Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On August 5, 2014, Relators submitted a petition to the clerk of council to amend the charter of the City of Maple Heights by limiting the use of photo-monitoring devices to enforce traffic laws. On August 18, 2014, the director of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections certified that the part-petitions contained sufficient valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. The city council, however, took no action on the petition. On August 25, 2014, Relators this expedited election action in the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the City and its city council to pass an ordinance placing the charter-amendment initiative on the November 4, 2014 ballot. On September 3, 2014, council referred the matter to the Committee as a whole but failed to schedule a vote on the matter. The Supreme Court granted the writ, as the city council failed to submit the charter-amendment initiative “forthwith” as required by the Ohio Constitution. View "State ex rel. Comm. for Charter Amendment Petition v. City of Maple Heights" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant, his employer, signed a written employment agreement detailing the terms of Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendant. Plaintiff later ceased working for Defendant, believing he had been fired. Defendant, however, believed that Plaintiff had resigned. Plaintiff’s termination became the subject of binding arbitration. The arbitration panel concluded that Plaintiff had been terminated for reasons other than cause and ordered Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff “to the position he held prior to his wrongful termination.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) specific performance is not an available remedy for breach of an employment contract unless it is explicitly provided for in the contract or by an applicable statute; and (2) the arbitration panel in this case exceeded its authority by holding otherwise, as the contract clearly did not entitle Plaintiff to reinstatement. Remanded. View "Cedar Fair, L.P. v. Falfas" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent Appellees, a judge and magistrate on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, from exercising jurisdiction over a foreclosure action filed against a client that Appellant represented. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, concluding that Appellant lacked standing and that Appellant could not prevail on the merits even if he did have standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant lacked standing to bring this case, as lawyers do not have standing to bring claims in their own names based on violations of their clients’ rights. View "State ex rel. Wood v. McClelland" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to aggravated murder and related charges. A three-judge panel sentenced Defendant to death on the capital charge and to various prison terms for the noncapital offenses. The Supreme Court twice vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing. After the three-judge panel issued a new sentencing entry, Defendant appealed, raising five propositions of law. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) discovery was not improperly denied following the second; (2) the panel did not impose consecutive terms of postrelease control; and (3) the remainder of Defendant’s arguments were barred by res judicata. View "State v. Ketterer" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the trial court concluded that Husband’s unvested military benefits could not be divided because the military retirement benefits were a “mere expectancy.” The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that there was no need to decide whether unvested pension benefits were a marital asset because there was insufficient evidence regarding Husband’s retirement benefits to require division of the asset. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the unvested military retirement benefits earned during the marriage fell within the definition of marital property in Ohio Rev. Code 3105.171(A)(3)(a) and must be considered for division under section 3105.171(C); and (2) the trial court had enough information in this case to make an equitable division of the benefits. Remanded.View "Daniel v. Daniel" on Justia Law

In 2008, Appellant was sentenced after pleading guilty to sixteen counts of breaking and entering and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. The 2008 sentencing order was superseded by two subsequent orders, including a resentencing order. In 2013, Appellant filed an original action seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the common pleas court judge to resentence him, arguing that his first sentencing order was void based on five defects. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish any defect in his current sentence and therefore failed to show he had a legal right to a new sentencing hearing. View "State ex rel. Kirkpatrick v. Rice" on Justia Law

Appellants owned the mineral rights and the State owned the surface rights to a certain tract of land. When the property was transferred to the State, the seller reserved all mineral rights and “reasonable surface right privileges.” Appellants filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that they were entitled to surface-mine a reasonable portion of the property. The court of common pleas granted summary judgment for the State, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the contract entitled Appellants to surface-mine the property, subject to the reasonableness standard of the contract. Remanded. View "Snyder v. Ohio Dep’t of Natural Res." on Justia Law

Thomas Brown ran unsuccessfully to become the Democratic nominee for a seat on the Ashtabula County common pleas court in the Democratic Party primary election. Brown subsequently filed nominating petitions to be a judicial candidate on the Ashtabula County Western Area Court in the general election. The Ashtabula County Board of Elections (Board) rejected Brown’s petitions based on the ballot-access restrictions set forth in Ohio Rev. Code 3513.04. Relators, including Brown, subsequently sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Board and its director (collectively, Respondents) to certify Brown’s candidacy for the Western Area Court, asserting that section 3513.04 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relators failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality and failed to demonstrate that section 3513.04 is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State ex rel. Brown v. Ashtabula County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

William Glick filed a class action suit against Raymond Wohl, in his official capacity of the clerk of the municipal court, among other defendants, seeking declaratory and equitable relief related to Glick's municipal court sentences he alleged to be void for imposing unlawfully excessive court costs. The common pleas court determined that Glick’s class action against Wohl was viable, declared that multiple costs assessed against Glick as part of his sentence were unlawful, and held that Glick and other class members who had been assessed unlawful costs were owed a refund. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the class action was not viable, and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Wohl. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the relief requested by Glick in his class action was in substance a request to vacate a portion of a judgment of the municipal court; and (2) because a court of common pleas has no power to vacate an order rendered by a municipal court, summary judgment should have been granted in favor of Wohl. Remanded. View "Lingo v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of a number of offenses, including two counts of aggravated murder with capital specifications. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed several post-trial motions, including motions for resentencing and a new trial, to no avail. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of procedendo to order the judge of the county court of common pleas to resentence him and to issue a final, appealable sentencing order in his criminal case. The court of appeals dismissed the motion on the basis of res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of procedendo because he raised these same issues before and had an adequate remedy by way of appeal in previous cases.View "State ex rel. Williams v. Hunter" on Justia Law