Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that Relators were entitled to a limited writ of mandamus ordering Respondents, the members of the Columbus City Council, to find sufficient a proposed municipal ordinance initiative and to proceed with the process for an initiative ordinance under Columbus City Charter Section 43-1 et seq.Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel Respondents to submit to Columbus city electors a proposed municipal ordinance initiative on the May 4, 2021 primary election ballot. The council refused to submit the initiative to electors, finding that the initiative petition was deficient in form. The Supreme Court granted a limited writ, holding (1) the council abused its discretion in finding that the petition was insufficient; and (2) a limited writ of mandamus requiring the council to move forward with the process set forth in section 43-1 et seq. was proper. View "State ex rel. Gil-Llamas v. Hardin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling Secretary of State Frank LaRose to reappoint Bryan Williams to the Summit County Board of Elections, holding that the Summit County Republican Party Executive Committee did not meet its burden of proof to show that LaRose's reasons for rejecting Williams' appointment were not valid and that he abused his discretion.Williams had already served two terms as a member of the Board when the Committee submitted a recommendation to Secretary LaRose to reappoint Williams for a third term. LaRose rejected the recommendation, citing concerns about the overall performance of the board. The Committee then filed its complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel LaRose to reappoint Williams to the Board. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that LaRose abused his discretion in rejecting Williams' appointment. View "State ex rel. Summit County Republican Party Executive Committee v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus sought by Relator to compel the production of the public records he requested, holding that Relator was entitled to both the writ and to statutory damages.Relator, an inmate at the Toledo Correctional Institution (TCI), sought from Respondent, the public-records custodian at TCI, information about the number of staff and inmates at TCI who had been exposed to or who had contracted COVID-19. Respondent offered to provide the information if Relator paid ten cents for a copy of the document. Relator then made another request. When Respondent did not provide documents responsive to the request, Relator sought a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the writ and awarded statutory damages, holding that Respondent had a clear legal duty to offer to provide the records to Relator at no cost and that Respondent was substantively and procedurally eligible for an award of statutory damages. View "State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that upheld three use-tax assessments based on Appellant's purchase of three trucks, holding that the BTA erred by failing to correlate its findings with the distinct primary uses of the trucks.The trucks at issue were two Peterbilt trucks and one Lodal truck. Appellant argued that because it purchased the three trucks for use in its business as a for-hire motor carrier, the purchase were exempt from sales and use tax under Ohio Rev. Code 5739.02(B)(32)'s "highway transportation for hire" exemption. The tax commissioner and the BTA determined that the exemption did not apply to the purchases because Appellant's use of the trucks to transport waste material to landfills did not qualify as the transportation of "personal property belonging to others." The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) for purposes of section 5739.02(B)(32), waste is "personal property belonging to" the person or entity that generated it when the person or entity has an agreement with the hauler that specifies where the waste is to be taken for disposal; and (2) because the generators of the waste hauled by the Peterbilt trucks designated the destination of the waste, the Peterbilt trucks were entitled to the exemption. View "N.A.T. Transportation, Inc. v. McClain" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the Lucas County Prosecutor's Office to bring felonious-assault charges against Ronald Collins and Courtney Lykans for injuries that Appellant's infant daughter sustained while she was in their care, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion.After Appellant's daughter sustained life-threatening injuries Lykans and Collins were indicted on third-degree felony counts of child endangering. Lykans pled no contest to the charge, and Collins pled no contest to an amended fourth-degree felony charge of attempting child endangering. Plaintiff then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus asking the court of appeals to order the prosecutor's office to file felonious-assault charges and Lykans and Collins. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of the prosecutor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not establish that he had a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the prosecutor had a clear legal duty to provide it. View "State ex rel. Whittaker v. Lucas County Prosecutor's Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus compelling Summit County Common Pleas Court Judge Alison McCarty to vacate his conviction and resentence him, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant's complaint.Appellant was convicted of multiple felony charges, including rape, felonious assault, and kidnapping. With respect to the kidnapping charge, the jury did not specify whether Appellant had violated Ohio Rev. Code 2905.01(A)(3), (A)(4), or both. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint for writ of mandamus alleging, among other things, that the jury failed to render a unanimous verdict. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy to challenge the alleged error in his direct appeal. View "State ex rel. Person v. McCarty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted writs of prohibition and mandamus to prevent Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge John O'Donnell from exercising jurisdiction over a civil action that was transferred from the Lyndhurst Municipal Court but denied the writ of mandamus ordering Lyndhurst Municipal Court Judge Dominic Coletta to dismiss the case upon its return from the common pleas court.Plaintiff filed a complaint against State Farm Mutual Insurance Company in the small claims division of the Lyndhurst Municipal Court. Judge Coletta granted Plaintiff's subsequent motion to transfer the case to Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, where it was assigned to Judge O'Donnell. State Farm filed a motion to return the case to the municipal court, but Judge O'Donnell denied the motion. State Farm then brought this action. The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge O'Donnell from hearing the case in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and granted a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering Judge O'Donnell to return the matter to the Lyndhurst Municipal Court, holding the peremptory writ was appropriate. View "State ex rel. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus sought by Steven Armatas, holding that Armatas was entitled to a writ of mandamus but that the court of appeals correctly denied attorneys fees.Armatas sought a writ of mandamus to order Plain Township Board of Trustees to produce an invoice for legal services performed on the township's behalf. The township declined to produce the invoice, arguing that it did not possess the invoice and had no duty to provide it. The court of appeals denied the writ, along with Armatas's related claims for statutory damages, attorney fees, and court costs, concluding that the requested records were not public records. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Armatas was entitled to a writ of mandamus under the quasi-agency test; (2) Armatas was entitled to statutory damages and an award of court costs; and (3) Armatas was not entitled to attorney fees. View "State ex rel. Armatas v. Plain Township Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying U.S. Tubular Products, Inc.'s complaint in mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission to vacate its decision requesting John Roush's request for an award of additional compensation, holding that the Commission's decision was supported by evidence in the record.Under Ohio Const. art. II, 35, a worker who sustains injuries as a result of her employer's violation of a specific safety requirement (VSSR) may seek an award of additional compensation. Roush sustained injuries while working at U.S. Tubular, and his workers' compensation claim was allowed for numerous conditions. Roush later filed an application for a VSSR award, claiming that U.S. Tubular had violated specific safety requirements set forth in the Ohio Administrative Code. The Commission granted a VSSR award of an additional twenty-five percent in compensation. U.S. Tubular filed a mandamus complaint seeking a writ compelling the Commission to vacate the VSSR award. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission's determinations were supported by evidence in the record. View "State ex rel. U.S. Tubular Products, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus against Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Vincent A. Culotta, holding that the mandamus complaint was properly dismissed.Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder and other felonies. After he was sentenced, Appellant filed a motion to correct his award of jail-time credit. Unhappy with the award, the judge awarded upon granting the motion, Appellant unsuccessfully appealed. Appellant then brought a mandamus complaint seeking to compel Judge Culotta to conduct a new sentencing hearing and to correct his jail-time-credit award. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaint did not state a cognizable mandamus claim. View "State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta" on Justia Law