Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Terpsehore Maras, who circulated petitions to appear on the May 2022 Republican Party primary ballot as a candidate for secretary of state, holding that Maras was not entitled to mandamus relief.When the secretary of state's office forwarded Maras's part-petitions to various county boards of elections for signature verification most of the boards did not receive an accompanying declaration of candidacy. Many of the county boards, therefore, invalidated the entire part-petitions due to the absence of a declaration. Because the county boards did not validate sufficient petition signatures for Maras to qualify as a candidate on the ballot the secretary of state's office refused to certify her name as a candidate. The Supreme Court denied a writ sought by Maras to compel the Secretary of State to send her declaration of candidacy to the county boards for a new signature verification to be conducted, holding that Maras failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her part-petitions met the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 3513.09. View "State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissing Appellant's declaratory judgment and habeas claims but transferring his mandamus claim to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, holding that there was no error.Appellant, an inmate, filed an original action asserting that the revocation of his parole violated his rights to due process, free speech, and equal protection. Appellant sought a declaratory judgment of wrongful imprisonment, a writ of habeas corpus ordering his release from prison, and a writ of mandamus ordering the warden and the chair of the parole board to comply with established controlling law. The Eleventh District dismissed all but the mandamus claim then transferred the action to the Tenth District. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's potential remedy lay in mandamus. View "State ex rel. Guthrie v. Fender" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court dismissing this complaint brought by the Attorney General alleging that Defendants, including Rover Pipeline, LLC, had illegally discharged millions of gallons of drilling fluids into Ohio's waters, causing pollution and degrading water quality, holding that the lower courts erred.Rover sought a license to construct an interstate pipeline that cross several counts in Ohio. As required by 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1) - section 401 of the Clean Water Act - Rover applied for certification for the state that any discharge into the state's navigable waters would comply with federal law. The state later brought this action against Rover and other companies involved in building the pipeline. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of this lawsuit, holding (1) the state waived its ability to participate in the certification process when it did not respond to Rover's application within one year; but (2) the waiver applies only to issues that are related to the section 401 certification, and therefore, remand was required for a determination of whether any of the state's allegations address issues outside the contours of the section 401 certification. View "State ex rel. Yost v. Rover Pipeline, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the second revised General Assembly-district plan adopted by respondent Ohio Redistricting Commission violates Ohio Const. art. XI, sections 6(A) and 6(B) and ordered the Commission to be reconstituted.In the first time this issue was before the Supreme Court, the Court held that the Commission's original plan was invalid because the Commission had not attempted to meet the standards set forth in Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). The Commission subsequently adopted a revised plan, but the Supreme Court invalidated that plan because the Commission again had not satisfied sections 6(A) and 6(B). At issue now before the Supreme Court was the Commission's second revised plan. The Commission invalidated the plan in its entirety, holding that the second revised plan violates sections 6(A) and 6(B) and the a newly reconstituted Commission must adopt a new plan in conformity with the Ohio Constitution. View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Petitioner's request for injunctive and declaratory relief claiming that the application of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.271 to his conduct violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, holding that the lower courts erred.Section 2969.271 allows the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation (DRC) and Correction to administratively extend an incarcerated defendant's prison term beyond his minimum prison term or presumptive earned early-release date but not beyond his maximum prison term. Petitioner entered Alford pleas to attempted burglary and other offenses. The trial court imposed a sentence under the "Reagan Tokes Law." On appeal, Petitioner argued that the sections of the statute allowing DRC to extend his prison term beyond the presumptive minimum term was unconstitutional. The court of appeals concluded that Petitioner's constitutional challenge was not ripe for review. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a criminal defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of section 2969.271 is ripe for review on the defendant's direct appeal of his conviction and prison sentence. View "State v. Maddox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the City of Beachwood to terminate special prosecutor Stephanie Scalise, holding that this case was moot.Burkons was charged with one count of interfering with civil rights. City Prosecutor Nathalie Supler moved for leave to withdraw as counsel due to a conflict of interest because Burkons was a city council member. Supler asked the trial court to appoint Scalise as special prosecutor in this case. The municipal court judge granted the motion. Burkons eventually filed a complaint in mandamus against the City challenging Scalise's "unauthorized representation of the City." The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus action. The days earlier, a writ of prohibition was issued halting the criminal case against Burkons based on improper venue. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Appellant's mandamus complaint, holding that this action was moot. View "State ex rel. Burkons v. Beachwood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) upholding the tax commissioners denial of Appellant's claim for a sales tax refund, holding that the BTA erred in part.Appellant Cincinnati Federal Savings & Loan Co. filed a refund claim seeking recovery of $57,412.58, claiming that it purchased nontaxable accounting services or, alternatively, nonntaxable customized software. The tax commissioner denied the claim. The BTA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the BTA's decision, holding (1) with respect to the customization of software, the BTA erred by failing to apply the true-object test to the charges at issue; and (2) Appellant's remaining propositions of law were without merit. View "Cincinnati Federal Savings & Loan Co. v. McClain" on Justia Law

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