Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case arose because the settlement of a personal-injury suit brought by a recipient of workers' compensation benefits against a third-party tortfeasor did not make any provision to repay the statutory subrogee, the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation. The Bureau brought suit against both the recipient of the workers' compensation benefits and third-party tortfeasor under Ohio Rev. Code 4123.931(G) to recover the full amount of its subrogation interest. The trial court held that a two-year limitations period applied and that it had expired. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a six-year limitations period applied and that it had not yet run out. At issue on appeal was whether a claim under section 4123.931(G) brought by a statutory subrogee to recover its subrogation interest is subject to a two-year statute of limitations, the same period applicable to the injured worker's personal-injury suit against the third party, or to a six-year statute of limitations for an action on a liability created by statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that the claim in this case was an action upon a liability created by statute and that the statute of limitations was six years. View "Ohio Bureau of Workers Comp. v. McKinley" on Justia Law

The South Euclid City Council enacted an ordinance that amended the zoning for certain property. Relators, city residents, filed a referendum petition seeking submission of the ordinance to the city's electorate. The city council denied the petition because Relators had not filed a certified copy of the ordinance with the city's finance director. Relators then filed the present action, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the city council clerk to determine the referendum petition was valid, to compel the clerk to communicate that determination to the city council, and to compel the city council to repeal the ordinance or submit it to the electors. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that Relators established their entitlement to the requested relief as (1) the clerk of council and city council abused their discretion and disregarded Ohio Rev. Code 731.32 by determining that Relators had not complied with the statute by filing a copy of the ordinance with the clerk of council instead of the city's director of finance; and (2) the ordinance was not exempt from referendum even though it contained an emergency declaration. View "State ex rel. Julnes v. S. Euclid City Council" on Justia Law

Appellants, PNH Inc. and Ronald Creatore, filed an action against Alfa Laval Flow, Inc., which manufactures equipment for sanitary processing of food and beverages, for abuse of process and tortious interference with a contract. Appellants asserted that Alfa Laval Flow misused an involuntary-bankruptcy case it filed against its distributor in an effort to eliminate Creatore as a competitor in the sale of equipment for sanitary processing of food and beverages. The trial court dismissed the claims. The Seventh District affirmed, holding that federal law preempts state-law causes of action alleging the abuse of bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the United States Bankruptcy Code preempts state-law claims that allow the recovery of damages for misconduct committed by a litigant during bankruptcy proceedings. View "PNH, Inc. v. Alfa Laval Flow, Inc." on Justia Law

Richard Haig, a loan officer who was not an attorney, prepared pleadings that his customers filed in two foreclosure cases before the court of common pleas. Relator, the county bar association, charged that Haig committed the unauthorized practice of law and recommended injunctive relief. The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law concluded that Haig's actions voilated Ohio's licensure requirements. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Haig engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The Court enjoined Haig from any future conduct constituting the authorized practice of law, including the preparation of legal documents for others, but did not impose a civil penalty in light of Haig's cooperation with the investigation of his misconduct and his apparent lack of awareness that his conduct was improper. View "Geauga County Bar Ass'n v. Haig" on Justia Law

Edward Lang was convicted of the aggravated murder of two persons and aggravated robbery, with each count carrying gun specifications. Lang was sentenced to death for one murder and life with no possibility of parole for the other murder. The trial court also imposed a ten-year term of imprisonment for the aggravated-robbery conviction and a three-year term for the gun specifications, which it had merged for sentencing. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Lang's convictions and sentences of death and life without parole despite Lang's mental illness and history of abuse, but (2) remanded for the proper imposition of postrelease control pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2929.91 on Lang's sentence for aggravated robbery. View "State v. Lang" on Justia Law

Michael Pruitt filed writs of mandamus and prohibition to compel Appellees, common pleas court judges, to vacate his convictions and sentence. Pruitt argued that the common pleas court erred in entering a sentence that incorrectly stated that Pruitt had entered pleas of guilty to having a weapon while under disability and to a firearm specification relating to an attempted-murder charge. The court of appeals dismissed Pruitt's claims, noting that all of the cases cited by Pruitt were resolved in the ordinary course of law by appeal rather than in an action for an extraordinary writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed Pruitt's claims as Pruitt had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law to raise his claims. View "State ex rel. Pruitt v. Common Court of Pleas" on Justia Law

The Liberty Township board of trustees approved a zoning amendment that rezoned three parcels of township land. Subsequently, a group of petitioners filed a referendum petition seeking to submit the board's action approving the rezoning of the property to the electors of the township. Relators, the owner of the property at issue, the developer of the property, and the developer company's president, submitted a protest to the county board of elections against the referendum petition. The board certified the referendum petition and placed the rezoning issue on the general-election ballot and rejected Relators' protest grounds. Relators then filed this action for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus to compel the board to sustain their protest. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, holding that the board of elections abused its discretion by denying Relators' protest, certifying the referendum petition, and submitting the zoning amendment to the electorate because the petitioners did not timely file their referendum petition pursuant to statute. View "State ex rel. Edwards Land Co., Ltd. v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Virginia King was injured in an automobile accident and was treated for her injuries at Toledo Hospital. Although King informed the hospital staff that she was covered by a health-insuring corporation, the hospital billed King's automobile insurer for the services rendered. King sued the hospital and ProMedica Health System (Appellants). Each of King's causes of action was based on the claim that Appellants violated Ohio Rev. Code. 1751.60(A) by billing the automobile insurer instead of the health-insuring corporation. Section 1751.60(A) stated that every provider that contracts with a health-insuring corporation to provide health-care services to an insured shall seek payment solely from the corporation. The trial court granted Appellants' motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals reversed. At issue on appeal was whether section 1751.60(A) prohibited a provider from seeking payment for medical treatment rendered to an insured injured in an automobile accident from the insured's automobile insurance medical benefits. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) section 1751.60(A) applies only when a health-care provider seeks payment from an insured, and (2) section 1751.60(A) does not conflict with Ohio's law on the coordination of insurance benefits. View "King v. ProMedica Health Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Five companies entered into special contracts with the Toledo Edison Company for the sale of electricity. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) established February 2008 as the termination date for the contracts, basing its finding on the language of the special contracts and its orders in earlier electric-deregulation cases. Appellants challenged the decision, contending (1) Toledo Edison agreed in 2001 that the contracts would not terminate until Toledo Edison stopped collecting regulatory-transition charges from its customers, and (2) December 31, 2008 was the date when Toledo Edison stopped collecting regulatory-transition charges. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the PUCO ignored the plain language of the 2001 amendments to Appellants' special contracts, and accordingly, the PUCO unlawfully and unreasonably allowed Toledo Edison to terminate the special contracts in February 2008. View "Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, L.L.C. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n " on Justia Law

Christopher Barker pleaded guilty to five counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. On appeal, Barker argued that the entry of his no-contest plea was not voluntary, intelligent, and knowing because the trial judge had failed to fully comply with the requirements of Ohio R. Crim. P. 11(C) when the judge told Barker that by entering the plea he was giving up the "right to call witnesses to speak on his behalf." The court of appeals agreed and reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court's admonition to Barker was insufficient to satisfy the constitutional mandate to compulsory process. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding (1) the language employed by the trial court while addressing Barker was a reasonable explanation of Barker's right to compulsory process, and (2) other portions of the record may be referenced in resolving an alleged ambiguity such as the one here during the oral colloquy. View "State v. Barker" on Justia Law