claims" on Justia Law

Appellant, an editor for a campus publication, requested criminal reports of persons whose cases had been referred, presumably by the Otterbein University police department (“the department”), to the Westerville Mayor’s Court. The department denied the request, stating that it was not subject to the Public Records Act because Otterbein is a private university. Appellant subsequently filed this action in mandamus seeking an order directing Respondent, the chief of the department, to produce the requested records. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) the department is a public office because its officers are sworn, state-certified police officers who exercise plenary police power; and (2) therefore, the department can be compelled to produce public records. View "State ex rel. Schiffbauer v. Banaszak" on Justia Law

Appellant alleged that between 2000 and 2001 two employees of the Department of Youth Services (DYS) sexually abused her while she was in custody of a juvenile correctional facility. In 2012, Appellant filed a complaint against DYS. DYS moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, asserting that Appellant’s complaint was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for civil actions against the state set forth in Ohio Rev. Code 2743.16(A). The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, concluding that Appellant’s claims were barred because she filed her complaint more than two years after reaching the age of majority. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the twelve-year statute of limitations set forth in Ohio Rev. Code 2305.111(C), which pertains to actions brought by victims of childhood sexual abuse, rather than the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Ohio Rev. Code 2743.16(A), which pertains to civil actions filed against the state, applied to Appellant’s claims. Remanded. View "Watkins v. Dep’t of Youth Servs." on Justia Law

The City of Cincinnati owned several golf courses that were operated under a management contract by a private, for-profit contractor. Paul Macke, a private golf-course operator who owned taxable real property, challenged the ongoing exemption of the golf courses as public property used exclusively for a public purpose in complaints filed in 2009 and 2010. In each case, the tax commissioner granted the complaint and denied exemption. The City appealed. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) consolidated the cases and reversed the tax commissioner’s denial of exemptions. The tax commissioner appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully by determining that the City did not forfeit its exemption under Ohio Rev. code 5709.08(A) when it hired a private management company to manage its golf courses. View "City of Cincinnati v. Testa" on Justia Law

Appellant, a retired professional football player, was employed by the Indiana Colts of the National Football League (NFL) during the taxable year of 2008. During the 2008 season, Appellant neither played in nor attended the one game the Colts played in Cleveland. The Colts nevertheless withheld an amount of Cleveland municipal income tax from Appellant’s 2008 compensation and paid it to the city. Appellant sought from Cleveland’s tax administration authority a refund of income tax withheld and remitted to Cleveland for tax year 2008, arguing that the city had no authority to impose its tax on the income of a nonresident who did not work within Cleveland’s city limits during the taxable year. Appellant’s claim for a full refund was denied. The City of Cleveland Board of Review and the Board of Tax Appeals upheld the denial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Cleveland lacked authority under its city ordinance and its regulations to impose a tax on Appellant’s income, given that none of the services for which he was compensated were performed in Cleveland during 2008. Remanded with instructions that Appellant be granted a full refund of Cleveland municipal income tax paid for 2008. View "Saturday v. Cleveland Bd. of Review" on Justia Law

Appellant, a former linebacker for the Chicago Bears, filed applications for refunds of income taxes paid to Cleveland for tax years 2004 through 2006. A nonresident of Cleveland, Appellant asserted that Cleveland had adopted an unlawful method of computing the amount of his compensation that was subject to its city income tax. Appellant’s applications were denied. The City of Cleveland Board of Review and the Board of Tax Appeals upheld the denials. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that although Cleveland has the right to tax the compensation earned by a nonresident professional athlete for his work performed in Cleveland, the city’s method of allocating income violates the due-process rights of National Football League players such as Appellant. View "Hillenmeyer v. Cleveland Bd. of Review" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of retaliation, criminal damaging, vandalism, criminal trespass, possessing criminal tools, and ten counts of pandering. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress information found on his computer. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the affidavit provided a substantial basis for concluding that evidence of criminal activity would be found there. The Supreme court reversed, holding (1) the search warrant was not supported not supported by probable cause, and (2) the search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment requirement of particularity, thereby rendering invalid the search of Defendant’s computer. View "State v. Castagnola" on Justia Law

In 1979, Appellant was charged in juvenile court in five cases. In each case, the juvenile court held a bindover hearing and transferred the case to the common pleas court. Appellant was convicted in three of the five cases. In 2013, Appellant filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo and/or mandamus in the court of appeals, asserting that the bindovers were invalid because they had not been signed by a judge or journalized by the court’s clerk. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant had adequate remedies at law in three cases, the issue was res judicata as to four cases, and no meaningful relief was available in the fifth case. View "State ex rel. McCuller v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

In 1975, Appellant was convicted of premeditated murder and felony murder and was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment. Appellant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Appellant filed various postconviction motions and petitions without success. In 2014, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the courts should have conducted a merger analysis and sentenced him for only one crime. The court of appeals dismissed the petition for mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s claim was res judicata because the final judgments in Appellant’s previous motions and appeals were conclusive as to Appellant’s claims. View "State ex rel. Robinson v. Huron County Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant pled guilty to burglary. The trial judge sentenced Defendant to five years of community control and warned him that a violation of community control would result in an eight-year prison sentence. In 2011, the judge found Defendant in violation of the terms of community control and ordered the sentence into execution. The next day, the judge issued a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying her intent to sentence Defendant to prison for eight years. Defendant later filed this action for a writ of mandamus, claiming he was entitled to a writ to compel the trial judge to place him on community control or repentance him because the nunc pro tunc sentencing order was invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate a legal right to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Davis v. Saffold" on Justia Law