Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Petitioner's petition seeking a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of procedendo to compel Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alison Hatheway to rule on Petitioner's jurisdictional motion, holding that there was no error.Petitioner filed a "Motion Challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Trial Judge Pursuant to Sup.R. 4, Sup.R. 36, Hamilton County Local Rule 7(E), O.R.C. 2701.031" and then later filed his petition seeking to compel Judge Hatheway to rule on his motion. Eight days after Petitioner filed his petition Judge Heathway issued an entry dismissing Petitioner's motion on res judicata grounds. In dismissing Petitioner's petition, the court of appeals determined that the procedendo claim was moot and that a writ of mandamus was not the proper remedy to redress Petitioner's alleged injury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed the procedendo claim as moot and that mandamus could not lie. View "State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that when a complaint invokes an exception to a government employee's immunity under Ohio Rev. Code 2744.03(A)(6)(b), notice pleading suffices and that the plaintiff may not be held to a heightened pleading standard.Appellant, the grandmother of G.B., who died when she was two years old, filed suit against Hamilton County, the county's commissioners, the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (HCJFS), and the individual HCJFS caseworkers involved in G.B.'s case, claiming that G.B. was living with violent and abusive parents and that her death was preventable. The trial court granted judgment for the pleadings in favor of Defendants, concluding that they were statutorily immune from suit. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the complaint in this case met the applicable notice-pleading standard. View "Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton County Department of Job & Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction and sentence for one count each of aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and attempted rape, holding that the trial court did not erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his socks and underwear, but the error was harmless.After the murder in this case, Defendant was taken to the hospital and examined. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his hospital room, including the hospital's washcloth, scrapings taken from his fingernails, and his socks and underwear. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the washcloth and fingernail scrapings; and (2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his socks and underwear, but the error was harmless. View "State v. LaRosa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting a writ of prohibition preventing the order of a court of common pleas judge restoring Appellant's firearms rights from being effective, holding that a writ of prohibition was warranted.Appellant was convicted of a crime in Ohio that prohibited him, under federal law, to possess a firearm unless Appellant had his civil rights restored under Ohio law, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii). Appellant filed an application for relief from his federal firearms disability, and Judge Peeler, a Warren County Court of Common Pleas Judge, granted the application. Appellee, Appellant's ex-wife, sought a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent Judge Peeler's order from being effective. The court of appeals granted the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellee established the necessary elements for a writ of prohibition. View "State ex rel. Suwalksi v. Peeler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to show that he was entitled to the writ.In 1993, Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated murder with a capital specification and was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after thirty years. In 2020, Appellant filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his sentence was not a permissible sentence under Ohio law. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint, concluding that Appellant's sentence was voidable, not void, and therefore, Appellant did not state a claim for relief in habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in dismissing the complaint. View "State ex rel. Slaughter v. Foley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals compelling the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) to reverse its denial of Appellant's application for disability benefits, holding that there was no error.After sustaining a fall while working for the state as a highway technician Appellant applied to OPERS for disability benefits. OPERS denied Powell's application. Appellant then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus asking the Tenth District to issue a writ compelling OPERS to reverse its denial of his application. The Tenth District found that OPERS's decision was supported by some evidence in the record and denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that some evidence supported OPERS's decision, and Appellant did not establish that any evidence should have been excluded from OPERS's consideration. View "State ex rel. Powell v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Pike County Convention and Visitor's Bureau (Relator) against Pike County Board of Commissioners and the Pike County auditor ordering them to disburse to the bureau the proceedings of a "bed tax," a county-imposed sales tax on hotel lodging, holding that Relator was not entitled to the writ.In 2020, the county commissioners for Pike County enacted a resolutions that redirected the bureau's portion of the bed-tax proceeds to the chamber "acting as a Convention and Visitors Bureau, as defined by law," stating as justification the bureau's "financial mismanagement." The bureau brought this action seeking disbursement of bed-tax proceeds that had been withheld by the county. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the county commissioners' action lay within their discretion. View "State ex rel. Pike County Convention & Visitor's Bureau v. Pike County Board of Commissioners" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that neither a showing of exigent circumstances nor a showing of the impracticability of obtaining an arrest warrant is necessary to sustain the constitutionality of a warrantless arrest under either the Ohio Constitution or the United States Constitution.Defendant was convicted of multiple drug offenses. On appeal, Defendant challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that his arrest was unlawful because there were no exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless arrest. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a warrantless arrest based on probable cause and conducted in public is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; (2) neither exigent circumstances nor the impracticability of obtaining a warrant is required to justify a warrantless felony arrest that is supported by probable cause and that is conducted in public; and (3) the arrest in this case was constitutionally valid. View "State v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his motions for discovery and for oral argument, holding that there was no error.Appellant, who was serving a fifty-five-year prison sentence, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court of appeals dismissed the petition without reaching the merits of Appellant's claims for habeas relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant's habeas petition; and (2) because Appellant's affidavit of indigency was deficient under Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C) the court of appeals did not err in dismissing the petition. View "Robinson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Appellee, the warden of the correctional institution at which Appellant was an inmate, holding that there was no error.In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that he was entitled to the writ because he was no properly bound over from juvenile court to adult court for prosecution for offenses that he committed while he was a juvenile. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee on Appellant's petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact on his claim for habeas corpus relief. View "Humphrey v. Bracy" on Justia Law