Ohio Supreme Court

The court held that a trial court may conduct a rigorous analysis of all seven class-certification requirements even after finding that one or more requirements are unmet, when the remaining requirements can still be evaluated.

The court adopted findings that Conrad committed five professional-conduct violations while serving as guardian of an incapacitated person’s estate and later representing the probate estate, but it dismissed the charged financial-assistance violation.

The court affirmed dismissal of Ames’s public-records mandamus petition because he filed it before the statutory three-business-day cure period had expired. The certified-mail receipt in the appellate record showed delivery on April 28, making May 2 the earliest date he could file; the court declined to consider USPS…

The court held that Ohio’s saving statute permits a new action after a qualifying failure other than on the merits, even if the statute of limitations for a claim had expired before an earlier use of the statute.

The court held that a defendant challenging preindictment delay must prove actual prejudice and that the State intentionally delayed prosecution to gain a tactical advantage, and it overruled prior Ohio decisions to the extent they conflicted with that rule.

The court held that unconditional acceptance of a guilty plea does not automatically attach jeopardy; the inquiry is whether the proceeding implicated the defendant’s legitimate expectation of finality and concerns of prosecutorial overreach.

The court denied Koebel’s mandamus writ because he unreasonably delayed filing and the delay prejudiced the election officials. It granted leave to submit a supplemental verification affidavit and rejected the secretary of state’s standing challenge, but did not reach whether the replacement-candidate committee was…

The court denied mandamus, holding that the prior nomination of a candidate for a different office did not bar a party committee from selecting him for an unexpired judicial term under R.C. 3513.31(I).

The court held that the State presented sufficient evidence to support McClain’s conviction for substantial-impairment rape because the victim’s memory gap, the DNA evidence, and other circumstantial evidence supported the required elements, including reasonable cause to believe she was impaired.

The court held that McCartney’s death abated his pending claim for permanent-total-disability compensation and rendered his mandamus action moot, but did not divest the court of appeals of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court denied mandamus because the two groups of part-petitions requested submission of the proposed charter amendment at different elections, and neither group alone had enough valid signatures.

The court affirmed dismissal of Hill’s first writ action because his standalone filing was properly treated as a writ complaint and did not satisfy the inmate-affidavit requirements.

The court held that when a juvenile court has returned legal custody of a dependent child to a natural parent and closed the dependency case, it cannot later award custody to a nonparent without first finding that the parent has become unsuitable since custody was restored.

The court held that ODOT was immune from a negligence suit challenging its decision not to install temporary vandal-protective fencing while a bridge was under reconstruction. Because that decision was a basic policy decision involving a high degree of discretion, the State had not consented to suit on the claim and…

The court held that the court of appeals could not dismiss Nguyen’s quo warranto claims as moot without first determining whether the charter remained in force or the statutory government created by Issue 23 had taken effect.

The court denied Gregory’s mandamus petition because clear and convincing evidence did not establish that his proposed jurisdictional appeal filing included the required notice of appeal and fee substitute, so the clerk had no clear legal duty to file it. Because damages under R.C.

The court denied Utz’s request for mandamus as moot because Cincinnati provided the requested records after he filed suit, and it denied his requests for statutory damages, attorney fees, and court costs.

The court denied mandamus because Harris did not rebut the department’s evidence that it had provided all responsive records. It also denied statutory damages, concluding that the department’s delay on the 2024 request was reasonable under the circumstances and that Harris did not prove qualifying transmission of the…

The court held that Bradley did not establish plain error from the trial court’s failure to give an unrequested instruction concerning transferred self-defense. The instruction was not clearly required by current law, and Bradley did not show that the verdict would have been different if it had been given.

The court denied Ellis’s mandamus claims because he did not prove that the department-specific records he sought existed, and it denied statutory damages because he therefore did not establish a failure to comply with the Public Records Act.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Bradford, holding that he has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by filing a motion in the trial court to correct his jail‑time‑credit award.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that for Ohio’s commercial‑activity tax the “amount realized” is the net amount actually received by Perrigo after chargebacks, not the higher list price invoiced to distributors, and affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision.

The Ohio Supreme Court vacated the Board of Tax Appeals’ analysis of CheckFree Services’ disbursement‑authorization service for lacking sufficient clarity and remanded the case for a detailed statutory analysis.

The Ohio Supreme Court answered a certified question of state law, holding that because Ohio law bars claims for damages and declaratory relief in an R.C. Ch. 2506 administrative appeal, the doctrine of res judicata does not preclude pursuing those claims in a later Section 1983 action.

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Seventh District Court of Appeals' dismissal of Dejuan Carlton's habeas corpus petition because the petition was not verified under R.C. 2725.04, and it denied Carlton's request for oral argument as procedurally improper.

The Ohio Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case for further consideration, directing the lower court to apply the reasoning from State v. Fontanez. The decision was issued as a slip opinion pending formal publication.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed Smith’s conviction, holding that the phrase “place of employment address” in R.C. 2950.05(F)(2) means the physical environment where an offender performs work and that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Smith.

The court accepted the attorney’s resignation as a resignation with disciplinary action pending, withdrew his right to practice law in Ohio, and imposed a series of compliance obligations.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 731.32 does not apply to petitions to amend a city charter and therefore the city clerk erred in rejecting the relators' charter‑amendment petition.

The court affirmed dismissal of Johnson’s habeas petition because his asserted pretrial and arraignment errors challenged only the exercise of jurisdiction, not the trial court’s jurisdiction itself, and therefore were cognizable, if at all, through direct appeal.

The Supreme Court of Ohio, per curiam, affirmed the Tenth District's dismissal of Ramone Wright's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Franklin County Municipal Court to vacate a prior, unidentified conviction.

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that subsequent amendments to two statutes first enacted in an allegedly unconstitutional budget bill cured any purported violation of the Ohio Constitution's one-subject rule, because the amendments repealed the contested provisions and enacted new provisions that must be judged…

The court held that a trial court does not completely fail to comply with Crim.R. 11 merely by omitting an express statement that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt when the court otherwise complies, the admission is obvious from the plea colloquy, and the defendant does not assert actual innocence.

The court affirmed summary judgment for the school board because the undisputed evidence showed that it provided all responsive records in its possession, making Ames’s public-records mandamus claims moot.

The court granted a limited mandamus writ concerning the requested proposal submitted for ODRC's food-services contract and otherwise denied relief. Clark failed to establish that ODRC possessed certain requested records, that the body-camera footage still existed, or that ODRC violated a duty by permitting inspection…

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the Fourth District erred in dismissing the Nickells' appeal from a default judgment transferring a land-contract interest to judgment creditor Drushal as moot: nothing in the record indicated a voluntary satisfaction of the judgment, because the only affirmative act needed to…

The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a writ of mandamus that would have compelled the City of North Ridgeville to initiate a second appropriation proceeding to compensate the Standens for the alleged loss of roadway access to the residue of their property after a partial taking for a roundabout project.

The dissent agrees that the mandamus claim became moot after statutory amendment eliminated the director's duty to secure optional federal benefits, but concludes that declaratory-judgment and permanent-injunction claims remained justiciable because federal benefits might still be recoverable.

The court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal of the State’s attempted appeal from a postverdict judgment of acquittal. It concluded that the State could appeal such an order only with leave of the court of appeals, not as of right.

The court affirmed Brinkman’s aggravated-murder convictions and three death sentences after rejecting his challenges to the sentencing proceedings, plea and jury-waiver colloquies, indictment, evidence, and aggravated-burglary conviction.