Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the decision of the lower court in a case involving AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C., et al. (AWMS) and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). AWMS sought a writ of mandamus to compel the ODNR to initiate property appropriation proceedings, arguing that the state had effectuated a regulatory taking of AWMS’s property by suspending operations at its saltwater-injection well. The court of appeals initially granted summary judgment in favor of the state, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded the case, directing the court of appeals to weigh the parties' evidence related to AWMS’s total and partial takings claims.On remand, the court of appeals denied the writ, arguing that AWMS did not have a cognizable property interest for purposes of a takings analysis. AWMS appealed this decision, and the Supreme Court found that the court of appeals had failed to comply with its remand order to weigh the parties' evidence and had violated the law-of-the-case doctrine by revisiting whether AWMS had a cognizable property interest.The Supreme Court ruled that AWMS did possess a cognizable property interest in its leasehold right to operate the saltwater-injection well, a point that had been established in the previous appeal and was thus the law of the case. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case once again, instructing the lower court to weigh the evidence to determine whether a total or partial regulatory taking had occurred. View "State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz" on Justia Law

The Cincinnati Enquirer sought a writ of mandamus to compel Andy Wilson, the director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, to produce records related to the travel and expenses of Ohio State Highway Patrol troopers and staff who attended the 2022 Super Bowl in Los Angeles, California, with Governor Mike DeWine. The department withheld the requested records, claiming they were "security records" and therefore exempt from disclosure.The Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that the requested records did qualify as "security records" under R.C. 149.433(A)(1), which defines a security record as any record that contains information directly used for protecting or maintaining the security of a public office against attack, interference, or sabotage. The court found that the records contained information that the department used for protecting and maintaining the safety of the governor's office. The department's evidence showed that release of the requested records would pose a substantial risk to the governor’s safety by revealing the security detail’s planning, techniques, and patterns, and by exposing security limitations and vulnerabilities.The court also rejected the Cincinnati Enquirer's argument that the department violated the Public Records Act by failing to produce redacted versions of the requested records. The court explained that under R.C. 149.433(B)(1), a security record is not a public record and is consequently not subject to mandatory release or disclosure.Accordingly, the court denied the writ of mandamus, as well as the Cincinnati Enquirer's requests for statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by an inmate, Keith Walker, against the Third District Court of Appeals' dismissal of his request for a writ of mandamus. Walker had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in 2020, for which he received the maximum sentence allowed by law. He later filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea, arguing that the plea and the judgment of conviction were void due to the absence of a judge at his plea hearing, and the prosecutor's alleged role in accepting his plea and sentencing him. The municipal court judge, Teresa Ballinger, denied his motion. Walker then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus, asking that his conviction be vacated as an illegal and void judgment. This was dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeals, who agreed with Judge Ballinger's argument that Walker had failed to submit an affidavit required by R.C. 2969.25(A), and that his claim was not cognizable in mandamus.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the Third District Court of Appeals was incorrect to dismiss the action based on a failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)’s affidavit requirement, as the statute does not require a statement that the inmate has filed no such civil action or appeal. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's determination that Walker's claim was not cognizable in mandamus, as his argument essentially raised a nonjurisdictional defect for which he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals dismissing Walker's complaint. View "State ex rel. Walker v. Ballinger" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Eric Johnson, filed a third, untimely, and successive petition for postconviction relief based on an affidavit from the victim, James Keith, who recanted his identification of Johnson as the assailant. Johnson argued that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering Keith's recantation before the statutory deadline and that, but for constitutional error at trial, he would not have been convicted. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the decisions of the lower courts, denying Johnson's petition for postconviction relief. The court held that Johnson failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering Keith's recantation within the statutory deadline. The court also held that Johnson failed to show that a constitutional error occurred at trial that led to his conviction. Specifically, the court stated that a conviction based on false testimony is not a constitutional violation unless the state had knowledge of the testimony’s falsity. The court therefore concluded that Johnson did not satisfy the requirements for filing an untimely or successive petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Alphonso Mobley Jr. filed an original action in mandamus under Ohio’s Public Records Act against Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Melissa A. Powers, seeking records related to former R.C. 309.16 and a records-retention schedule. He also requested awards of statutory damages and costs. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a limited writ of mandamus in part and denied in part. The court denied the writ as moot concerning some of the requested records, granted a limited writ regarding others, deferred ruling on the request for an award of statutory damages, and denied the request for an award of costs.The court determined that the prosecutor had provided Mobley with the records-retention schedule and the records created to meet the requirements of former R.C. 309.16(A)(2) for the years 2016 through 2020. However, the court found a genuine question of fact regarding whether the prosecutor provided Mobley with all the records that her office created to meet the requirements of former R.C. 309.16(A)(1) for the years 2016 through 2020. The court thus ordered the prosecutor to provide these records or certify that they do not exist. The court deferred ruling on Mobley’s request for statutory damages until the prosecutor has complied with the limited writ. Mobley’s request for an award of court costs was denied as he had filed an affidavit of indigency. View "State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers" on Justia Law

This case pertains to a public records request made by Marcellus Gilreath to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) and its director, Matt Damschroder. Gilreath sought access to specific records related to him, including his case history in the Client Registry Information System Enhanced (CRIS-E), his Ohio Benefits case history, his overpayment records, and records of any investigation into his alleged theft of food stamps.After not receiving a response from ODJFS or Damschroder for several months, Gilreath filed a mandamus action, following which ODJFS provided him with some of the requested records. Gilreath then requested that the court issue a writ of mandamus to compel ODJFS and Damschroder to allow him to inspect the provided documents in their native electronic format, to search for additional records, and to organize and maintain their emails in a manner that they can be made available for inspection. He also sought an award of statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees.The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Gilreath's request for a writ of mandamus, finding that ODJFS and Damschroder had no obligation to allow him to inspect the records in their native electronic format. The court also found that ODJFS and Damschroder did not possess or control the county emails Gilreath sought, and that his request for these emails was not sufficiently clear. Furthermore, the court determined that Gilreath had not requested ODJFS and Damschroder to organize and maintain their emails in his original complaint.However, the court did grant Gilreath's request for an award of statutory damages, awarding him $1,000 due to the significant delay in ODJFS's response to his public records request. The court denied his requests for court costs and attorney fees. View "State ex rel. Gilreath v. Cuyahoga Job & Family Services" on Justia Law

This case involves an appeal from the Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio. The appellant is the State of Ohio, represented by the Attorney General, and the appellees are FirstEnergy Corporation, Samuel Randazzo, and a consulting company controlled by Randazzo. Randazzo, the former chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), allegedly received a $4.3 million bribe from FirstEnergy Corporation. The state of Ohio filed a civil action against Randazzo and his consulting company to recover the proceeds of the bribe. The state sought attachment orders to prevent Randazzo from draining his bank and brokerage accounts. The trial court granted the state’s motion ex parte, without notice to Randazzo and his attorneys. After learning about the court's decision, Randazzo requested a hearing and moved to vacate the orders. The court held a hearing with both sides present and declined to discharge the orders of attachment. Randazzo appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which found the orders of attachment had been improperly granted. The Court of Appeals determined that the state had failed to meet its burden at the ex parte hearing to establish the irreparable injury requirement.Upon appeal by the state, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the orders of the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred by basing its decision on the ex parte requirements. The Supreme Court ruled that the court of appeals should have reviewed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate the attachment rather than the irreparable injury requirement for an ex parte order. The Supreme Court concluded that the proper remedy for a party dissatisfied with an ex parte attachment order is to request a hearing on the order at which both parties may be heard. It also concluded that Randazzo failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the use of improper garnishment forms. View "State ex rel. Yost v. FirstEnergy Corp." on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the issue concerned whether a landlord or landlord's agent can prohibit a person from entering leased premises, even if that person has received permission from a tenant. The case arose when Antonio Randolph was banned from an apartment complex by the property manager and was then later arrested and charged with criminal trespass after he was discovered in his uncle's apartment at the complex, which his uncle had invited him to. The trial court found Randolph guilty of criminal trespass. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the city had to prove that Randolph had entered the premises without privilege, and that his uncle's invitation to the apartment contradicted this.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the Sixth District's decision. The court held that a landlord or landlord's agent generally may not exclude a person from rented premises such that the excluded person is considered a trespasser when on the premises even if the person received permission to enter the premises from a tenant of the property. The court noted that Ohio law provides that a landlord cedes his or her possessory interests in leased property to the tenant and therefore may not prohibit the tenant from inviting guests onto the property.However, the court also highlighted that a landlord can maintain control over access to a property if the landlord so desires, provided that this authority is reserved in the lease agreement. In the absence of such a provision in the lease agreement, a tenant may invite onto the property a person whom the landlord has sought to ban from the premises. The judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "State v. Randolph" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Ohio dealt with a case involving the plaintiff, who was acting both individually and as the executor of an estate, and the defendants, which included a medical center and various medical professionals. However, the opinion provides very little information about the specific facts of the case or the legal issues at stake. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals, relying on the authority of a prior case, Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp. The case was then remanded back to the Court of Appeals to consider arguments that it had previously declined to address. The specific nature of these arguments, and the reasons for the Court of Appeals' initial refusal to consider them, are not provided in the opinion. As such, the precise holding of the Supreme Court of Ohio in this case cannot be determined from the available information. View "Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

In this case, an appellant challenged his criminal convictions, arguing that the trial court had erred by failing to hold a competency hearing. The appellant's counsel had requested a competency evaluation prior to the trial, but the appellant refused to be transported to the treatment center for the evaluation. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that while the trial court should have held a competency hearing, the error was harmless because the record, when viewed as a whole, did not demonstrate sufficient indicia of incompetency. The court noted that the appellant had demonstrated understanding of the proceedings and had been able to articulate what his counsel had told him about the proceedings. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision of the lower court, upholding the appellant's convictions. View "State v. Mills" on Justia Law