Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's claims seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus against Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kimberly A. Melnick, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on its claims of error.Appellant had been declared a vexatious litigator by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant and its co-relator filed an original action seeking writs of prohibition preventing Judge Melnick from ruling on a motion for contempt and sanctions and a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Melnick to hold a jury trial in a case in which Judge Melnick was presiding. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant's claims on the action for failure to seek leave to proceed as a vexatious litigator. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's arguments on appeal lacked merit. View "State ex rel. Simpson v. Melnick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ of prohibition compelling the probate-juvenile court to vacate its order granting the applications for immunity filed by two witnesses in a criminal case under Ohio Rev. Code 2945.44, holding that the probate-juvenile court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to grant the applications.Relator was charged with misdemeanor counts relating to her juvenile son, L.C. The prosecution filed an application in the county court seeking immunity for L.C. under section 2945.44, but the judge denied the application for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application in the probate-juvenile court requesting immunity for both L.C. and his stepbrother, M.R. The judge granted immunity to both witnesses. Relator then sought a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to vacate his order and a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition in part and denied it in part and denied a writ of mandamus, holding the probate-juvenile court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to grant immunity under section 2945.44. View "State ex rel. Simpson v. Kirby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part this action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Pavan Parikh to provide copies of three oaths of office and various court records from a 2001 case and awards of statutory damages and costs, holding that Relator was entitled to mandamus in part.Relator, an inmate, sent a public records request requesting three judges' oaths of office and documents from a case filed in 2001. When the clerk of courts did not respond to the public-records request Relator filed this action. The Supreme Court granted relief in part, holding (1) Relator used the incorrect vehicle for requesting copies of the oaths of office; and (2) the clerk did not meet his burden to show that Ohio Rev. Code 149.43(B)(8) foreclosed Relator's right to receive the second portion of his records request. View "State ex rel. Ware v. Parikh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's original action captioned “Petition for discharge for want of jurisdiction, judicial misconduct, and abuse of discretion, obstructions to justice, prosecutorial misconduct & perjury, & Brady rule violations, etc., effected pre-trial by respondents,” holding that the court of appeals did not err.In her complaint, which the court of appeals justice designated as an "appeal" from an earlier criminal judgment, Appellant argued that her speedy-trial rights had been violated, that the prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence, and that the trial court had abused its discretion in various pretrial rulings. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint, concluding that it was insufficient to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. View "State ex rel. Justice v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the North Central Correctional Complex, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant's petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief in habeas corpus could be granted.Appellant pled no contest to gross sexual imposition, pandering sexually-oriented material involving a minor, and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him. The court of appeals dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his propositions of law. View "State ex rel. Martre v. Watson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing a petition for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition to compel Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Cassandra Collier-Williams to carry out a mandate previously issued by the court of appeals, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition.After the trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants the court of appeals reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. After remand, the trial court concluded that Plaintiff was not allowed to pursue damages against Defendants and denied him a jury trial. Plaintiff then filed his petition for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition seeking to compel Judge Collier-Williams to give full effect to the appellate court's mandate and to grant him a jury trial. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff did not allege facts showing that the judge directly disobeyed the court of appeals' mandate or that he was entitled to an extraordinary writ to compel Judge Collier-Williams to grant him a jury trial. View "State ex rel. Gallagher v. Collier-Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by North Canton City Council ordering Stark County Board of Elections to place two proposed levies on the May 2, 2023 primary-election ballot, holding that the Board properly determined that the proposed levies were ineligible for consideration at the 2023 primary election.Because the Board did not approve the proposed (street and storm-water) levies as amended for placement on the May 2 primary election ballot the Council filed this expedited election action seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to place the resolutions on the May 2 ballot. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) the proposed levies may not be presented to North Canton voters as "renewal" levies before the November 2024 election; and (2) the Board did not abuse its discretion or act contrary to law in rejecting the placement of the proposed levies on the ballot. View "State ex rel. North Canton City Council v. Stark County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Michael Bell's petition seeking a writ of habeas against the warden of the Mansfield Correctional Institution (MCI) and denied Bell's motion to reverse and vacate the judgment against him, holding that Bell was not entitled to relief.Bell, an inmate at MCI, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against MCI's warden, presenting several arguments to support his claim for relief. The court of appeals granted the warden's motion to dismiss for failure to state a valid claim for relief in habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Bell could not establish that he was entitled to habeas relief under any of the theories he presented. View "Bell v. McConahay" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Plaintiff's complaint seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus to vacate the result of a 2016 hearing held by the Ohio Parole Board that denied parole to Plaintiff, holding that Plaintiff failed to show that he was entitled to relief in prohibition or mandamus.While Plaintiff became eligible for parole in April 2018, his parole eligibility date was mistakenly calculated, and Appellant given a parole hearing in 2016. After the hearing, the parole board denied parole. In 2020, Plaintiff filed his complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus seeking to vacate the parole board's 2016 decision and compel a new hearing. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to support his claims on appeal. View "State ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his propositions of law.Appellant was convicted of rape of a minor and other crimes. Appellant later brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that after serving his mandatory minimum sentence he satisfied the conditions for parole and had been granted release and that he had a right to immediate release. The court of appeals denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the error of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction misinforming Appellant about his parole status did not create a constitutional right to parole. View "State ex rel. Lindsay v. Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law