Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kimani Ware, an inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution (RCI), sought a writ of mandamus to compel Doug Smith, identified as RCI’s Library Supervisor, to produce public records under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. Ware requested ten different documents related to the RCI library, including procedure manuals, monthly reports, advisory committee forms, logs of inmate library access, and various library schedules and notices. Ware also sought statutory damages under the Act.Ware filed the mandamus action after Smith allegedly denied his requests. Smith responded that he did not maintain the requested records and directed Ware to the librarian and library staff for assistance. Smith argued that Ware did not explicitly state his requests were public-records requests and that he believed Ware was asking for information rather than copies of documents. The RCI librarian confirmed that Ware had not asked her to print the requested documents and that she had complied with all previous printing requests from Ware.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that Ware did not meet the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Smith failed to comply with the Public Records Act. The court held that Smith’s direction to Ware to contact the librarian and library staff did not constitute a denial of the requests. Additionally, the court found that Ware’s reasons for requesting the records were irrelevant to his entitlement under the Act.The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Ware’s claim for a writ of mandamus and his request for statutory damages, concluding that Ware did not show that Smith failed to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B). View "State ex rel. Ware v. Smith" on Justia Law

An inmate, Kimani E. Ware, sent eight public-records requests to the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael C. O’Malley, between September and December 2023. Ware sought 21 categories of records, including personnel files and payroll records of O’Malley and two assistant prosecuting attorneys, as well as a list of cases assigned to an assistant prosecutor. O’Malley denied the requests, arguing that the records concerned criminal prosecutions and that Ware, as an inmate, needed to comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8) before being entitled to the records.Ware filed a mandamus action in April 2024, seeking an order for the production of the records, statutory damages, and court costs. The Supreme Court of Ohio previously granted in part O’Malley’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, leaving nine records requests at issue. O’Malley argued that R.C. 149.43(B)(8) applied, which limits an inmate’s right to obtain records concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution without a judicial finding.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the personnel files and payroll records of the prosecuting attorneys did not fall under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) and ordered O’Malley to produce these records, subject to proper redactions. The court also ordered O’Malley to produce a list of cases assigned to Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Williamson in 1999 or certify that no such record exists. However, the court denied the writ for the requests seeking specific invoices or pay stubs for work performed by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Van, as no such records existed.The court denied Ware’s request for statutory damages for the personnel files and payroll records but deferred the determination of statutory damages for the list of cases until O’Malley complied with the limited writ. The court awarded Ware $200 for court costs. View "State ex rel. Ware v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

Jadyn Logan was convicted of aggravated robbery in January 2018, a first-degree felony that prohibited her from possessing a firearm under R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). Later, a Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted her for having weapons while under a disability, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, and carrying a concealed weapon. Logan pleaded guilty to attempting to have weapons while under a disability with a one-year firearm specification, and the other charges were dismissed. The trial court sentenced her to one year for the firearm specification and two years of community control for the attempt offense.The State appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, arguing that R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) required a prison term for the attempt offense. The Eighth District affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the statute required a prison sentence only for the firearm specification, not the underlying felony offense. The State sought en banc consideration, which was denied, and the Eighth District maintained its position.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and determined that R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) mandates a prison sentence for any felony offense with a corresponding firearm specification. The court clarified that a firearm specification is a sentencing enhancement, not a separate offense, and that the statute's language requires a prison term for the underlying felony offense when a firearm specification is attached. The court reversed the Eighth District's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing consistent with this interpretation. View "State v. Logan" on Justia Law

An inmate at the Richland Correctional Institution, Kimani E. Ware, sought a writ of mandamus to compel Richland County Sheriff Steve Sheldon to provide public records he requested, including a booking report, use-of-force reports, and policies on inmate grievances and use of force. Ware also sought statutory damages and court costs.Ware sent his public-records request in October 2022, and the sheriff's office responded in November 2022. However, there was conflicting evidence regarding the completeness of the sheriff's response. Ware claimed that the sheriff did not provide the inmate-grievance policy and use-of-force policy, and that the sheriff provided incident reports instead of the requested use-of-force reports. Ware filed his mandamus complaint in December 2023, and the sheriff moved to dismiss, which was denied by the court. Both parties submitted evidence, but only Ware filed a timely merit brief.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found discrepancies in the evidence provided by Ware, suggesting that Ware may have altered the response letter from the sheriff's office. The court determined that Ware did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the sheriff failed to provide the requested records. Consequently, the court denied Ware's claim for a writ of mandamus and his requests for statutory damages and court costs. The court also denied motions from both parties for leave to file additional evidence. View "State ex rel. Ware v. Sheldon" on Justia Law

James P. Ellis, an inmate at Marion Correctional Institution, has been incarcerated since his 1995 convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated murder. He contends that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority unlawfully corrected an error in his sentencing entry and has been using this correction in his parole hearings. Ellis sought a writ of prohibition from the Tenth District Court of Appeals to prevent the parole authority from conducting future parole screenings and to compel it to contact the sentencing court for corrective procedures.The Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissed Ellis's complaint. The court reasoned that Ellis did not sufficiently demonstrate that the parole authority lacked jurisdiction or relied on erroneous information. Additionally, the court noted that compelling the parole authority to contact a court is beyond the scope of relief provided by a writ of prohibition.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Tenth District's dismissal. The court held that the parole authority has jurisdiction to hold parole proceedings for all parole-eligible inmates, including Ellis. The court found that Ellis's parole eligibility is determined by statute, and the parole authority's actions were authorized by law. Consequently, Ellis failed to prove the elements required for a writ of prohibition. The court also noted that Ellis's request to compel the parole authority to contact the sentencing court was not appropriate for a writ of prohibition, which is typically used to prevent unauthorized actions rather than to compel specific actions. View "State ex rel. Ellis v. Adult Parole Auth." on Justia Law

Kenneth Ray Jr. died from asphyxiation due to an industrial accident involving nitrogen gas. His widow, Sharmel Culver, was awarded death benefits and subsequently applied for an additional award, alleging that Ray’s employer, TimkenSteel Corporation, violated specific safety requirements (VSSR). The Industrial Commission of Ohio denied the application, finding that the specific safety requirements did not apply because nitrogen gas is not considered "toxic" or a "poison."Culver sought a writ of mandamus from the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which determined that the commission abused its discretion. The court issued a limited writ, directing the commission to reconsider the VSSR analysis, concluding that nitrogen gas, in the concentration present in the elevator-control room, was toxic and thus fell under the applicable safety regulations.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Tenth District’s judgment. The court held that the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the additional award. The court found that the commission’s decision was supported by some evidence, including expert testimony and industry literature indicating that nitrogen gas is not inherently toxic. The court emphasized that the regulations in effect at the time of Ray’s death defined "air contaminants" as including only "toxic" gases, and the evidence did not support a finding that nitrogen gas met this definition. The court concluded that the commission’s interpretation of the regulations was reasonable and that the Tenth District erred in substituting its own judgment for that of the commission. View "State ex rel. Culver v. Indus. Comm." on Justia Law

Thomas Clark, an inmate at Lebanon Correctional Institution (LCI), sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to provide records under Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43. Clark also requested $6,000 in statutory damages for six public-records requests he claimed were either denied or ignored by DRC. The requests were made between October 2020 and March 2024, during his incarceration at North Central Correctional Complex (NCCC) and LCI.Clark alleged that he made multiple requests for records, including theft/loss reports and an inmate handbook from NCCC, and chow-hall menus and mail policies from LCI. He claimed that these requests were either ignored or denied. However, Clark did not provide copies of his 2020 and 2021 requests from NCCC, relying instead on a 2024 kite requesting copies of earlier kites. For the LCI requests, Clark provided evidence of his requests for chow-hall menus and mail policies.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court found that Clark failed to prove he sent the 2020 and 2021 requests to NCCC. Regarding the LCI requests, the court noted that Clark did not direct his requests to the appropriate public-information officer, Ellen Myers, as required by DRC’s protocol. The court held that it is not a violation of the Public Records Act when an employee not responsible for public-records requests directs the requester to the proper office or person responsible for the records.The court denied Clark’s writ of mandamus, as well as his requests for statutory damages and court costs, concluding that Clark did not show a violation of the Public Records Act by DRC. View "State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr." on Justia Law

An inmate at the Lebanon Correctional Institution filed a mandamus action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to compel the production of records in response to his public-records requests. He also sought statutory damages and court costs. The inmate requested a memorandum regarding "Legal Dockets," a ViaPath memorandum, and commissary receipts and price lists.The inmate initially sent his request for the "Legal Dockets" memorandum to the warden’s assistant, who asked for a ten-cent payment. The inmate claimed to have submitted the payment, but the assistant stated she never received it. The inmate later received the requested memorandum after filing the mandamus action. For the ViaPath memorandum, the inmate sent his request to the prison’s mailroom department, which directed him to the warden’s assistant. The inmate did not follow up with the assistant. Similarly, for the commissary receipts and price lists, the inmate sent his request to a commissary supervisor, who also directed him to the warden’s assistant, but the inmate did not follow up.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court denied the writ as moot regarding the "Legal Dockets" memorandum since the inmate received it after filing the action. The court denied the writ for the other requests because the inmate failed to show a violation of the Public Records Act, as he did not direct his requests to the appropriate person responsible for public records. The court also denied the inmate’s requests for statutory damages and court costs, finding that the evidence was evenly balanced on whether the assistant received the payment for the "Legal Dockets" memorandum, and the inmate had filed an affidavit of indigency, meaning there were no costs to award. View "State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr." on Justia Law

The appellants, James Ruble, Linda O’Connor, Cynthia Brill, and Suzanne Holland, were administrators employed by the Switzerland of Ohio Local School District Board of Education. In 2021, the board, following the recommendation of a new superintendent, suspended their contracts to streamline the administration, which was deemed overstaffed. The administrators argued that the local policy under which their contracts were suspended was invalid as it did not meet the requirements of R.C. 3319.171.The Seventh District Court of Appeals denied the administrators' petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought reinstatement to their former positions with back pay and benefits. The court found that the board’s policy was valid and that the reasons for the contract suspensions were legitimate. The administrators then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, focusing solely on the argument that the board’s policy was invalid under R.C. 3319.171.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the administrators failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to reinstatement under R.C. 3319.171. The court noted that the statute does not provide a right to reinstatement if a local policy is found deficient. The court also denied the administrators' motion for oral argument, finding the briefs sufficient to resolve the issues. The judgment of the Seventh District Court of Appeals was thus affirmed, and the administrators' contracts remained suspended under the board’s policy. View "State ex rel. Ruble v. Switzerland of Ohio Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn." on Justia Law

A solar energy company, Harvey Solar I, L.L.C., applied to the Ohio Power Siting Board for a certificate to construct a solar-powered electric-generation facility in Licking County, Ohio. The project faced opposition from a local citizens group, Save Hartford Twp., L.L.C., and 11 nearby residents, who raised concerns about the environmental and economic impacts of the project, including visual impacts, flooding, wildlife disruption, noise, water quality, and glare.The Ohio Power Siting Board reviewed the application and conducted an evidentiary hearing. The board staff investigated the potential impacts and recommended approval with conditions. The board ultimately granted the certificate, subject to 39 conditions, including requirements for visual screening, floodplain coordination, wildlife impact mitigation, noise control, and stormwater management.The residents appealed the board's decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing that the board failed to properly evaluate the project's adverse impacts and that Harvey Solar did not provide sufficient information as required by the board's rules. They contended that the board's decision was unlawful and unreasonable.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that the board had acted within its statutory authority and had not violated any applicable laws or regulations. The court determined that the board had sufficient evidence to make the required determinations under R.C. 4906.10(A) and that the conditions imposed on the certificate were reasonable and appropriate. The court affirmed the board's order granting the certificate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the solar facility. View "In re Application of Harvey Solar I, L.L.C." on Justia Law