Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

A couple contracted to buy a lakefront home with the intention of demolishing it and building a new one. They later discovered a publicly recorded sewer line running through the property, which was not listed on the seller's disclosure form. Believing the sewer line would interfere with their construction plans, they attempted to back out of the deal, leading to litigation.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the seller, finding that the sewer easement was publicly recorded and that the buyers had constructive notice of its existence. The court also found no evidence that the sewer line materially and adversely impacted the use or value of the property, concluding that it was not a defect requiring disclosure.The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the sewer line materially and adversely affected the buyers' intended use of the property and whether the seller completed the disclosure form in good faith.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the appellate court's judgment, reinstating the trial court's decision. The court held that the sewer line did not constitute a material defect that the seller was required to disclose on the Residential Property Disclosure Form. The court reasoned that the term "defect" implies an inadequacy or flaw, and a working sewer line in an inconvenient location does not meet this definition. Additionally, the court noted that the disclosure form requires disclosure of conditions that could inhibit an ordinary buyer's use of the property, not a specific buyer's intended use. Therefore, the seller had no duty to disclose the sewer line, and the buyers' claim of fraudulent concealment failed. View "Ashmus v. Coughlin" on Justia Law

K.W. agreed to buy a MacBook Pro laptop from a seller on the Letgo app, who was later identified as Mamadou Diaw. When K.W. met Diaw to complete the transaction, Diaw and an accomplice stole K.W.'s iPhone and money, assaulted him, and threatened him with a gun. Detective Michael Sturgill subpoenaed Letgo for information about the seller, obtaining an IP address, an email address, and a single location data point.The trial court granted Diaw's motion to suppress the information obtained from Letgo, finding that the police acquired it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Diaw did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location data because it was a single, voluntarily communicated data point that was historical in nature.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Tenth District's judgment. The court held that a person generally has no expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with third parties. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before securing a single historical location data point from a third-party online-marketplace app. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "State v. Diaw" on Justia Law

The case involves Pavan V. Parikh, the Hamilton County clerk of courts, who implemented a policy in May 2022 that eliminated remote online access to court records in residential-eviction cases older than three years from the date of judgment satisfaction. Parikh argued that this policy was to prevent misuse of court documents by the public, such as employers and landlords. The judges of the Hamilton County Municipal Court objected to this policy and issued Administrative Order No. 23-45 in October 2023, directing Parikh to rescind the policy and restore online access to the records. Parikh did not comply, leading to the judges threatening contempt proceedings.Parikh filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in the First District Court of Appeals to prevent the judges from enforcing the administrative order and holding him in contempt. The judges counterclaimed, requesting a writ of mandamus to compel Parikh to comply with their order. The court of appeals, with visiting judges from the Twelfth District, ruled in favor of the judges, granting their motion for judgment on the pleadings on the prohibition claim and issuing a writ of mandamus ordering Parikh to rescind his policy and comply with the administrative order.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the court of appeals' judgment. The court held that Parikh had a clear legal duty under R.C. 1901.31(E) to comply with the judges' administrative order. The court also determined that Parikh had an adequate remedy through appeal if held in contempt, and the judges did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to hold him in contempt for noncompliance. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Parikh's request for a writ of prohibition and the granting of the judges' request for a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Parikh v. Berkowitz" on Justia Law

Delanor L. Macksyn, an inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution, filed an original action against Department of Rehabilitation and Correction employees Kenneth Spencer, LeAnn Walker-Williams, and Kelly Rose. Macksyn sought a writ of mandamus to compel the production of records in response to multiple public-records requests and an award of statutory damages. His requests included emails, kites, grievances, and video footage.The lower court proceedings involved Spencer assuming responsibility for answering public-records requests and responding to Macksyn’s various requests. Spencer provided some of the requested records, including kites and grievances, and allowed Macksyn to view the requested video footage. However, there was a dispute over whether all requested records, particularly emails, had been produced.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that while Spencer had provided some records, there was insufficient evidence to confirm that all requested emails had been produced. The court issued a limited writ of mandamus ordering the respondents to, within 21 days, either produce the requested emails and certify the date of production or certify that no responsive emails exist. The court deferred ruling on Macksyn’s request for statutory damages until the respondents complied with the limited writ. The court also denied several motions filed by Macksyn, including motions to strike respondents’ brief and for judicial notice. View "State ex rel. Macksyn v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Ronald Ayers, an inmate at the Lake Erie Correctional Institution, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel Laura Sackett, the prison's records custodian, to produce public records. Ayers requested a copy of the Department of Administrative Services’ general retention schedule and video footage from a security search of his cell on August 31, 2023. Sackett denied the requests, claiming the retention schedule was not specific to the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and that the video footage was not preserved as it did not document a "qualifying event."The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case after Ayers filed his petition. The court found that Ayers did not need to exhaust administrative remedies before filing for mandamus. The court determined that the requested video footage did not exist at the time of Ayers' request, as it had been recorded over, and thus Sackett correctly denied this request. However, the court found that the general retention schedule was a public record received and used by the prison, and Sackett's denial of this request was not justified.The Supreme Court of Ohio granted Ayers' writ of mandamus in part, ordering Sackett to produce the retention schedule. The court awarded Ayers $1,000 in statutory damages for the improper denial of the retention schedule but denied his request for court costs due to his affidavit of indigency. The court denied Ayers' motions for discovery as moot. View "State ex rel. Ayers v. Sackett" on Justia Law

Aramark Corporation provides food services to clients in various industries, purchasing food, labor, and materials from third-party vendors. Under management-fee contracts, clients reimburse Aramark for these purchases and pay a management fee. Aramark sought a refund for the commercial-activity tax (CAT) it paid on these reimbursements, arguing that it acted as an agent for its clients and thus the reimbursements should be excluded from gross receipts under the CAT statute.The Tax Commissioner denied Aramark's refund claim, determining that Aramark did not meet the requirements for the gross-receipts exclusion. The Board of Tax Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that Aramark failed to establish an agency relationship with its clients as required by the statute. The board found that Aramark did not have the authority to bind its clients to its activities with third-party vendors and that the reimbursements constituted gross receipts.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals' decision. The court held that Aramark did not qualify for the gross-receipts exclusion under the CAT statute because it did not act as an agent for its clients. The court found that Aramark kept the reimbursements for itself and did not hold them on behalf of its clients. Additionally, the court disapproved of the approach used in a previous case, Willoughby Hills, which required a showing of actual authority to establish an agency relationship for CAT purposes. The court concluded that the reimbursements Aramark received from its clients were taxable gross receipts and rejected Aramark's alternative argument that the reimbursements did not contribute to the production of gross income. View "Aramark Corp. v. Harris" on Justia Law