Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that an offender must receive separate prison terms for multiple firearm specifications when the criminal offenses to which those firearm specifications were attached had been merged as allied offenses.Appellant pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, felonious assault, and having weapons while under a disability. The trial court merged the involuntary-manslaughter and felonious-assault counts but imposed a three-year prison term for each of the firearm specifications linked to those counts. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain language of Ohio Rev. Code 2929.14(B)(1)(g) requires that offenders like Appellant receive separate prison terms for convictions on multiple firearm specifications. View "State v. Bollar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of Appellee on his claims for conversion and unjust enrichment, holding that the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on the conversion and unjust enrichment claims.Appellee filed suit against Appellant and others, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. During trial, Appellant moved for a directed verdict on Appellee's conversion and unjust-enrichment claims. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, the jury returned verdicts against Appellant on the conversion and unjust enrichment claims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support Appellee's claims of conversion and unjust enrichment against Appellant; and (2) therefore, the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on these claims. View "Bunta v. Superior VacuPress, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a column heading in a schedule contained in a township zoning resolution was substantive and must be read as part of a resolution especially when the heading contains a term that is defined in the resolution and when ignoring the heading would change the resolution's meaning completely.The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) affirmed the zoning inspector's decision denying Willow Grove's application for a zoning certificate. The court of common pleas reversed in part and affirmed in part and ordered the BZA to issue a zoning certificate. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a zoning certificate could not be issued because the proposed development was deficient in its plan for off-street parking. At issue on appeal was whether the minimum parking-space requirements set forth in Schedule 310.04 of the Olmsted Township Zoning Resolution (OTZR) applied to the swimming pool and community center in Willow Grove's proposed development plan. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the column headings in Schedule 310.04 are substantive and cannot be ignored or used as a mere guidepost when applying the off-street parking requirements of the OTZR; and (2) therefore, Willow Grove was entitled to approval of its application for a zoning certificate. View "Willow Grove, Ltd. v. Olmstead Township Bd. of Zoning Appeals" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that Ohio Rev. Code 2953.08(D)(3) was not unconstitutional for precluding appellate review of a sentence for aggravated murder and reversed the portion of the judgment declining to review Appellant's challenges to his aggravated-murder sentence based on Ohio Rev. Code 2953.08(D)(3), holding that remand was required.At issue was section 2953.08(D)(3), which states that a "sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to sections 2929.02 to 2929.06 of the Revised Code is not subject to review under this section." In State v. Patrick, 172 N.E.3d 952 (Ohio 2020), the Supreme Court held that section 2953.08(D)(3) does not preclude an appellate court from reviewing an offender's sentence for aggravated murder when the offender raises a constitutional claim regarding that sentence on appeal. Patrick was decided after the court of appeals affirmed Defendant's sentence. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the court of appeals properly upheld the constitutionality of section 2953.08(D)(3); and (2) in light of State v. Patrick, 172 N.E.3d 952 (Ohio 2020), the case must be remanded for the court of appeals to consider the merits of Appellant's constitutional challenges to his aggravated-murder sentence. View "State v. Grevious" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court to deny Appellant's petition for postconviction relief, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief.In 2016, Appellant was found guilty of aggravated murder, gross abuse of a corpse, and tampering with evidence. The trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the aggravated murder. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief arguing that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to present evidence about neonaticide, as it is currently understood, as a mitigating factor. The trial court denied the petition, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's decision denying Appellant's postconviction petition was unreasonable and arbitrary and not based on competent and credible evidence. View "State v. Weaver" on Justia Law

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