Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case concerns an individual who pleaded guilty in 2004 to two counts of forgery, both fifth-degree felonies, after depositing counterfeit checks and withdrawing funds from a credit union. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent nine-month prison terms and ordered him to pay $2,663 in restitution to the victim, Mid-State Credit Union, and $408 in court costs. The sentencing entry specified that these amounts were entered as civil judgments. After serving his sentence and completing postrelease control, the individual applied in 2022 to have the record of his convictions sealed, though he had not paid the restitution.The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted the application to seal the records, despite the State’s objection that restitution remained unpaid. The State appealed, but the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court reasoned that because the restitution was entered “as a civil judgment,” it was not a criminal sanction that needed to be satisfied before the record could be sealed. The court further concluded that the civil judgment for restitution had become permanently dormant under debtor-protection laws, as it had not been revived within the statutory period.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that, regardless of how a restitution order is labeled in a sentencing entry, it remains a criminal sanction that is part of the sentence. Therefore, restitution must be paid before an offender is eligible to apply to have the record of conviction sealed. The court reversed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of the individual’s constitutional arguments. View "State v. T.W.C." on Justia Law

In 1996, the defendant pleaded guilty to several first-degree felonies, including rape, attempted aggravated murder, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary, for acts committed in 1995. The trial court imposed an aggregate indefinite prison sentence of 15 to 50 years under the sentencing laws in effect before July 1, 1996. Over the years, the defendant challenged aspects of his sentence and conviction, including the indefinite nature of his sentence and the lack of eligibility for judicial release, but these challenges were unsuccessful.After serving more than 26 years, the defendant filed a motion for judicial release under R.C. 2929.20 in December 2021, arguing that he was serving a “stated prison term” and had completed the mandatory portion of his sentence. The State of Ohio opposed the motion, asserting that the defendant was serving an indefinite sentence under pre-S.B. 2 law and was therefore ineligible for judicial release. The trial court granted the motion for judicial release, placing the defendant on community control, and the State appealed. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that amendments to R.C. 2929.20 had expanded eligibility for judicial release to include offenders serving nonmandatory sentences on or after April 7, 2009.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the definition of “eligible offender” for purposes of judicial release under R.C. 2929.20 includes only those serving a “stated prison term,” as defined in R.C. 2929.01. The court concluded that an offender serving an indefinite sentence imposed under pre-S.B. 2 law does not meet this definition and is therefore not eligible for judicial release. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the Seventh District Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court to deny judicial release. View "State v. Staffrey" on Justia Law

A company leased 24 properties from a landlord under separate agreements that included options to renew the leases for additional terms, provided the tenant gave written notice 120 days before expiration. The tenant successfully renewed twice, but in 2021, failed to send the required renewal notice to the landlord by the deadline. The landlord notified the tenant that the leases would terminate, and after unsuccessful negotiations for new leases, the tenant sought a court declaration that its late renewal was still effective, citing the significant value of improvements made to the properties.The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of the tenant, finding that equity could forgive the tenant’s “honest mistake” in missing the deadline and prevent forfeiture of the improvements. The court also found that the landlord’s acceptance of rent after the expiration of a tolling agreement estopped the landlord from terminating the leases. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on prior Ohio appellate decisions that allowed equitable relief for honest mistakes or even negligence if forfeiture would result and the landlord was not prejudiced.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Tenth District’s judgment. The court held that while equity may excuse a failure to comply with a lease renewal option in cases of fraud, accident, or mistake, it does not extend to negligence. The court clarified that “mistake” refers to a misapprehension of a basic assumption at contract formation, not a negligent failure to act. Because the tenant’s failure to timely exercise the renewal option was due to negligence, equitable relief was not warranted. The case was remanded to the Tenth District Court of Appeals to consider the landlord’s remaining arguments regarding equitable estoppel. View "Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman, Ltd. Partnership" on Justia Law

A limited partnership operating a timber farm in Monroe County, Ohio, purchased a Mercedes-Benz Geländewagen in 2018 for use on its rugged, 1,100-acre property, which is primarily forested. The farm, with a history dating back to 1902, had transitioned from fruit and dairy to timber production. The vehicle was acquired to facilitate forest management activities, including traversing difficult terrain to apply chemicals and equipment for the removal of invasive species, inspect timber, and support sustainable harvesting practices. The farm had not reported timber sales or income since 2011, but had invested in forest management and hired consultants to implement long-term plans for sustainable timber production.The Ohio Tax Commissioner issued a use-tax assessment on the vehicle, finding that the farm was not actively engaged in the business of farming due to the absence of recent sales or income, and that the vehicle was not used directly or primarily in farming activities. The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed the assessment, concluding that the vehicle was used mainly for transportation around the property rather than for direct farming purposes, and that the farm had not demonstrated the vehicle’s primary use was for farming.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision. The court held that the statutory exemption for use tax on items used in farming does not require “direct” use, and that the farm’s activities—including forest management and preparation for future timber sales—constituted engagement in the business of farming. The court found that the vehicle was used in farming and primarily for that purpose, based on uncontradicted testimony. The case was remanded for cancellation of the tax assessment. View "Claugus Family Farm, L.P. v. Harris" on Justia Law

A company constructed and operated a large interstate natural gas pipeline running through Ohio, which was completed in late 2018. The project’s actual construction costs significantly exceeded initial estimates due to unusually heavy rainfall causing delays and an environmental incident that led to regulatory actions and further delays. During construction, an investment firm acquired a substantial indirect ownership interest in the pipeline’s parent company, paying a price that implied a high valuation for the pipeline.For the 2019 tax year, the Ohio Tax Commissioner assessed the taxable value of the Ohio portion of the pipeline using a statutory cost-based method, resulting in a valuation that the company believed was excessive. The company challenged the assessment, arguing that the pipeline’s true value was much lower, citing alternative appraisal methods and the impact of construction delays and overruns. The Tax Commissioner rejected these arguments, maintaining that the statutory method produced the correct value.The company appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, where both parties presented expert appraisals. The company’s appraiser used a unit appraisal approach and arrived at a lower value, while the Tax Commissioner’s appraiser, using both cost and income approaches, opined a higher value. The Board found the Tax Commissioner’s appraisal more credible, especially in light of the investment firm’s transaction and the actual construction costs, and ordered the pipeline to be valued according to that appraisal.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed whether the Board’s decision was reasonable and lawful. The court held that the Board has broad discretion in weighing competing appraisals and evidence, and that its adoption of the Tax Commissioner’s appraisal was supported by the record. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, upholding the higher valuation for tax purposes. View "Rover Pipeline, L.L.C. v. Harris" on Justia Law

A man who had attended elementary school with a woman, but had never been friends or even acquaintances with her, began contacting her more than a decade later. The woman, A.P., posted on her public Instagram account for her 29th birthday, and the man, Dorian Crawl, commented with a “sad emoji” and a message expressing affection and a desire to meet. A.P. did not respond. Days later, Crawl commented again on another post, asking if the video showed her house. Less than a month after these online interactions, Crawl appeared uninvited at A.P.’s apartment, knocked on her door, identified himself as her “friend,” and turned the doorknob. A.P., frightened, locked the door, hid her daughter, and called the police. Crawl later admitted to police that he had found A.P.’s address online and continued to message her even after being confronted by law enforcement. A.P. testified that these events caused her significant anxiety and changes to her daily life.The Miamisburg Municipal Court found Crawl guilty of menacing by stalking under R.C. 2903.211(A)(1). On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Crawl’s pattern of conduct—including the social media messages and the uninvited visit—along with A.P.’s testimony about her mental distress, was sufficient to support the conviction.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals. The court held that, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of menacing by stalking were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court clarified that explicit threats, a prior relationship, or notice from the victim are not required to establish the offense. The court concluded that Crawl’s actions constituted a pattern of conduct, caused mental distress, and were done knowingly. View "State v. Crawl" on Justia Law

A resident of Lucas County, along with his nephews, was involved in a drug-selling enterprise known as the Tecumseh Street Gang, which operated primarily on the 800 block of Tecumseh Street in Toledo. The group was a subset of a larger gang, the Southside Gangster Disciples. Law enforcement, using a confidential informant, discovered that a woman named Armijo was distributing cocaine for the Tecumseh Street Gang. On several occasions, Armijo purchased cocaine from one of the nephews in Lucas County and then traveled to Henry County to resell the drugs. She often bought the drugs on credit, keeping a portion of the profits after paying the supplier.The defendant was charged in the Henry County Court of Common Pleas with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. At trial, he argued that venue was improper in Henry County because Armijo was not part of the same enterprise. The trial court denied his motion for acquittal, and the jury found him guilty, also finding that venue was proper. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, concluding that the evidence supported the finding that Armijo was associated with the same enterprise and that her activities in Henry County established proper venue.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case to determine whether venue in Henry County was appropriate for prosecuting the defendant under R.C. 2923.32. The court held that venue was proper in any county where a member of the enterprise conducted activity on behalf of the enterprise, even if the defendant himself did not act there. The court found sufficient evidence that Armijo was associated with the enterprise and that her drug sales in Henry County were part of its activities. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Lori Elmore and the City of Whitehall filed a protest against the candidacy of Holly Stein for the Ward 4 seat on the Whitehall City Council, arguing that Stein did not meet the two-year residency requirement specified in Section 3(a) of the Whitehall Charter. Stein had filed her declaration of candidacy in January 2025, but Elmore contended that Stein had not lived in Ward 4 for the two years immediately preceding the election, as required by the charter. Stein admitted to living outside Ward 4 in 2023 but argued that the charter only required her to have lived in Ward 4 for any two-year period before the election.The Franklin County Board of Elections held a hearing on Elmore’s protest in March 2025 and ultimately denied the protest, allowing Stein’s name to remain on the ballot. Elmore and the City of Whitehall then sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Ohio to prevent the board from placing Stein’s name on the ballot.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and determined that the phrase “next preceding” in Section 3(a) of the Whitehall Charter means “immediately preceding.” The court concluded that the two-year residency requirement applies to both ward and at-large candidates for the Whitehall City Council. Since Stein did not meet this requirement, the court held that the board’s denial of Elmore’s protest was unauthorized by law. Consequently, the court granted the writ of prohibition, preventing the board from placing Stein’s name on the November 4, 2025 general-election ballot. View "State ex rel. Elmore v. Franklin County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

Seven petitions were filed with the Lucas County Board of Elections to recall the mayor and six members of the Maumee city council under R.C. 705.92. The board found the petitions valid and certified the recall questions for a special primary election. The City of Maumee and a citizen, Glenn Rambo, protested, arguing that the city’s charter does not provide for recall, R.C. 705.92 does not apply to the city, and the petitions did not comply with the statute. The board denied the protests.The relators sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the board from placing the recall questions on the ballot and a writ of mandamus to order the board to grant their protests. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court found that Maumee’s charter allows for the removal of elected officials as provided by the Constitution or laws of Ohio, but R.C. 705.92 does not apply to Maumee because it was not adopted under R.C. 705.03. The court held that the board erred in deeming R.C. 705.92 applicable to Maumee.The Supreme Court of Ohio granted the writ of prohibition, preventing the board from placing the recall questions on the ballot, and denied the writ of mandamus as moot. The court concluded that the recall procedure in R.C. 705.92 is not generally applicable to municipalities and can only be adopted as part of a statutory plan of government under R.C. 705.03, which Maumee did not do. View "State ex rel. Maumee v. Lucas County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

An inmate, Thomas Clark, filed a mandamus action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) seeking copies of electronic kites he sent to prison staff while incarcerated at the North Central Correctional Complex (NCCC) and the Lebanon Correctional Institution (LCI). He also requested a copy of the chow-hall menu from LCI. Clark claimed that his requests were not fulfilled and sought $2,000 in statutory damages and court costs.The lower court proceedings involved Clark sending public-records requests to LCI staff. The LCI staff forwarded his request for NCCC kites to the appropriate person at NCCC, but Clark did not receive a response. For the chow-hall menu request, LCI staff directed Clark to obtain the menu from his unit manager, which Clark did not do. Clark then filed this mandamus action.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that Clark was entitled to a writ of mandamus for his request for the NCCC kites because LCI staff had forwarded his request to NCCC, and NCCC did not respond. The court held that DRC must provide Clark with the requested NCCC kites. However, the court denied the writ for the chow-hall menu request, as LCI staff had properly directed Clark to the appropriate person to obtain the menu. The court awarded Clark $1,000 in statutory damages for the NCCC kites request but denied his request for court costs. The court also denied Clark's motion for leave to file rebuttal evidence. View "State ex rel. Clark v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction" on Justia Law