Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner pled guilty to various drug and weapons offenses and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. On February 17, the trial court issued an order granting 1,530 days of jail-time credit. On February 18, however, the court set aside the February 17 entry on the grounds that it had been inadvertent. Petitioner was ultimately resentenced to concurrent five-year sentences for the remaining offenses with 964 days of jail-time credit. Petitioner subsequently made the February 17 and February 18 entries the subject of numerous proceedings, including a habeas action, in which he claimed that he was entitled to the jail-time credit awarded him in the February 17 entry. Petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, making the same claim advanced in his earlier habeas petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the habeas action, holding (1) Petitioner had alternate remedies in the ordinary course of law to pursue relief on his claim; (2) res judicata barred Petitioner's claim; and (3) Petitioner's claim was invalid on the merits. View "Pruitt v. Cook" on Justia Law

Appellant purchased telephone and other telecommunications services from (intervening) Appellee at wholesale rates and resold the services to end-user consumers at retail rates. Appellant filed a complaint with the Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) alleging that Appellee had overcharged for its services and submitted inaccurate billing invoices to Appellant, among other things. PUCO denied the complaint, concluding that Appellant failed to submit sufficient credible evidence that Appellee had refused to issue credits for valid billing disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to carry its burden on appeal of demonstrating that PUCO's orders were unreasonable or unlawful. View "OHIOTELNET.COM, INC. v. Windstream Ohio, Inc." on Justia Law

Five income tax assessments were levied against Appellant for the tax years 2003-2007 for Appellant's failure to file returns. Appellant filed reassessment petitions, which the tax commissioner denied. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) dismissed Appellant's appeal, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to address the errors Appellant specified in his notices of appeal because those errors had not been raised before the tax commissioner. In so concluding, the BTA rejected another jurisdictional argument raised by the commissioner, namely, that because Appellant had not paid the assessment, the tax commissioner had lacked jurisdiction to hear Appellant's reassessment petitions. The BTA concluded, rather, that the prepayment provision of Ohio Rev. Code 5747.13(E)(3) was triggered by a failure to file tax returns and that Appellant had in fact filed returns for the tax years at issue. The Supreme Court reversed the BTA's ruling that the prepayment requirement did not apply in this case, vacated the remainder of the BTA's decision, and remanded with instructions that the reassessment petitions be dismissed for lack of prepayment. View "Abraitis v. Testa" on Justia Law

As a result of a surgery to remove a cyst at the lowest part of his spinal cord, Plaintiff permanently lost bladder, bowel, and sexual function. Plaintiff and his wife filed this action against Defendant, a neurosurgeon who diagnosed the cyst but who did not participate in the surgery. After a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment against Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred by admitting, over objection, as an exhibit an illustration from a learned treatise; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury a properly drafted interrogatory offered by Defendant; (3) the trial court erred by prohibiting Defendant from presenting evidence of "write-offs" to contest Plaintiffs' medical bills without a foundation of expert testimony on the reasonable value of the medical services rendered; and (4) the court's errors, taken together, deprived Defendant of a fair trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "Moretz v. Muakkassa" on Justia Law

A trust filed a valuation complaint seeking a reduction of a county auditor's valuation of a self-storage facility for the tax year 2008. The Groveport Madison Local Schools Board of Education (BOE) filed a countercomplaint requesting retention of the auditor's valuation. After a hearing, the County Board of Revision (BOR) ordered a reduction of the property value as requested by the trust. After the BOE appealed, the property was sold at a sheriff's sale. On appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals remanded with instructions that the BOR dismiss the valuation complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint misidentified the owner of the property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because there is no statutory requirement that a valuation complaint accurately identify the legal owner of the subject property, identification of the owner is not a jurisdictional prerequisite. Remanded. View "Groveport Madison Local Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts each of aggravated murder, attempted murder, and aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed capital punishment for aggravated murder an an aggregate term of twenty-six years' imprisonment for the noncapital offenses. The Supreme Court (1) reversed one of Defendant's aggravated murder convictions, the specifications related to that count, and the specification associated with the other aggravated murder charge because each of these counts and specifications required proof that Defendant was under detention at the time of the murder, and the original sentencing entry that placed Defendant under detention was void; and (2) affirmed the remaining convictions, the imposition of capital punishment in the other aggravated murder count, and the imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment on the noncapital offense convictions. View "State v. Wesson" on Justia Law

A public employer (Employer) and an employee organization representing the Employer's employees (Union) operated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. After the Union began negotiations for a successor contract, Employer held a board meeting during which Union representatives picketed outside the building. The picketing was related to the successor contract negotiations. Employer later filed an unfair-labor-practice charge with the State Employment Relations Board (SERB), alleging that the Union had violated the requirement of Ohio Rev. Code 4117.11(B)(8) that employee-union picketers give their employers and SERB ten days' notice before they engage in informational picketing. SERB found that the Union had committed an unfair labor practice by failing to give the required notice before picketing. The appellate court reversed, holding that the notice requirement was unconstitutional when applied to informational picketing. The Supreme Court affirmed, not on constitutional grounds but based on its statutory interpretation, holding (1) the notice requirement of section 4117.11(B)(8) does not apply to picketing that is merely informational in nature and unrelated to a concerted refusal to work; and (2) therefore, the statute did not apply to the picketing activity in this case, and the failure to give notice did not constitute an unfair labor practice. View "Mahoning Educ. Ass'n of Dev. Disabilities v. State Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court vacated the death sentence and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the trial court again sentenced Appellant to death. The Supreme Court against vacated Appellant's sentence of death, holding that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the trial court failed to consider relevant mitigating evidence contained in Appellant's allocution in sentencing her to death, and therefore, the court erred in sentencing Appellant to death. Remanded for consideration of Appellant's allocution when weighing the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating factors during resentencing. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Between 1987 and 2007, Appellant was convicted six times for different offenses. In 2007, the Governor granted a pardon for four of those convictions. Appellant subsequently sought to seal the records of three of the pardoned convictions. The lower courts denied Appellant's requests. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to have her record of conviction sealed solely by virtue of the pardon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in absence of a statutory provision requiring the sealing of a criminal record based on a pardon, a gubernatorial pardon does not automatically entitle the recipient to have the record of the pardoned conviction sealed. View "State v. Boykin" on Justia Law

Respondent, a candidate for county probate judge, was found to have violated former Jud. Cond. R. 4.4(E) for having received campaign contributions from judicial fundraising events during the judicial campaign that categorized or identified participants by the amount of the contribution made to the event. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended that no disciplinary sanction be imposed but that Respondent be ordered to pay the costs and a portion of the complainant's attorney fees. A commission of five judges appointed by the Supreme Court upheld that panel's judgment and ordered Respondent to pay a $1,000 fine, the costs of the proceeding, and a greater portion of attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent did not knowingly violate Jud. Cond. R. 4.4(E) and, even if Respondent's conduct constituted a technical violation of the rule, no sanction would be warranted in this case. View "In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Stormer" on Justia Law