Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Hamilton County Coroner to produce a DNA record, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the mandamus claim.Appellant sent several pieces of correpondence to the coroner's office asking for DNA records related to his criminal case. After the coroner responded, Appellant filed this complaint in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the coroner to release for inspection all DNA records that had been created for and preserved in the CODIS database. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence did not show that the coroner had any records responsive to Appellant's requests. View "State ex rel. Long v. Hamilton County Coroner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's aggravated murder conviction and discharging him from further prosecution for that crime, holding that the court of appeals erred.Defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated murder, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2903.01(A). The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to show that Defendant acted with prior calculation and design. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in reviewing whether evidence is sufficient to establish the prior-calculation-and-design element of the crime of aggravated murder, a court must consider whether the evidence supports a finding that the defendant acted with advance reasoning and purpose to kill; (2) the court of appeals failed properly to apply this standard and inappropriately conducted its own weighing of the evidence; and (3) a reasonable juror could properly find that Defendant acted with prior calculation and design. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a physician employed in an executive position who does not directly oversee physicians who treat patients does not satisfy the active-clinical-practice requirement of Ohio R. Evid. 601.Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice suit alleging that Defendant was negligent of his treatment of one of the plaintiffs. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Defendant. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the plain language of Rule 601 should have precluded the testimony of Dr. Ron Walls as an expert regarding the standard of care when Walls was not involved in the active clinical practice of medicine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a physician who is employed in an executive position and does not directly oversee physicians who treat patients does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 601; and (2) Walls did not satisfy the active-clinical-practice requirement of Rule 601. View "Johnson v. Abdullah" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Ohio Power Siting Board granting Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need to construct, operate, and maintain a natural-gas pipeline, holding that the Board's decision was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and was not so clearly unsupported by the record as to show a mistake or willful disregard of duty.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) assuming without deciding that the Board misapplied its filing requirements, the error was harmless; (2) the Board did not err in determining that Duke's proposal met the conditions of Ohio Rev. Code 4906.10(A)(1); (3) the Board properly accounted for the interest of safety in evaluating Duke's proposal; (4) the Board did not err by not requiring Duke to evaluate the pipeline's impact against the City of Blue Ash's most recent comprehensive plan; (5) the Board did not err in evaluating the pipeline's estimated tax benefits; and (6) the Board did not deprive Blue Ash of due process of law. View "In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) allowing a gas company to charge its customers higher rates, holding that the PUCO erred by approving the rate increase.At issue was whether Suburban Natural Gas Company's customers must pay for a 4.9-mile extension of the company's pipeline. The PUCO determined that the pipeline extension met the "used-and-useful" test as of a specified date and approved the rate increase. See Ohio Rev. Code 4909.15(A)(1). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the PUCO looked beyond whether the entire 4.9-mile extension was used and useful on the applicable date and considered whether it was a prudent investment because it might prove useful in the future; and (2) therefore, the PUCO erred in evaluating the rate increase. View "In re Application of Suburban Natural Gas Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition sought by Relators in this expedited election case to bar the Clark County Board of Elections from placing a referendum on the November 2021 election ballot, holding that Relators were not entitled to the writ.Hillside Creek Farms filed an application to rezone its forty-two-acre parcel of real property from agricultural and rural residential to a Planned District-Residential classification. After the Clark County Board of County Commissioners approved the amended rezoning application a petition was filed requesting a ballot referendum on the Hillside rezoning resolution. Relators, including Hillside, filed a protest against the zoning-referendum petition. The denied the protest and placed the referendum on the November ballot. The Supreme Court denied Relators' requested writ of prohibition, holding that the board of elections' decision to approve the zoning referendum for placement on the ballot was authorized by law. View "Hillside Creek Farms v. Clark County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a writ of mandamus sought by Relators, four City of Cincinnati electors, to compel changes to ballot language for a proposed amendment to the Cincinnati City Charter, holding that Relators showed that they were entitled to the writ in part.At issue was an initiative petition proposing amendments to the Cincinnati City Charter. The Hamilton County Board of Elections certified ballot language to which Relators objected. Relators filed this original action against the Board and its members alleging that the certified ballot language misrepresented the proposed amendment and omitted material information. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part and denied it in all other respects, holding that Relators showed that the Board abused its discretion in preparing and certifying only certain ballot language for the proposed amendment. View "State ex rel. Rhoads v. Hamilton County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the Lorain Correctional Institution, holding that Appellant failed to show that he was entitled to the writ.Appellant, an inmate, filed this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the way his revocation hearing was conducted violated his due process rights. Specifically, Appellant argued that because of a delay in conducting a "proper" hearing in his case, he was prejudiced. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Ellison v. Black" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a tax imposed solely upon a small number of billboard operators is a discriminatory tax that violates the rights to freedom of speech and a free press protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.The City of Cincinnati imposed a tax on outdoor advertising signs, but through definitions and exemptions within the city's municipal code, the tax burdens feel predominantly on two billboard operators only. The two billboard operators (Appellants) sought a declaration that the tax violated their constitutional rights to free speech and a free press and requesting an injunction against the tax's enforcement. The trial court permanently enjoined the City from enforcing the tax. The court of appeals reversed in part. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the injunction, holding that the billboard tax did not survive strict scrutiny and therefore impermissibly infringed on Appellants' rights to free speech and a free press. View "Lamar Advantage GP Co. v. City of Cincinnati" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of one count of drug trafficking, a first-degree felony with a forfeiture specification, and one count of drug possession and trafficking, holding the trial court did not have an affirmative duty to inquiry about a possible conflict of interest.At issue on appeal was whether a trial court has an affirmative duty to inquire into the possible conflict of interest created by an attorney's dual or multiple representation of codefendants in a criminal case. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding (1) when a trial court does not know, and should not reasonably have known, of a possible conflict of interest in an attorney's representation of two or more codefendants charged with a crime, the trial court has no affirmative duty to inquire whether a conflict of interest exists; and (2) there was nothing in the record here giving rise to an affirmative duty on the part of the trial court to inquire about a potential conflict of interest resulting from the dual representation of Defendant and his codefendant. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law