Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Relators, who owned property over which Ohio Power Company sought to take easements by eminent domain, holding that Relators were entitled to a writ of prohibition to prevent Washington County Court of Common Pleas Judge John Halliday from proceeding with a compensation trial during the pendency of Relators' appeal.After Judge Halliday ruled that Ohio Power's takings were necessary for a public use Relators appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the appeal, Judge Halliday scheduled a trial on the issue of compensation. Relators commenced this action seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Halliday from holding the compensation trial while their appeal was pending. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding (1) the appropriations in this case did not fall under any of the exceptions to the owner's right to immediate appeal under Ohio Rev. Code 163.09(B)(3); and (2) a compensation trial during the pendency of a section 163.09(B)(3) appeal is inconsistent with the court of appeals' jurisdiction. View "State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that Ohio Rev. Code 2107.15 does not apply to essential witnesses to a remediated will, holding that the voiding provision of section 2107.15 applies equally to essential witnesses to both formally compliant and remediated wills.Noting that Ohio Rev. Code 2107.03, which governs the formal requirements for the execution of a written will, and section 2107.15, which voids a will's devise to a witness if that witness was essential to establishing the validity of the will, mention "competent" witnesses but that Ohio Rev. Code 2107.24, which provides a process for admitting a purported will to probate despite its failure to fully adhere to the formal requirements, does not, the court of appeals concluded that section 2107.24 eliminates the requirement of witness competency. Therefore, the court of appeals held that the voiding provision of section 2107.15 does not apply to essential witnesses to a remediated will. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the court of appeals' judgment related to section 2107.15, holding that the statute applies both to wills executed in compliance with section 2107.03 and those submitted pursuant to section 2107.24. View "In re Estate of Shaffer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision reversing Defendant-doctor's convictions on the ground that the trial court should have granted Defendant's motion to suppress incriminating answers he gave during a medical board investigation, holding that the State may use incriminating answers given by a doctor during a medical board investigation in a subsequent criminal prosecution of the doctor.Defendant was convicted of three third-degree misdemeanor counts of sexual imposition. The court of appeals reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress statements he had made to the medical board investigator as having been illegally compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a medical license is a property right, the threatened loss of which is a form of coercion that can compromise the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination; (2) for coercion to be sufficient to warrant the suppression of statements made during a medical board investigative interview, the person making the statements must subjectively believe that asserting the privilege against self-incrimination could cause the loss of the person's medical license, and that belief must be objectively reasonable; and (3) Defendant's belief that he could lose his medical license if he refused to truthfully answer questions posed by the medical-board investigator was not objectively reasonable. View "State v. Gideon" on Justia Law

In this appeal concerning two prison sentences that Defendant received related to 133.62 grams of powder containing detectable amounts of heroin and fentanyl the Supreme Court held that the sentence violated the double jeopardy protections of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.Defendant was sentenced on a first-degree felony conviction for trafficking in 133.62 grams of heroin and was separately sentenced on a second-degree felony conviction for trafficking in 133.62 grams of fentanyl. The court of appeals upheld the sentences, concluding that the General Assembly intended to separately punish an offender for trafficking in different types of drugs. The Supreme Court reversed, vacated the sentences, and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the imposition of two punishments for the same, singular quantity of drugs violated Defendant's constitutional double jeopardy protections. View "State v. Pendleton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not include the right to carry a firearm while intoxicated, and therefore, Ohio Rev. Code 2923.15 is not unconstitutional.Defendant was found guilty of violating section 2923.15(A), which provides that no person under the influence of alcohol or drugs shall carry or use any firearm. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued that section 2923.15 violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the constitutionality of section 2923.15 should be judged using intermediate scrutiny; and (2) the statute is constitutional under intermediate scrutiny. View "State v. Weber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may not take advantage of Ohio's saving statute to refile a medical claim after the applicable one-year statute of limitations has expired if the four-year statute of repose for medical claims has also expired.Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice complaint against Defendants in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs previously filed their claims against Defendants in prior actions that were dismissed without prejudice before refiling their claims in Hamilton County. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings in both refiled cases, arguing that Ohio's medical statute of repose, Ohio Rev. Code 2305.113(C) barred the refiled claims. The trial court agreed and granted Defendants' motions. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Plaintiffs timely refiled their claims pursuant to the saving statute and that the statute of repose did not bar the refiled claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Plaintiffs commenced their actions in Hamilton County more than four years after the alleged conduct that formed the basis of their claims, the statute of repose barred Plaintiffs' refiled actions. View "Wilson v. Durrani" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court clarified what a sex offender whose offenses were committed in another state must prove pursuant to former Ohio Rev. Code 2950.09(F)(2) in order to successfully have the automatic sexual-predator classification under former section 2950.09(A) removed.The trial court here incorrectly determined that out-of-state offenders who are automatically required to register as sexual predators in Ohio must prove they are not likely to commit another sexually-oriented offense in order successfully to challenge the sexual-predator classification. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) first, an out-of-state offender challenging an automatic designation as a sexual predator under former R.C. 2950.09(A) must prove by clear and convincing evidence the reason for the imposition of the lifetime registration requirement in the other state; and (2) second, the offender must prove that the reason for the lifetime registration requirement is not substantially similar to a classification as a sexual predator under former Chapter 2950. View "State v. Lingle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition against Judge Stephen McIntosh of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Appellant was found guilty of all counts in two criminal cases. Judge McIntosh sentenced Defendant. Appellant then filed an original action seeking a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition against Judge McIntosh alleging that the judge had improperly sentenced him. The court of appeals concluded that mandamus was not available because Appellant could have challenged his convictions in a direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant's sentencing entry was voidable, mandamus will not lie. View "State ex rel. Romine v. McIntosh" on Justia Law

In this breach of contract action, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals applying the common-law requirements set out in Globe Indemnity Co. v. Schmitt, 53 N.E.2d 790 (Ohio 1944), without considering whether the parties intended to abrogate those requirements, holding that the Globe Indemnity Co. requirements do not apply when the parties express a clear intent to abrogate those common-law requirements in their contract.On appeal, Appellant argued that the common-law requirements set out in Globe Indemnity Co. for determining whether an indemnitee may recover against an indemnitor when the indemnitee has settled a claim without the indemnitor's involvement do not apply when the parties express a clear intent to abrogate those requirements in their contract. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding (1) the requirements set forth in Globe Indemnity Co. do not apply when the parties express a clear intent to abrogate those common-law requirements in their contract; and (2) the lower courts erred by failing ascertain whether the parties intended to abrogate the common-law requirements for indemnification. View "Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. JK & R Express, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the common-law requirements set out in Globe Indemnity Co. v. Schmitt, 53 N.E.2d 790 (Ohio 1944), for determining whether and indemnitee may recover against an indemnitor when the indemnitee has settled a claim without the indemnitor's involvement, do not apply when the parties express a clear intent to abrogate those common-law requirements.The court of appeals in this breach of contract action concluded that the Globe Indemnity Co. requirements apply regardless of the terms of the parties' contract. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred by applying the common-law requirements set out in Globe Indemnity Co. without considering whether the parties abrogated those requirements in their contract. The Court remanded this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Wildcat Drilling, LLC v. Discovery Oil & Gas, LLC" on Justia Law