Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied requests sought by four Summit County Municipal Court judges for writs of prohibition and mandamus against Respondents, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and its administrative judge, holding that that Plaintiffs failed to establish that they were entitled to the writs.The office of the county executive asked the municipal court judges at issue to stop appointing counsel for indigent unindicted felony defendants, concluding that municipal court appointments of private counsel were a misuse of public funds when representation was already provided for in contracts with the Legal Defender Office. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition to prevent the appointment of counsel by the common pleas court judges while a case is pending in the municipal court. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that municipal court judges have not established that common pleas court judges are in fact making such appointments appointments and that nothing in the local rules clearly states that common pleas court judges may do so. View "State ex rel. McKenney v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that when a member of the original panel of the court of appeals leaves the bench the departing judge may be replaced by a new judge on the panel that reconsiders its original decision.In this litigation centering around a soured business relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant the trial court issued a decision appointing a receiver to manage the dissolution of the business and ordering that the business be sold to Plaintiff. The court of appeals reversed and ordered the receiver to entertain offers from all interested bidders. After the case was argued but before the decision issued, Judge Horton announced his impending resignation, which became effective before Defendant filed his application for reconsideration. Judge Frederick Nelson was appointed to fill Judge Horton's seat. Defendant opposed reconsideration, arguing that Judge Nelson should not participate in the reconsideration decision because he did not sit on the original panel. The court of appeals disagreed and entered a new decision affirming the judgment of the trial court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals acted within the bounds of the law when Judge Nelson replaced Judge Horton on the panel considering Plaintiff's application for reconsideration. View "Jezerinac v. Dioun" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Leon Hill, warden of the Marion Correctional Institution, holding that there was no error.Appellant was convicted and sentenced for aggravated robbery and felony murder. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his convictions were nullities and that he should be immediately released. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant's petition on the basis of res judicata; and (2) Appellant's second proposition of law was without merit. View "Boler v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed the petition.Appellant was convicted on multiple counts of rape, kidnapping, and felonious assault and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 104 to 155 years. In his habeas corpus petition, Appellant asserted that the prosecution had committed a Brady violation and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The court of appeals dismissed the petition on the grounds that Appellant had failed to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C) and that the petition failed to state a valid habeas claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals erred in dismissing the petition for failure to comply with section 2969.25(C) but was correct to dismiss the petition for failure to state a valid habeas claim. View "Davis v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing a decision of the Belmont County Court of Common Pleas and holding that amicus curiae Guernsey County Community Development Corporation (CDC) had violated land transfer restrictions that were included in a deed under the CDC's grant agreement with the Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC), holding that there was no error.OPWC appealed the trial court's judgment that the deed restrictions did not apply to the subsurface of the property and the trial court's earlier holding denying OPWC's motion for an injunction. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the transfer restriction in the deed applied to both the surface and subsurface rights of the property and that OPWC had the authority to seek equitable remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the CDC violated enforceable land transfer restrictions included in the deed and thus violated the terms of CDC's grant agreement with the OPWC; and (2) OPWC was entitled to seek remedies at law and in equity to conserve the land for its intended purpose. View "Siltstone Resources, LLC v. Ohio Public Works Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus ordering the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts to produce various records relating to criminal proceedings against Parker Bey in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, holding that Bey was not entitled to relief.Twice, the court of appeals denied Bey a writ of mandamus. After the first denial of the writ, the Supreme Court held that the court of appeals erred in applying the Ohio Rules of Superintendence as a basis for denying mandamus relief and remanded for a determination as to whether Bey was entitled to relief under the Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43. On remand, the court of appeals again denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in denying the writ. View "State ex rel. Bey v. Byrd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus or procedendo, holding that Appellant was not entitled to the writ.In 1992, Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2021, Appellant filed an action for writs of prohibition and mandamus seeking to have his sentence declared void because Judge Thomas Nurre erroneously imposed costs and fines. The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss filed by the common pleas court and clerk. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that this case fell within the general rule that a mandamus action is not an appropriate vehicle for challenging sentencing errors. View "State ex rel. Harris v. Hamilton County Clerk of Courts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court issuing a new sentencing entry that included a required notification as to the postrelease-control portion of Defendant's sentence, holding that holding that the trial court's new sentencing entry was improper.In 2008, Defendant was sentenced to a nine-year prison term for his convictions of kidnapping, rape, and robbery. The trial court failed to include in Defendant's sentencing entry a statement that postrelease control was mandatory. In 2018, the trial court issued a new sentencing entry that included a notification that postrelease control was mandatory and that a violation of postrelease control would subject Defendant to the consequences set forth in Ohio Rev. Code 2967.28. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the portion of the 2018 sentencing entry imposing postrelease control, holding (1) res judicata precluded the State's collateral attack on Defendant's sentence; and (2) therefore, the trial court's sentencing entry was improper and of no effect. View "State v. Bates" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) abating a tax penalty imposed against Appellee by the Tax Commissioner of Ohio, holding that the BTA's abatement of the penalty was clearly erroneous.The tax commissioner assessed unpaid tax in the amount of $4,821 as against Appellee and exercised his statutory discretion to impose a fifteen percent penalty amounting to $723. The BTA upheld the tax assessment against Appellee but found that the tax commissioner had abused his discretion in assessing a penalty. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the BTA's holding that the tax commissioner abused his discretion and that the BTA's order abating the penalty were clearly erroneous. View "Karr v. McClain" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the original actions filed in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition to compel Judge Megan E. Shanahan to allow M.R. to proceed in a lawsuit using a pseudonym and partially sealing M.R.'s affidavit at his request, holding that Judge Shanahan abused her discretion by allowing M.R. to proceed using a pseudonym.M.R., a Cincinnati police officer using a pseudonym, filed a complaint for injunctive relief alleging that Defendants, several people, had publicly made the false claim that he was a white supremacist. M.R. filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and an affidavit in support of the motion along with his complaint. Judge Shanahan granted the request. Relators, the Cincinnati Enquirer and Eugene Volokh, filed separate actions seeking access to M.R.'s affidavit and to prevent Judge Shanahan from continuing to permit M.R. to use a pseudonym. The Supreme Court granted the writs, holding that M.R.'s privacy interests did not substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan" on Justia Law