Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that a recorded will that does not affect title to an interest in land is not a recorded title transaction under Ohio Rev. Code 5301.47(F) and cannot be an exception to the Marketable Title Act under Ohio Rev. Code 5301.49, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court and the appellate court incorrectly concluded that the interest H.J. Jones retained in the oil and gas was a life estate that expired upon Jones's death in 1932; but (2) the lower courts did not err in determining that a recorded will that does not distribute the decedent's oil and gas rights does not affect title and is not a recorded title transaction preventing those rights from being extinguished. View "Peppertree Farms, L.L.C. v. Thonen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of habeas corpus ordering Petitioner's release from the Lorain Correctional Institution where Jennifer Black was the warden, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief in habeas corpus.Petitioner was convicted of sexual battery and gross sexual imposition. After Petitioner was released from prison the Adult Parole Authority found that Petitioner had violated the terms of his postrelease control and imposed a prison term. Petitioner commenced this action seeking his release. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Petitioner's argument did not state a valid claim for relief in habeas corpus. View "Simmons v. Black" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals improperly considered an unauthenticated document.Appellant, who was in prison for aggravated murder, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his convictions were void because he was seventeen years old at the time of the offenses and was not bound over from juvenile court. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of Warden Richard Bowen. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred by relying on a copy of the birth certificate attached to the warden's motion for summary judgment. View "State ex rel. Bradford v. Bowen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals denying Grandparents' motion for reconsideration of the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that, under In re Adoption of B.I., 131 N.E.3d 28, Father's reliance on a no-contact order constituted justifiable cause for his having had no contact with his children, holding that there was no error.Father, the biological father of A.K. and C.K., was convicted of murdering the children's natural mother. The juvenile court gave custody of the children to their maternal grandparents, and the court's order stated that Father shall have no contact with the children. Grandparents later filed petitions to adopt the children. At issue was whether the need to obtain Father's consent was extinguished under Ohio Rev. Code 3107.07(A). The probate court determined that Father's consent was not required. The court of appeals ultimately reversed based on this Court's intervening decision in B.I. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in order for the adoption proceedings to go forward, Father's consent was required. View "In re Adoption of A.K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden Emma Collins, holding that there was no error.Appellant, an inmate at the Pickaway Correctional Institution where Collins was the warden, was found guilty of murder and attempted murder. Appellant field a complaint for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the offenses of which he was convicted were neither charged in the indictment nor lesser-included offenses of the charged crimes, and therefore, his convictions were void. The court of appeals granted Collins's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to state a basis for reversal. View "Stewart v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Richard Duncan's complaint against American Transmission Systems, Inc. and FirstEnergy Corp. (collectively, ATSI), and the city of Aurora and its mayor, holding that there was no error.Duncan brought this action alleging that if a project proposed by ATSI for installing transmission towers had not been approved, he likely would have acquired an easement from Aurora allowing him to use an abandoned right-of-way to access a public road from his lot. Duncuan's complaint sought a declaration that the power lines were a public and private nuisance resulting in a taking of his property, a preliminary and permanent injunction halting the project's construction, and a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals granted ATSI's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in dismissing the action. View "State ex rel. Duncan v. American Transmission Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted some, but not all, of Relator's requested relief in his petition for a writ of mandamus ordering Donna Crawford, an inspector with the Trumbull Correctional Institution's office of institutional services, to produce public records that Relator had requested, holding that Relator was entitled to some of his requested relief.Relator, an inmate, sent public-records requests to Crawford, the prison's custodial of inmate-grievance records. Crawford sent some, but not all, of the requested documents. Relator then brought this action seeking a writ of mandamus and an award of statutory damages under Ohio Rev. Code 149.43(C)(2). The Supreme Court partially granted relief and awarded Relator $1,000 in statutory damages for Crawford's failure to respond fully to one request, holding that Relator met his burden to plead and prove facts showing that he requested a public record and that Crawford did not make the record available. View "State ex rel. Ware v. Crawford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's private citizen affidavit seeking the arrest of Appellee, Beth Diefendorf, an Akron municipal employee, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the affidavit for lack of jurisdiction.Appellant filed an affidavit complaint in the court of appeals accusing Diefendorf of grand theft arising from a condemnation proceeding against Appellant's real property. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the affidavit on the grounds that it was not a court of record under Ohio Rev. Code 2935.09. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly construed the statute. View "In re Affidavit of Helms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's application to reopen his appeal, holding that Appellant's application showed that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was deprived of the effective assistance of appellate counsel.Appellant pleaded guilty to several sex-related offenses. On appeal, the court of appeals reasoned that, due to an incomplete record, it was compelled to presume regularity in the lower-court proceedings and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Represented by new appellate counsel, Appellant timely filed an application to reopen his direct appeal, asserting that his original appellate counsel's performance was deficient. The court of appeals denied the application. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant's application to reopen his appeal showed a genuine issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel warranting a reopening of the appeal. View "State v. Leyh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Petitioners showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission on January 22, 2022 violated Ohio Const. Art. XI, 6(A) and (B) and ordered the Commission to adopt a new plan.On January 12, 2022, the Supreme Court held that the General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Commission in September 2021 was invalid and that the Commission had not drawn a district plan that met neither of the standards set forth in sections 6(A) and 6(B) and ordered the Commission to adopt a new plan. On January 22, the Commission adopted a new plan. The Supreme Court again ordered the Commission to be reconstituted and to adopt yet a newer plan, holding that the new plan violated sections 6(A) and 6(B). View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm." on Justia Law