Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that Defendant was properly sentenced for murder and that the failure of a sentencing entry to track precisely the language of the applicable criminal sentencing statutes does not render the sentence contrary to law.Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to "life in prison with eligibility [for] parole after 15 years." The sentencing entry, however, did not precisely track the language of the applicable criminal sentencing statute. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's murder sentence, concluding that the trial court's sentencing language regarding the murder count was dissimilar enough from the language of Ohio Rev. Code 2929.02(B)(1) to require vacation of that sentence and a remand for resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) whatever difference existed between the language of section 2929.02(B)(1) and the language in Defendant's sentencing entry, the difference was de minimis; and (2) Defendant's murder sentence complied with section 2929.02(B)(1). View "State v. Leegrand" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that prevailing parties who were awarded reasonable attorney fees and punitive damages in a tort case involving malicious conduct may not also recover the attorney fees that they incur in successfully defending their judgment, holding that the court of appeals erred.The trial court awarded the prevailing parties attorney fees and expenses, but the court of appeals reversed the trial court's decision regarding attorney fees. On remand, the prevailing parties moved to modify their motion for attorney fees to include a request for "fees incurred in appellate litigation." The court of appeals reversed the portion of the award of attorney fees for appellate work, concluding that Ohio law does not permit recovery of attorney fees incurred at the appellate level except when a remedial statute so provides. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when parties are awarded punitive damages at trial, they may also recover reasonable attorney fees that they incur successfully defending their judgments on appeal. View "Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Brandon L. King, mayor of East Cleveland, to compel the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections to remove a recall election against King from the November 8, 2022 ballot, holding that King failed to establish that he was entitled to the writ.Charles Holmes delivered an affidavit to the clerk of the East Cleveland city council seeking to recall King from office. The clerk issued blank recall petitions to Holmes, who returned with part-partitions. The clerk concluded that the petition contained enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, and the Board ordered a recall election to appeal on the November 2022 general election ballot. Holmes subsequently brought a complaint for a writ of mandamus. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court denied Darryl Moore's motion for leave to intervene and denied the writ of mandamus, holding (1) Moore was not entitled to intervene; and (2) the Board had no authority under the City of East Cleveland charter to decertify the King recall petition. View "State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

In this civil suit against Ottawa County, an uncharted county, the Supreme Court held that the County was not sui juris and therefore must be sued in the name of its board of commissioners.Plaintiff filed a complaint against Ottawa County for negligence, wrongful death, and violation of a nursing home resident's rights. As defendant, Plaintiff named "County of Ottawa d/b/a Ottawa County Riverview Nursing Home" but did not name the Ottawa County Board of Commissioners. Riverview was owned and run by the County, and its employees were employees of the County. Riverview moved for summary judgment, arguing that the County may be sued only by naming its board of commissioners as the defendant because an uncharted county is not sui juris. The trial court granted summary judgment without addressing the sui juris issue. The court of appeals reversed, rejecting Riverview's sui juris argument. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that Ottawa County is not sui juris, and the court of appeals erred in determining otherwise. View "Estate of Fleenor v. Ottawa County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering Respondent Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose to place Relator Tanya Conrath's name on the ballot as the replacement Democratic Party candidate for the state-representative seat in the November 2022 state election, holding that Conrath established that she was entitled to the writ.The Democratic Party candidate for the state-representative seat in the 2022 primary election for state representative of Ohio House District 94 gave notice of his withdrawal from the race after the primary election was held but before the official result of the primary election had been certified. Thereafter, a district committee chose Conrath to be the Democratic party's replacement nominee, and Conrath accepted the nomination. Secretary LaRose, however, concluded that the district committee had lacked authority to select a replacement nominee because Conrath was not a "party candidate." The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus, holding that Conrath had a clear legal right to have her name placed on the ballot and that Respondents had a clear legal duty to place Conrath's name on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Conrath v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Michela Huth compelling the Animal Welfare League of Trumbull County, Inc. (AWL) to inform her how AWL maintains and accesses its records in the ordinary course of business, holding that Huth failed to establish that she was entitled to the writ.Huth sent a AWL, a county humane society, a public-records request for a copy of all criminal complaints filed in any court by agents employed by AWL. After AWL asked Huth to narrow her request, she filed her complaint for a writ of mandamus requiring AWL to inform her how it maintains its records and how those records are accessed in the ordinary course of AWL's operations. The Supreme Court denied the writ and denied her request for damages and attorney fees, holding that AWL was not required to provide AWL the requested information and that Huth was not entitled to statutory damages, court costs, or attorney fees. View "State ex rel. Huth v. Animal Welfare League of Trumbull County, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court dismissing the indictment in this case with prejudice, holding that the trial court properly dismissed the indictment but erred when it dismissed the indictment with prejudice.At issue was what constitutes adequate notice to inform a wholesale distributor that it is charged with drug trafficking under Ohio's drug-trafficking laws. The State charged Appellants, who were in the business of wholesale distribution, with drug trafficking for acting "not in accordance with Chapter 4729 of the Ohio Revised Code." The trial court granted Appellants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the State failed to provide them with sufficient notice. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in a drug-trafficking case against a wholesale distributor, the State must prove that the wholesale distributor failed to act in accordance with Chapter 4729; and (2) the State failed to identify the nature and cause of the accusation against Appellants, and therefore, the case must be dismissed without prejudice. View "State v. Troisi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part writs of mandamus and prohibition against Ronald P. Forsthoefel, a judge on the Ashland County Common Pleas Court, barring Judge Forsthoefel from enforcing his order sealing the documents filed in an underlying dissolution case and ordering him to vacate his sealing order and to conduct a proper review of the documents.The Cincinnati Enquirer requested a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Forsthoefel to vacate his order sealing documents in the dissolution case and to permit public access to the documents and also sought a writ of prohibition barring the judge from enforcing his sealing order. The Supreme Court granted the requested writs in part, holding (1) the Enquirer was entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Forsthoefel to vacate his sealing order and to conduct a proper review of the documents subject to the sealing order; and (2) the Enquirer was entitled to a writ of prohibition because it had shown entitlement to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Forsthoefel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a limited writ sought by Relators - Sanduskians for Sandusky and Craig McCloskey II - ordering Respondents - the City of Sandusky and city commission members - to enact an ordinance providing for submission of a proposed charter amendment to Sandusky's electors, holding that Relators were entitled to a limited writ.Relators requested a writ of mandamus ordering Respondents to certify a charter amendment petition for a vote by Sandusky's electors at the November 8, 2022 general election and further sought a writ of mandamus ordering Erie County Board of Elections to place the proposed charter amendment on the November 8, 2022 general election ballot. The Supreme Court granted a limited writ ordering the enactment of an ordinance providing for submission of the proposed amendment at a special election to take place within certain time parameters and conditioned the writ on the Erie County Board of Elections certifying that the charter-amendment petition contained sufficient valid signatures to qualify for submission to the electors, holding that Ohio Rev. Code 731.31 did not apply to Relators' petition to amend Section 25 of the Sandusky Charter. View "State ex rel. Sanduskians for Sandusky v. City of Sandusky" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Mahoning County Board of Elections to place Eric Ungaro's name on the November 2022 general election ballot as an independent candidate for the office of state representative, holding that Ungaro successfully established that he was entitled to the writ.Ungaro filed a statement of candidacy and nominating petition to run as an independent candidate for the office of state representative of the 59th Ohio House District in the November 2022 general election. The Board rejected the petition by a vote of three to one. Ungaro then filed this action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the Board to place his name on the ballot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board abused its discretion by invalidating Ungaro's petition in an arbitrary fashion. View "State ex rel. Ungaro v. Mahoning County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law