Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions after finding that the state failed to prove venue, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Defendant was indicted in Erie County for retaliation, attempted aggravated murder, and conspiracy arising from conversations that he had with his cellmate while he was incarcerated in Marion County. Defendant objected to venue and requested that the proceedings be transferred to Marion County, but the motion was summarily denied. A jury then found Defendant guilty of all three charges. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that venue was improper in Erie County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State failed to prove that venue was proper in Erie County. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the general division of a common pleas court does not have jurisdiction over an offender who was arrested at the age of twenty for felonious acts he allegedly committed as a juvenile.Appellant was arrested at the age of twenty for acts he allegedly committed when he was seventeen years old, acts that would have been felonious had they been committed by an adult. Appellant was first indicted in the general division of the court of common pleas. The State recognized that the general division did not have jurisdiction over Appellant under Ohio Rev. Code 2152.02(C)(3) and 2151.23(I) and moved to dismiss the indictment. The indictment was dismissed, but because Appellant was twenty-two years old at that point, the State reindicted him in the general division the next day. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the jurisdiction of the general division of the court of common pleas is not invoked when a person is arrested at the age of twenty for felonious acts that he allegedly committed as a juvenile. View "State v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner, executor of the estate of Virginia Durkin, against Respondent, the judge presiding over the underlying action involving the Durkin estate, holding that Respondent was not entitled to the writ.Petitioner attempted to appeal a prior order appointing a special master commissioner, arguing that Respondent's appointment of the special master commissioner under Ohio Rev. Code 2101.06 disregarded the law of the case established in prior proceedings. After the court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order Petitioner brought the instant original action. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the appeal court's mandate was not violated in this case. View "Durkin v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court finding Robert Burns strictly liable as a public official for the misappropriation of public money, holding that Burns was not strictly liable for the embezzled funds.Burns contracted with New City Community School, a charter school, to be its chief executive officer, and Carl Shye was an independent contractor hired by New City to be the school's treasurer. After the auditor of state concluded that more than $50,000 of New City's state and federal grants had been misappropriated the Attorney General filed a complaint against Burns, Shye, and other defendants, alleging that they were jointly and severally liable as public officials. The trial court found Burns strictly liable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Burns was not strictly liable for the embezzled funds because he did not receive or collect the public money that was misappropriated. View "State ex rel. Yost v. Burns" on Justia Law

For the fourth time this issue was before the Supreme Court, the Court held that the third-revised General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission violates the standards of Ohio Const. art. XI, 6(A) and 6(B) and that a new plan must be adopted in conformity with the Ohio Constitution.Between September 2021 and February 2022 the Commission adopted three General Assembly-district plans, each of which the Supreme Court invalidated because they did not comply with Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). The Commission subsequently adopted its fourth plan - the third-revised plan. The Supreme Court ordered the Commission to be reconstituted and to adopt a new plan in conformity with the Ohio Constitution, holding that the third-revised plan violates Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Committee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision affirming the judgment of the trial court dismissing the criminal case against Defendant without prejudice, holding that the trial court did not err when it denied the State's requests to issue a material-witness warrant.The court of appeals concluded that the trial court properly denied the State's requests to issue the material-witness warrants because the State failed to demonstrate probable cause that warrants were necessary to procure the witnesses' attendance at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when the State requests that a court issue a material-witness warrant it must establish, by either oath or affidavit, probable cause to believe that the witness is material and that the warrant is necessary to procure the witness's attendance at trial; and (2) the trial court did not err in this case. View "State v. Eatmon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) upholding the decision of the tax commissioner denying Colonial, Inc.'s application for a tax refund, holding that there was no error.In its application, Colonial argued that it was entitled to a refund of $269,432 in resort-area taxes that it paid from 2011 through 2016. Specifically, Colonial sought to recover a locally-imposed resort-area gross receipts excise tax that the village of Put-in-Bay originally enacted in 1995, arguing that, under Ohio Rev. Code 5739.101, the village must react the resort-area tax after each decennial census. The tax commissioner denied the refund claim, and the BTA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BTA correctly affirmed the tax commissioner's denial of Colonial's application for a refund. View "Colonial, Inc. v. McClain" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the decision of the common pleas court entering a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting Appellants from publishing the personal identifying information of Ryan Olthaus, a Cincinnati police officer, holding that the appeal was moot.Olthaus filed a complaint against Appellants alleging, among other claims, defamation and false-light invasion of privacy. The common pleas court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining Appellants from publicly disseminating Olthaus's personal identifying information. Appellants appealed the TRO. The court of appeals concluded that the TRO was not a final, appealable order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that this matter was moot because the TRO expired. View "M.R. v. Niesen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Ray Brubaker to compel the Lawrence County Board of Elections to place a local liquor option on the primary-election ballot, holding that Brubaker failed to establish that he was entitled to the writ.Brubaker filed with the Board paperwork requesting a liquor option on the May 3, 2022 primary election ballot for the Hanging Rock precinct allowing Sunday liquor sales. The Board rejected the liquor-option petition because Brubaker did not submit a Form No. 5-N. Brubaker subsequently filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus against the Board. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion or act contrary to law. View "State ex rel. Brubaker v. Lawrence County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's decisions in these two cases consolidated for appeal, holding that owners of the surface rights to land did not comply with the requirements of the Dormant Mineral Act, Ohio Rev. Code 5301.56, in seeking to have mineral interests in that land deemed abandoned.Plaintiffs filed complaints for declaratory judgment and seeking to quiet title, alleging that the surface owners had failed to exercise reasonable due diligence in attempting to locate holders of the mineral interests before commencing the abandonment process. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants in both cases. The court of appeals reversed in both cases, ruling that Defendants' searches were unreasonable and that they had failed to comply with the relevant notice requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendants failed to exercise reasonable diligence in these cases. View "Fonzi v. Brown" on Justia Law