Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Paula Eastley, as the administrator of the estate of her son, Steven Hieneman, filed an amended complaint against Dr. Paul Volkman and Tri-State Healthcare, LLC, the clinic where Volkman practiced, and Denise Huffman, doing business as Tri-State Health Care. The jury found that Volkman's medical malpractice and Huffman's negligence had proximately caused Hieneman's death, and the trial court entered judgment in Eastley's favor. The court of appeals affirmed. Although two of the three judges on the court found that based on an ordinary negligence theory, the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, a dissenting judge prevented a reversal by concluding that because Huffman had not renewed her motion for a directed verdict or filed a motion for new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, she had forfeited all but plain error review. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) when the evidence to be considered is in the court's record, motions are not required to challenge manifest weight of the evidence on appeal; and (2) in civil cases, the sufficiency of the evidence is quantitatively and qualitatively different from the weight of the evidence. Remanded for consideration of the issue based upon the appropriate standard. View "Eastley v. Volkman" on Justia Law

In this case the Supreme Court was asked to resolve a conflict between the second and seventh district courts of appeals concerning whether a certified police officer who was appointed chief of police in a township with less than 10,000 residents, a police department with less than ten officers, and no civil service commission had the automatic right upon termination to return to the position he held before his appointment as chief of police pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 505.49. The trial court concluded that Plaintiff, a former chief of police, had no right to return to the position in the police department that he held before his police chief appointment. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed based upon its reading of section 505.49, holding that the former chief of police had no automatic right to return to a position that he held prior to appointment. View "Blair v. Sugarcreek Township Bd. of Trustees" on Justia Law

After Employee, an electrician, received a work-related injury, Employee sought additional workers' compensation benefits, alleging that Employer committed a violation of a specific safety requirement (VSSR), which proximately caused his industrial injury. The requirement in question directs employers to supply protective apparatus to employees working on specified electrical equipment. A staff hearing officer (SHO) for the Industrial Commission of Ohio granted Employee's VSSR application after finding that Employer had violated Ohio Adm. Code 4123:1-5-12(A). Employer filed a complaint in mandamus, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in finding a VSSR. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Employer violated section 4123:1-5-12(A) because it did not supply Employee with protective equipment for the main breaker cabinet Employer worked on when he was injured. View "State ex rel. Glunt Indus., Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n" on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals stemmed from a general election on Issue 6 in Lake Township, Stark County, that approved expansion of the a police district to include all of Lake Township's unincorporated territory and levied a property tax for that purpose. The issue was approved by the voters. Subsequently, many of those who had voted in the election filed a petition contesting the election approving Issue 6 due to an error in ballot language and requesting that the election be set aside. The common pleas court entered a judgment granting the contest and setting aside the election result approving Issue 6, determining that the error in ballot language constituted an election irregularity and that the election irregularity made the election result on Issue 6 uncertain. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this case presented the extreme circumstances of a misstatement in ballot wording that understated a proposed tax levy by ten times less than the true amount to be collected, which misled the voters and affected the integrity of the election on Issue 6; and (2) based on the applicable law, the common pleas court did not err in granting the contest and setting aside the election. View "In re Election held on Stark County Issue Six" on Justia Law

Reporters for the Cincinnati Enquirer requested that the Cincinnati police department provide the newspaper with certain records related to a shootout at a local bar, including the names of the two police officers shot, their personnel files, and an unredacted copy of the incident report of the shootout. The Cincinnati police chief denied the requests insofar as the newspaper sought names and identifying information regarding the officers involved in the shootout. The Enquirer subsequently filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the police chief to make the requested records available for inspection and copying and seeking attorney fees. The court of appeals denied the writ and the request for attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not in denying the writ and request for attorney fees, as the requested identifying information of the police officers wounded in the shooting was exempted from disclosure under the Public Records Act by the constitutional right of privacy. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig" on Justia Law

Appellant Wesley Lloyd was convicted in Texas of aggravated sexual assault. Lloyd subsequently moved to Ohio. Lloyd was later convicted of several charges relating to his failure to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the offense for which Appellant was convicted in Texas was a sexually oriented offense under Ohio law because it is substantially equivalent to rape, a listed Ohio offense, and therefore, Appellant's offense triggered a duty to register in Ohio; but (2) because the State failed to prove that at the time Appellant moved to Ohio, he was under a duty to register in Texas as a result of his conviction for aggravated sexual assault, Appellant's convictions must be vacated. View "State v. Lloyd" on Justia Law

Appellee, AT&T Communications of Ohio, applied to the City of Cleveland for an income-tax refund for 1999 through 2002. Appellant, the City's income-tax administrator, denied AT&T's appeal in all respects, (1) dismissing AT&T's application for the refund for 1999 after finding that the statute of limitations on the request for a refund had expired, and (2) determining that any refund AT&T was claiming for 2000 through 2002 was offset in part by its other tax obligations. The board of income tax review reversed in part, determining that AT&T should receive the entire refund requested for the tax years 2000 through 2002. AT&T appealed. The court of common pleas reversed and entered judgment in favor of the administrator regarding AT&T's refund for 2000 through 2002. The court of appeals reversed the common pleas court's judgment, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the administrator's assignments of error because the administrator did not file a notice of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the administrator failed to perfect a separate appeal in the court of common pleas, the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to consider the administrator's assignments of error. View "AT&T Commc'ns of Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch" on Justia Law

This appeal involved two criminal cases against Mario Harris. In Harris I, Harris pleaded guilty to two offenses with forfeiture specifications. After the trial court imposed a sentence, Harris filed a motion for resentencing, which the court denied. The appellate court held that the trial court's denial of Harris's motion was not a final, appealable order because the sentencing court had failed to include the terms of forfeiture in the judgment of conviction. In Harris II, Harris pled guilty to an offense with an automobile-forfeiture specification. The trial court imposed a prison sentence and ordered the forfeiture. The court denied Harris's subsequent motion for resentencing. The appellate court held that the sentence was void because the trial court had failed to include a mandatory driver's license suspension as part of Harris's sentence. The Supreme Court consdoliated the cases and held (1) a journal entry of conviction need not include a related forfeiture in order to be a final appealable order; and (2) when a trial court fails to impose a mandatory driver's license suspension as part of an offender's sentence, that part of the sentence is void, and resentencing is limited to the imposition of the statutorily mandated term. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

Appellant, inmate Sidney Souffrance, petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel Appellee, the records custodian for the Life Skills Center of Cincinnati, a community school, to provide access to the attendance records, addresses, and telephone numbers of all students who were in a certain classroom during two specific months and to records indicating which computer terminal a specific student had used during one of those months. The court of appeals held that the disclosure of the requested records was barred by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although the record request related to persons who were no longer students, because the persons were students when the records were created and originally maintained, the records were subject to the nondisclosure provisions of FERPA. View "State ex rel. Souffrance v. Doe" on Justia Law

This personal-property-tax case came to the Supreme Court for the second time on appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). For tax year 2002, HealthSouth Corporation claimed that as a result of massive accounting fraud, it reported fictitious personal-property assets at its facilities in various Ohio taxing districts. HealthSouth subsequently filed an application for final assessment for 2002 in order to obtain from the tax commissioner a new assessment that would reduce the taxable value in various taxing districts by removing fictitious assets. The BTA reversed the commissioner's refusal to grant a reassessment, and the Supreme Court remanded with instructions for the BTA to complete its fact-finding. On remand, the BTA found that HealthSouth established that the denial of its refund request was improper and remanded to the commissioner for a determination of a reduced tax assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in its determination. View "HealthSouth Corp. v. Testa" on Justia Law