Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a writ of mandamus to compel changes to ballot language for a proposed amendment to the Cincinnati City Charter, holding that Relators showed that the Hamilton County Board of Elections abused its discretion and disregarded applicable law.Relators sought to amend the Charter to require the City of Cincinnati to require the City to provide funding for affordable housing and neighborhood stabilization. The Secretary of State approved the ballot language over Relators' objection. Relators then brought this action seeking to compel the Board and Secretary of State to approve new ballot language. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part, holding (1) Relators failed to show that City Council or the Secretary of State had a clear legal duty to provide the requested relief; and (2) the Board improperly prepared and certified ballot language stating that the use of two potential funding sources for a proposed affordable housing trust fund would violate state law. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Action for Housing Now v. Hamilton County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of prohibition filed by Mark W. Miller seeking to bar the Hamilton County Board of Elections and its members from placing the name of Aftab Pureval on the ballot as a candidate for mayor of Cincinnati in the May 4, 2021 nonpartisan primary election, holding that the board did not abuse its discretion.On appeal, Miller argued that the Board abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law by denying his protest of Pureval's candidacy. Specifically, Miller argued that Pureval's part-petitions did not include sworn affidavits of the petition circulators in alleged violation of the Cincinnati City Charter. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Pureval's part-petitions included in circulator statements substantially complied with the charter's prescribed form. View "State ex rel. Miller v. Hamilton County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden Lyneal Wainwright, holding that Appellant was not entitled to immediate release.Between 1992 and 2007 Appellant was paroled four times. In 2008, Appellant was convicted of several offenses and sentenced. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus Appellant alleged that the 2008 sentencing court did not order him to serve his firearm-specification sentences consecutively to his two prior robbery sentences and that he should have been released on December 13, 2019. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant was not complete his lawfully imposed sentences until 2025 he was not entitled to immediate release. View "State ex rel. Hunley v. Wainwright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Relators compelling Respondents - the Ohio Secretary of State, the Medina County Board of Elections, and the City of Medina - to change the ballot language of a local issue on the May 4, 2021 primary-election ballot, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.In this case arising out of the City's efforts to move the Medina Municipal Court to the Medina County courthouse building and citizen opposition to those efforts, Relators filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Respondents to amend the ballot language for Ordinance No. 222-20, as Relators requested. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding (1) Relators failed to show that the Secretary of State and the City were proper respondents for the relief they sought; and (2) the Board did not abuse its discretion or disregard applicable law in approving the ballot language. View "State ex rel. Walker v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the habeas petition for failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A).Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking in cocaine and one count or engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate prison sentence of fourteen years. Appellant later filed his habeas petition alleging that his sentences were void because the trial court failed to make the findings required under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive prison sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition was properly dismissed. View "State ex rel. Sanchez v. Wainwright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Lake County Clerk of Courts to provide him with a record related to his criminal case, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2929.25(A).In affirming the judgment, the Supreme Court noted that it was undisputed that Appellant was an inmate and that the Clerk of Courts was a government employee. Therefore, Appellant was required to comply with section 2969.25(A). The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals was correct in finding that Appellant's affidavit failed to provide the information required by section 2969.25(A)(1). View "State ex rel. Sands v. Kelly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the trial court declaring that Appellants owned certain mineral rights and quieting title to the rights in their favor, holding that the reservation of mineral rights in this case was preserved by Ohio Rev. Code 5301.49(A).At issue was whether a reference to a reservation of mineral rights in a surface landowner's root of title and in subsequently recorded title transactions was sufficiently specific to preserve the reservation of the mineral rights under Ohio's Marketable Title Act when the reference does not name the record owner of the rights. The Supreme Court held (1) in enacting section 5301.49(A), the Legislature did not require a reference to an interest predating the root of title to name the interest's owner in order to preserve the interest; and (2) in this case, notwithstanding the failure to name the owner of the reserved mineral rights, the reference was sufficient to preserve the rights from being extinguished under the Act. View "Erickson v. Morrison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of procedendo and/or mandamus seeking to compel the trial court's compliance with Civ.R. 58(B), holding that, although the court of appeals' judgment dismissing the petition was correct.Appellant, an inmate, sought the writ to compel Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Steven Martin to serve upon Appellant a judgment entry in which Appellant's motion to correct his sentencing entry was denied. The court of appeals dismissed the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that granting Appellant his requested writ of mandamus was of no benefit to him because Appellant could still timely file a notice of appeal from the judgment entry. View "State ex rel. Thomas v. Nestor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling with Ohio Department of Commerce and the Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program (collectively, the Department) to approve or deny Fire Rock, Ltd.'s application to expand its marijuana cultivation area, holding that Fire Rock was entitled to the writ.Fire Rock submitted an application requesting approval to expand its Akron-based cultivation facility. When the Department took no action on the expansion request, Fire Rock filed a complaint for writ of mandamus ordering the Department to approve or deny Fire Rock's application. The Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ, holding (1) Ohio law does not prohibit a cultivator like Fire Rock from submitting an expansion application on its own initiative; (2) the Department had a clear legal duty to act on Fire Rock's application, and Fire Rock had a clear legal right to that relief; and (3) Fire Rock lacked an adequate remedy at law. View "State ex rel. Fire Rock, Ltd. v. Ohio Department of Commerce" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was entitled to immediate release from prison because the Bureau of Sentence Computation (BSC) and the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) failed to update their records after Appellant was resentenced in 2000, holding that Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.In dismissing the petition, the Third District held that Appellant had failed to attach all applicable commitment papers to his petition, as required under Ohio Rev. Code 2725.04(D), and that Appellant had not alleged facts showing that he was entitled to immediate release from prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant provided his commitment papers with his petition; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to immediate release. View "Farley v. Wainwright" on Justia Law