Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting Appellee's requested writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to reinstate an order of its staff hearing officer denying Appellee's request for temporary total disability (TTD) compensation, holding that Appellee demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief requested and a clear legal duty on the Commission's part to provide that relief.In granting the writ, the court of appeals concluded that the Commission incorrectly applied the law of voluntary abandonment, as set forth in State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co., 1993 N.E.3d 386. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied the law of voluntary abandonment as it related to Appellant's request for TTD compensation. View "State ex rel. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n" on Justia Law

In proceedings involving divorce and domestic-violence-civil-protection-order (DVCPO) cases that had been pending for more than five years the Supreme Court denied M.D.'s motion to enforce this Court's writ of procedendo but granted his alternative request to declare M.A.D. a vexatious litigator under Sup. Ct. Prac. R. 4.03(B), holding that M.A.D. had persistently engaged in frivolous conduct in the Supreme Court without reasonable cause.Previously, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and granted M.D. a writ of procedendo ordering Judge Reeve Kelsey to rule on pending motions and to proceed promptly to final hearings in the underlying cases. M.D. moved to enforce the writ or, alternatively, to declare M.A.D. a vexatious litigator. The Supreme Court denied the motion to enforce but granted M.D.'s request to declare M.A.D. a vexatious litigator under Rule 4.03(B), holding that M.A.D.'s filings were calculated attempts to prevent Judge Kelsey's compliance with the previously-issued writ of procedendo. View "State ex rel. M.D. v. Kelsey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Relators ordering Secretary of State Frank LaRose to remove a proposed constitutional amendment (SJR 2) from the August 8, 2023 special election ballot, holding that Ohio Const. art. XVI, 1 authorizes the General Assembly to prescribe a special election on a specific date by joint resolution.SJR 2 proposed to amend the Ohio Constitution to require a vote of at least sixty percent of Ohio electors to approve any constitutional amendment and to modify the procedures for an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment. The Secretary issued a directive to all county boards of elections instructing them to prepare to hold a special election on August 8. Thereafter, Relators brought this action opposing the constitutional amendment proposed in SJR 2. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the August 8, 2023 special election called in SJR 2 was authorized by Ohio Const. Art. XVI, 1. View "State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a writ of mandamus challenging the decision of the Ohio General Assembly placing a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot for a special election to be held on August 8, 2023, holding that a writ was warranted in part.In May 2023, the Ohio General Assembly passed a joint resolution to place to placed a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot for a special election. Relators filed this original action against Secretary of State Frank LaRose and the Ohio Ballot Board arguing that the ballot language and title of the proposed amendment were incomplete and misleading. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part, holding that LaRose's use of the word "any" in reference to "constitutional amendment" in the ballot title was likely to mislead voters, and the ballot board shall reconvene to adopt lawful ballot language that accurately characterizes and explains the definition of "electors" in reference to the petition signature requirements in the proposed amendment. View "State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that there was not an enforceable settlement agreement between Jack Marchbanks, director of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Ice House Ventures, LLC, Lion Management Services, LLC, and Smokestack Ventures, LLC (collectively, IHV), holding that there was an enforceable settlement agreement.IHV and ODOT entered into the settlement agreement at issue related to an appropriation proceeding resulting from ODOT's exercise of eminent domain over property owned by IHV. The trial court granted IHV's motion to enforce the agreed judgment entry on the settlement and awarded damages to IHV. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement because there was no meeting of the minds on a material term of the settlement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that ODOT did not show by clear and convincing evidence that it was entitled to rescission of the agreement or that any lack of understanding about the term "damages" in the agreement rendered it unenforceable. View "Marchbanks v. Icehouse Ventures, LLC" on Justia Law

In this action arising from an initiative petition proposing a constitutional amendment entitled "The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety" the Supreme Court held that Relators, registered Ohio voters, were not entitled to a writ of mandamus.The Ohio Ballot Board and its members determined that the initiative petition proposed a single constitutional amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would protect an individual's "right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions." Relators commenced this action ordering the Board to issue a determination that the petition contained more than one amendment. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the ballot board did not abuse its discretion or disregard applicable law in determining that petition at issue contained a single constitutional amendment. View "State ex rel. DeBlase v. Ohio Ballot Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellants' action for a writ of prohibition against Appellees - Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas Judge Marianne Sezon and Clerk of Court April Daniels - and denied Appellants' motion for oral argument, holding that Appellants failed to state a claim upon which a writ of prohibition could be granted.In a forcible entry and detainer action Judge Sezon ordered Appellants to vacate the premises at issue. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement, but Appellants did not vacate the premises by the agreed-upon date. The underlying plaintiff subsequently moved for a writ of restitution. Appellants filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The court of appeals denied and dismissed the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Judge Sezon did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over the postjudgment proceedings before her. View "State ex rel. Allenbaugh v. Sezon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals denying Appellant's action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Parole Board to reinstate his parole and hold a new revocation hearing, holding that there was no error.Appellant was released on parole in 2019 after his incarceration for murder and other crimes. He was subsequently arrested for violating the terms of his parole. After a hearing, the Ohio Parole Board revoked Appellant's parole, finding that he had engaged in sexual contact with a woman without her consent. The Tenth District denied Appellant's subsequent petition seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the parole board to reinstate his parole and hold a new revocation hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not show by clear and convincing evidence that he was entitled to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Cartwright v. Ohio Adult Parole Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the common pleas court judge who sentenced him to correct what he alleged was an illegal sentence, holding that a court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard before taking notice of facts contained in another court's dockets and relying on those facts to sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25.Appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus arguing that his sentence for attempted murder with specifications was unlawful. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Appellant had failed to comply with section 2969.25(A). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred by consulting the record of another case in another court to determine the accuracy of Appellant's section 2969.25(A) and by dismissing Appellant's complaint based on information it obtained without first giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard. View "State ex rel. Roush v. Hickson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the Madison Correctional Institution, holding that the court of appeals correctly denied Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.Appellant was convicted of rape, felonious sexual penetration, and gross sexual imposition. Appellant later filed the complaint for a writ of habeas corpus at issue in this case, alleging that the trial court had sentenced him for an offense when it lacked jurisdiction to do so and, alternatively, that the trial court failed to impose a judgment that satisfied the requirements of Crim.R. 32. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Appellant's motion for transcripts and journal entires, holding that Appellant's propositions of law were either waived or that Appellant's remedy did not lie in habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Haddix v. Warden" on Justia Law