Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals remanding to the probate court this matter involving a biological father (K.W.), who wanted to parent his child but did not preserve his right to do so under Ohio's adoption laws, holding that K.W. was not entitled to relief.Appellants, a married couple, filed a petition for legal adoption of H.P., K.W.'s biological child. The probate court determined that the adoption could proceed without K.W.'s consent because K.W. had failed to register with the putative father registry within fifteen days after H.P.'s birth. The court of appeals remanded the matter, holding that the probate correctly determined that K.W.'s consent to the adoption was not necessary but that K.W. had a "second status" as the biological father of H.P. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that K.W. could not be a legal father to H.P. under the plain language of the applicable statutes. View "In re Adoption of H.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision reversing the trial court's judgment for Plaintiff after denying the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant, the manufacturing company Johns Manville, holding that the court of appeals did not err in applying the relevant law when reviewing John Manville's motion for summary judgment.Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Johns Manville intentionally caused her husband to be injured while working. After the trial court denied Johns Manville's motion for summary judgment the jury found in favor of Plaintiff. The court of appeals reversed, holding that summary judgment should have been granted in John Manville's favor and that the case should not have been given to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed after reaffirming that when reviewing a trial court's decision to deny summary judgment in cases in which a jury ultimately reached a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor, an appellate court must construe the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party when applying the law, holding that the court of appeals did not err in its review. View "Bliss v. Johns Manville" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals upholding that decision of the trial court to deny Defendant's motion to suppress evidence discovered after a traffic stop, holding that there was no error.After executing the traffic stop at issue, a law enforcement officer ordered Defendant to step out of the car and opened the door for him to do so. Another officer later looked through the open door and spotted a marijuana cigarette on the floor. A subsequent search of the car led to the discovery of a pistol. Defendant pleaded no contest to firearm-related charges. On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding (1) the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by ordering Defendant to exit the car; (2) opening the door was not a search; (3) the second officer did not conduct a search; and (4) under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the discovery of the marijuana cigarette in plain view allowed the officers to search the car. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the Public Utilities Commission authorizing a recovery mechanism referred to as the solar-generation-fund rider (Rider SGF), holding that remand to the Commission was required as to one issue.In 2021, the Commission issued an order establishing Rider SGF as the recovery mechanism that would be used to provide revenue for a "solar generation fund" by generating funds through a monthly retail charge to customers that would be billed and collected by Ohio electric distribution utilities. The Ohio Manufacturers' Association Energy Group appealed, challenging the amount and structure of Rider SGF. The Supreme Court remanded for clarification on the issue on the whether the Commission erred when it determined that customers must also pay the commercial activity tax through Rider SGF. View "In re Establishing the Solar Generation Fund Rider" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction for tampering with records in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2913.42(A)(1), holding that the rule of absolute privilege, also known as the litigation privilege, which was applied by the appellate court, did not successful prosecution of the tampering with records charge.The State prosecuted Defendant for criminal offenses related to her filing a bogus quiet-title action against a homeowner to take possession of his home. Defendant was ultimately convicted of violating section 2913.42(A)(1), which prohibits a person from falsifying any writing or record "knowing the person has no privilege to do so." The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant's false statements forming the basis of her charge were privileged because she made them in a judicial proceeding. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the litigation privilege does not shield a person from criminal liability related to defamatory statements that were made during judicial proceedings and that were reasonably related to the proceedings in which they were made. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court to grant Ohio History Connection's appropriation action seeking to appropriate the Moundbuilders Country Club Company's leasehold interest in the Octagon Earthworks in Newark, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.The History Connection, a state-funded entity, sought to acquire the country club's lease interest in the Octagon Earthworks in Newark by eminent domain so that it could establish a public park on the property and nominate it for the World Heritage list. The court of common pleas concluded that History Connection met the two statutory requirements of establishing that appropriation was necessary for a public use and that the offer was not made in bad faith and thus granted the petition to appropriate. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case for a jury trial, holding (1) the courts below painted an incomplete picture of the good-faith standard under Ohio Rev. Code 163.04(B), but the analyses of the courts below were ultimately consistent with Kalain v. Smith, 495 N.E.2d 572 (Ohio 1986); and (2) the country club's argument that the appropriation was not necessary was contrary to well-settled law. View "State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court dismissing rape charges against Defendant due to prejudicial preindictment delay, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice. In 2017, Defendant was indicted on a multiple-count indictment alleging that Defendant had raped the complaining witness in 2005. The trial court dismissed the charges. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Defendant had demonstrated actual prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed reversed after clarifying that, in determining whether unconstitutional preindictment delay has occurred in a rape case in which consent is at issue, the relevant inquiry is whether the defendant has shown actual prejudice, holding that Defendant failed to show actual prejudice under the standard set forth in State v. Jones, 69 N.E.3d 688 (Ohio 2016). View "State v. Bourn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, by its plain language, the four-year statute of repose, Ohio Rev. Code 2305.15(A), tolls the medical-claim statute of repose, Ohio Rev. Code 23.05.113(C), and therefore, the statute of repose does not bar the filing of a claim during the defendant's absence.In 2015, Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint Dr. Abubaker Durrani, his clinic, and Good Samaritan Hospital in the court of common pleas alleging that Durrani negligently performed a spinal surgery on him in 2010. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, citing the four-year statute of repose as an absolute bar to Defendant's action. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss. On appeal, the court of appeals held that section 2305.15(A) tolled the repose period as to Durrani because he fled the country before the statute of repose had expired but did not toll the repose period as to the other defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 2305.15 makes clear that an absconding defendant is not entitled to a four-year statute of limitations that is not tolled. View "Elliot v. Durrani" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the the trial court's decision ordering $1,615 in restitution for lost wages of the victim after Defendant pleaded guilty to two fifth-degree felony charges, holding that unless the loss of wages is directly and proximately caused by the offense, lost wages are not compensable as restitution.During the restitution hearing the victim testified that she was seeking restitution for lost wages relating to the wages she lost as a result of attending hearings for the criminal cases. The trial court ultimately ordered restitution for the lost wages of the victim. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory meaning of restitution was not altered or expanded by Ohio Const. art. I, 10a, otherwise known as Marsy's Law, and that crime victims should receive restitution from those whose crimes that have directly and proximately caused them to suffer economic loss or detriment. View "State v. Yerkey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions and sentence for three counts of aggravated murder, six counts of aggravated robbery and other crimes and his sentence of life in prison, holding that a trial court errs in its evaluation of a defendant's lack of remorse when it considers that defendant's decision to waive allocution and remain silent at sentencing if the defendant exercised his right to a jury trial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the lower courts did not err in determining that Defendant did not waive his attorney-client privilege with regard to direct communications with his attorney; (2) even if this case presented circumstances in which the attorney-client privilege yielded to Defendant's right to confrontation, any error was not prejudicial; and (3) while the trial court erred in considering Defendant's decision to waive allocution and remain silent in determining whether he lacked remorse, the error was not prejudicial. View "State v. Brunson" on Justia Law