OHIO SUPREME COURT ENTRIES 2022

COURT NEWS OHIO

STARK COUNTY COURT REPORTS CLICK HERE

MAHONING COUNTY COURT REPORTS CLICK HERE

OHIO SUPREME COURT ENTRIES 2017 - 2021



  

 

\ 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 27, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/27/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-1087.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1049.  State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1083.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110833 and 111020, 2022-Ohio-2133 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2023-0743.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Taylor, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1082.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-048.  John Taylor, Attorney Registration No. 0065693, last known address in Cleveland, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for six months, conditionally stayed.

DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1626.  State ex rel. Keith v. Howard.

In Mandamus.  On amended application for writ.  Cause dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2024-0012.  State ex rel. Kersbergen v. Hamilton Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0018.  Bibb v. Bd. of Elections Commt.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0020.  State ex rel. West v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0042.  Bigsby v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s “motion to compel emergency life threatening circumstance.”  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0061.  Helms v. Akron Dept. of Neighborhood Assistance.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s request to declare relator to be a vexatious litigator denied.  Cause dismissed. 

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would grant respondent’s request to declare relator to be a vexatious litigator.

 

2024-0068.  Robinson v. State Med. Bd.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2024-0070.  Harris v. Talebi.

In Quo Warranto.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion requesting mediation, motion for appointment of counsel, motion to disqualify, and “motion for request” denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0075.  McCormick v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Miscellaneous case.  On “complaint requesting emergency review/relief of frivolous actions.”  Cause dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2024-0111.  Williams v. Perez.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ motion to dismiss and vacate.  Motion denied.  Relators’ petition under the Hague Convention denied.  Respondent Victor Perez’s motion to dismiss granted.  Respondent Victor Perez’s request to find relators to be vexatious litigators denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Anneliese Huss.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant respondent Victor Perez’s request to find relators to be vexatious litigators.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2016-0696.  State v. Apanovitch.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 102618 and 102698.  On appellee’s motion for relief.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1280.  Arbor Rehab. & Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Providence Healthcare Mgt., Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112959.  On appellant’s response to show-cause order issued February 21, 2024.  This court’s February 21, 2024 ruling denying appellee’s motion for sanctions is reaffirmed.

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

 

 

2023-1319.  Sudberry v. Stuff.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s “reversal of judgment/sympathy motion.”  Motion denied.

 

2023-1336.  Arnoff v. Ferguson.

Summit App. No. 30399, 2023-Ohio-3511 .  On appellant’s motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1468.  State ex rel. Robinson v. Adult Parole Auth.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for en banc hearing and ruling.  Motion denied.

 Deters, J., would deny the motion as moot.

 

2023-1485.  Earth Mobile, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111851, 2023-Ohio-3354 .  On appellants’ motion for independent review.  Motion denied. 

 

2024-0248.  Austell v. Bowie.

Hamilton App. No. C-240031.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2024-0034.  Crozier v. Pipe Creek Conservancy, L.L.C.

Belmont App. No. 22 BE 0052, 2023-Ohio-4297 .  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. III.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1621.  Breazeale v. Infrastructure & Dev. Eng., Inc.

Hamilton App. No. C-230172, 2023-Ohio-4046 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2024-0001.  State v. Dix.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112458, 2023-Ohio-4123 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2024-0006.  DeBarr v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112305, 2023-Ohio-4121 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

 

2024-0128.  State v. A.W.

Mahoning App. No. 23 MA 0030, 2023-Ohio-4505 .

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2024-0163.  State v. Parks.

Carroll App. No. 23 CA 0965, 2023-Ohio-4740 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 26, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/26/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-1125.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0230.  Estate of Tomlinson v. Mega Pool Warehouse, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1065.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAE 03 0020, 2023-Ohio-229 .  Judgment reversed and cause remanded to the trial court.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0268.  State ex rel. Ware v. Galonski, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1064.

Summit App. No. 29622, 2023-Ohio-202 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1155.  In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.

Certified Question of State Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Nos. 22-3750, 22-3751, 22-3753, 22-3841, 22-3843, and 22-3844.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Ginger D. Anders.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1610.  State v. Moore.

Erie App. No. E-22-051, 2023-Ohio-3834 .  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due March 21, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 26, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/26/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-1131.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0409.  State ex rel. Brown v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ motion to expedite.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 27, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/27/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-1151.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0406.  State ex rel. Oxford Fin., L.L.C. v. Clary.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file a response, if any, to relator’s motion to expedite ruling on emergency motion to stay no later than Monday, April 1, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 22, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/22/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-1066.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0907.  H.R. v. P.J.E.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112990.  On appellant’s motion to accept settlement agreement.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 22, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/22/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-1040.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0028.  State ex rel. Smith v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

Hamilton App. No. C-230585.  On appellant’s motion to replace previously filed merit brief with amended merit brief.  Motion denied as moot because leave was not required under S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.13(B).  Appellant’s amended merit brief deemed filed as of February 14, 2024.  Appellee may file a merit brief, if any, within 30 days of the court’s entry.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 21, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/21/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-1038.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0409.  State ex rel. Brown v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file a response, if any, to relators’ motion to expedite no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 25, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 21, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/21/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-1037.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0090.  State ex rel. Ware v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1015.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for leave to file additional evidence.  Motion granted.  The affidavits and attachments filed by relator on July 25, 2023, and August 11, 2023, are admitted into evidence.  Relator’s motion to strike denied.  Respondents’ motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator denied.  Writ granted in part and denied in part.  Relator awarded $2,000 in statutory damages.  Relator’s request for court costs denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs in judgment only.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant respondents’ motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator and concurs in Justice DeWine’s separate opinion except for paragraphs 57-59.

 DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Deters, J.

 

2023-0356.  State v. Fork, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-1016.

Sandusky App. No. S-21-022, 2023-Ohio-242 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0244.  Reynolds v. Hamilton Cty. Dev. Disabilities Servs.

Hamilton App. No. C-230046, 2024-Ohio-83 .  On appellant’s motion to amend jurisdictional memorandum and certificate of service.  Motion denied as moot because leave was not required under S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.13(B).  Amended notice of appeal, amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction, and amended appendix deemed filed as of February 20, 2024.  Appellees may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction, if any, within 30 days of the court’s entry.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 20, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/20/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-1030.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0041.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Stenson, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-995.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-047.  David Edmund Stenson, Attorney Registration No. 0042671, last known business address in Dayton, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year with six months conditionally stayed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1607.  McCann v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220025 and C-220033, 2023-Ohio-3953 .

Kennedy, C.J., and Powell and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

Eugene Lucci, J., of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

Stephen W. Powell, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 19, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/19/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-1013.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1297.  State v. Carstaphen, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-976.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110906, 2022-Ohio-3129 .  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2023-1289, State v. Smith.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would order the parties to brief the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2024-0394.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. O’Brien.

On relator’s request for immediate interim remedial suspension.  Kevin John O’Brien, Attorney Registration No. 0028108, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period pending the filing of respondent’s response to the request and a final disposition on the merits of the request.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2024-0238.  State ex rel. LeadingAge Ohio v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid.

In Mandamus.  The court returns this case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondents shall file a response to the complaint in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 18, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/18/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-989.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MARCH 18, 2024

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the March 18, 2024 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2021-1217.  PCM, Inc. v. Harris, 173 Ohio St.3d 81, 2023-Ohio-2974.

 

2021-1469.  State ex rel. Balunek v. Marchbanks, 173 Ohio St.3d 34, 2023-Ohio-2517.

 

2022-0014.  Highland Tavern, L.L.C. v. DeWine, 173 Ohio St.3d 59, 2023-Ohio-2577.

 

2022-0055.  In re Application of Firelands Wind, L.L.C., 173 Ohio St.3d 40, 2023-Ohio-2555.

 

2022-0121.  State v. Williams, 173 Ohio St.3d 129, 2023-Ohio-3647.

 

2022-0321.  State v. Miller, 173 Ohio St.3d 102, 2023-Ohio-3448.

 

2022-0367.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Jancura, 173 Ohio St.3d 1215, 2023-Ohio-3618.

 

2022-0619.  State ex rel. Roush v. Hickson, 173 Ohio St.3d 10, 2023-Ohio-1696.

 

2022-0802.  State ex rel. Youngstown Civ. Serv. Comm. v. Sweeney, 173 Ohio St.3d 86, 2023-Ohio-3006.

 

2022-0955.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Reed, 173 Ohio St.3d 1, 2023-Ohio-1420.

 

2022-1020.  In re C.C., 173 Ohio St.3d 26, 2023-Ohio-2216.

 

2022-1044.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, 173 Ohio St.3d 94, 2023-Ohio-3028.

 

2022-1052.  State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Common Pleas Court, 173 Ohio St.3d 118, 2023-Ohio-3534.

 

2022-1432.  State ex rel. Harris v. Bruns, 173 Ohio St.3d 27, 2023-Ohio-2344.

 

2022-1495.  State ex rel. Maron v. Corrigan, 173 Ohio St.3d 55, 2023-Ohio-2556.

 

2023-0113.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, 173 Ohio St.3d 141, 2023-Ohio-3645.

 

2023-0135.  State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, 173 Ohio St.3d 70, 2023-Ohio-2668.

 

2023-0179.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaaban, 173 Ohio St.3d 146, 2023-Ohio-3671.

 

2023-0249 and 2023-0375.  State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone, 173 Ohio St.3d 170, 2023-Ohio-3832.

 

2023-0337.  In re Application of Johns, 173 Ohio St.3d 160, 2023-Ohio-3679.

 

2023-0390.  In re Application of Lu, 173 Ohio St.3d 166, 2023-Ohio-3684.

 

2023-0504.  State ex rel. Simpson v. Melnick, 173 Ohio St.3d 174, 2023-Ohio-3864.

 

2023-0626.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Poole, 173 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2023-Ohio-2111.

 

2023-0672.  State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 173 Ohio St.3d 15, 2023-Ohio-1928.

 

2023-0687.  State ex rel. LaChappelle v. Harkey, 173 Ohio St.3d 76, 2023-Ohio-2723.

 

23-AP-046.  In re Disqualification of Gallagher, 173 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2023-Ohio-2977.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 19, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/19/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-984.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2024-0189.  State v. Love.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0191.  Hull v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel denied.  Petitioner’s amended petition for writ stricken under the Civil Rules.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs but would not strike the amended petition.

Fischer, J., concurs but would strike the amended petition also under the Supreme Court Rules of Practice.

Brunner, J., concurs because Civ.R. 15(E) requires leave of court to file a supplemental pleading and no such leave was obtained to file the amended petition.

 

2024-0193.  Hogan v. Swartz.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.  Petitioner’s motion for emergency hearing and review denied as moot.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur. DeWine and Brunner, JJ., concur but would deny the motion on the merits.

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0082.  State v. Allen.

Stark App. No. 2022 CA 00151, 2023-Ohio-3739 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2024-0083.  State v. Morris.

Hardin App. No. 6-23-04, 2023-Ohio-4021 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2024-0109.  State v. Butler.

Montgomery App. No. 29754, 2023-Ohio-3504 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2024-0127.  State v. Denson.

Hamilton App. No. C-220208, 2023-Ohio-847 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

DeWine and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2024-0005.  State v. Clinkscale.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-708, 2023-Ohio-4146 .

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2024-0031.  Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Lakewood.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112456, 2023-Ohio-4212 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

2024-0087.  State v. Coker.

Wood App. No. WD-22-054, 2023-Ohio-4339 .

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1617.  State v. Jackson.

Lake App. No. 2023-L-021, 2023-Ohio-4368 .  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent in part and would accept the appeal.

Deters, J., dissents in part and would accept the appeal on appellant/cross-appellee’s proposition of law No. I.

 

2023-1635.  Co., Inc. v. Capstone Constr. Co., L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112539, 2023-Ohio-3882 .

 

2023-1639.  State v. Taylor.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0007, 2023-Ohio-4160 .

 

2023-1642.  State v. Tumblin.

Coshocton App. No. 2023CA0013, 2023-Ohio-4099 .

 

2023-1643.  Irving J. Franklin Realty, Inc. v. E. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112643, 2023-Ohio-4419 .

 

2023-1644.  State v. Coriell.

Muskingum App. No. CT2023-0011, 2023-Ohio-4113 .

 

2023-1645.  Reigert v. State Med. Bd.

Franklin App. Nos. 23AP-310 and 23AP-316, 2023-Ohio-4557 .

 

2024-0003.  State v. Thomas.

Hamilton App. No. C-230271.

 Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2024-0010.  Jenkins v. Dragoo & Assoc., Inc.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-564, 2023-Ohio-4103 .

 

 

2024-0019.  Columbus v. S. German Village Med. Ctr.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-692.

 

2024-0023.  State v. Bishop.

Jefferson App. No. 18 JE 0005, 2023-Ohio-4511 .

 

2024-0025.  Dept. of Taxation v. Barney.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-220, 2023-Ohio-4282 .

 

2024-0027.  Pakeer v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112489, 2023-Ohio-4213 .

 

2024-0030.  In re C.G.

Lucas App. No. L-23-1007, 2023-Ohio-4239 .

 

2024-0032.  In re Estate of Carte v. Bringardner.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-787, 2023-Ohio-4286 .

 

2024-0037.  In re A.C.J.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112745, 2023-Ohio-4218 .

 

2024-0038.  In re J.F.

Butler App. No. CA2023-06-065, 2023-Ohio-4244 .

 

2024-0041.  Viola v. Kasaris.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 112497 and 113022.  Joint motion to dismiss denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny the motion on the merits.

 Fischer, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., would grant the motion.

 

2024-0043.  State v. Horsley.

Pickaway App. No. 99CA33.

 

2024-0055.  State v. Dumas.

Morrow App. No. 2023 CA 0002, 2023-Ohio-4298 .

 

2024-0100.  State v. Elliott.

Trumbull App. Nos. 2023-T-0042 and 2023-T-0043, 2023-Ohio-4377 .

 

2024-0129.  State v. Honzu.

Trumbull App. Nos. 2022-T-0122 and 2023-T-0006, 2023-Ohio-2833 .

 

2024-0135.  Schmaltz v. Mark Wahlberg Chevrolet of Worthington, Ohio.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-783, 2023-Ohio-4293 .  Appellant’s motion for order of contempt denied.  Appellee’s motion to strike denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., would deny the motion to strike as moot.

 DeWine, J., would deny both motions as moot.

Fischer, J., dissents in part and would grant the motion to strike.

 

2024-0143.  Ladd v. Planchak.

Montgomery App. No. 29830, 2024-Ohio-24 .

 

2024-0144.  State v. Sowders.

Hamilton App. No. C-230153, 2023-Ohio-4498 .

 Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2024-0145.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 112387 and 112462, 2023-Ohio-4531 .

 

2024-0167.  State v. Rainey.

Hamilton App. No. C-230055, 2023-Ohio-4666 .

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

2024-0177.  State v. Johnson.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0068, 2023-Ohio-4734 .

 

2024-0270.  State v. Hall.

Brown App. No. CA2023-07-009.  Appellant’s motion for stay denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny the motion on the merits.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2023-1470.  Jabr v. Franklin Cty. Mun. Court, Criminal Div.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1470, 2024-Ohio-202 , 225 N.E.3d 1041.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 14, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/14/2024 Case Announcements #3, 2024-Ohio-949.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1112.  State ex rel. Louis v. Forshey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would order the parties to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as moot.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 15, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/15/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-931.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re McCoy.

On motion for leave.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1056.  Total Renal Care, Inc. v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2019-848.  On appellant’s motion for oral argument.  Motion granted.  The date and time for oral argument will be released at a later date.

 

2024-0098.  In re Application of Moraine Wind, L.L.C.

Public Utilities Comm., Nos. 21-516-EL-REN, 21-517-EL-REN, 21-531-EL-REN, 21-532-EL-REN, 21-544-EL-REN, and 22-380-EL-REN.  On appellee’s motion to suspend briefing schedule.  Motion granted.  Briefing suspended until the court has rendered a decision on appellee’s motion to dismiss.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 14, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/14/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-930.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0298.  State v. Shockey.

Marion App. No. 9-23-22, 2024-Ohio-296 .  On appellant’s motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment.  Motion granted.

 DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 14, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/14/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-929.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2019-1323.  State v. Knuff, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-902.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-618285-A.  Judgment affirmed and cause remanded for limited purpose.  Sentence ordered to be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the deputy warden on Tuesday, September 14, 2027.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

2023-0977.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Alexander, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-900.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2023-003.  Interim felony suspension imposed on January 5, 2023, in case No. 2023-0006 against Christopher Mark Alexander, Attorney Registration No. 0073543, last known business address in Mason, Ohio, dismissed.  Upon respondent’s reinstatement and registration for active status pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI(2) and (4), he shall serve a conditionally stayed one-year suspension.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

2023-1070.  State ex rel. Thompson v. Gonzalez, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-897.

Lucas App. No. L-23-1158, 2023-Ohio-2665.  On appellant’s motion for judicial notice.  Motion denied.  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2024-0339.  State ex rel. Maron v. Palos.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 13, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/13/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-912.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Richard.

On motion for leave.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, Donald Richard stricken from the notice of appeal filed in 2024-0366, Calo v. Black.

 

2016-1006.  State v. Madison.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-13-579539-A.  On appellant’s motion for stay of execution.  Motion granted.  The stay shall remain in effect until exhaustion of all state postconviction proceedings, including any appeals.

 

2022-0955.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Reed.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt and affidavit of compliance.  Motion granted.

 

2023-1155.  In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.

Certified Question of State Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Nos. 22-3750, 22-3751, 22-3753, 22-3841, 22-3843, and 22-3844.  On amended unopposed motion to continue oral argument.  Motion denied.

 

2024-0029.  In re Complaint of Ohio Power Co. v. Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C.

Public Utilities Comm., No. 21-990-EL-CSS.  On Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C.’s motion for leave to intervene as appellee.  Motion granted.

 

 

2024-0207.  In re Complaint of Ohio Power Co. v. Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C.

Public Utilities Comm., No. 21-990-EL-CSS.  On Nationwide Energy Partners, L.L.C.’s motion for leave to intervene as appellee.  Motion granted.

 

2024-0238.  State ex rel. LeadingAge Ohio v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid.

In Mandamus.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Kian Hudson.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1558.  State v. Sharpnac.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112330.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due March 7, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2024-0330.  Bonds v. Lape.

In Mandamus.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 12, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/12/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-895.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0740.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodman, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-852.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-040.  Amber Renee Goodman, Attorney Registration No. 0096383, last known address in Elida, Ohio, permanently disbarred from the practice of law.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-0762.  Plaza v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-853.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011932, 2023-Ohio-1787 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 13, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/13/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-880.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0739.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Bell, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-876.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-043.  Joseph Michael Bell, Attorney Registration No. 0095600, last known address in Warren, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no credit for time served under the interim felony suspension imposed on June 2, 2022.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Bock, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 DeWine and Stewart, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would adopt the board’s recommended sanction of a two-year suspension with six months of credit for time served under the interim felony suspension.

 Ginger S. Bock, J., of the First District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

2023-0855.  In re J.C., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-877.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2022 AP 11 0044, 2023-Ohio-1263 .  Judgment reversed on the authority of In re Z.C., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4703, __ N.E.3d __, and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1236.  State ex rel. AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1402.  State ex rel. Lucas v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Vehicle Inspection.

In Mandamus.  On respondent Ohio State Highway Patrol’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondent Scioto County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Matthew Loesch’s motion to dismiss in accordance with R.C. 2969.25 denied; the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 do not apply to original actions filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio.  See, e.g., State ex rel. McDougald v. Green, 155 Ohio St.3d 216, 2018-Ohio-4200, 120 N.E.3d 216, ¶ 8.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondents Matthew Loesch, Portsmouth Municipal Court Judge Steven L. Mowery, and Captain Damon Roberts.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1427.  State ex rel. Thompson v. Ninth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss amended complaint.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1600.  McCoy v. Cooper.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s motion for leave.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed. 

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1609.  Bibb v. ODJFS Bur. of State Hearings.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

2023-1611.  State ex rel. Carter v. Knece.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed. 

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1612.  State ex rel. West v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant an alternative writ as to the records request.

Deters, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2023-1632.  McCoy v. Van Winkle.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s motion to strike denied.  Respondent’s motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator denied as moot; relator was declared a vexatious litigator in McCoy v. Gonzales-Wells, 172 Ohio St.3d 1479, 2024-Ohio-355, __ N.E.3d __, and McCoy v. Land-Libby, 172 Ohio St.3d 1480, 2024-Ohio-355, __ N.E.3d __.  Respondent’s motion to revoke relator’s in forma pauperis status denied.  Relator’s motion to vacate and dismiss case No. 04CR380 denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny respondent’s motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator on the merits.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant respondent’s motion to revoke relator’s in forma pauperis status.

Stewart, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny as moot respondent’s motion to strike and grant respondent’s motion to revoke relator’s in forma pauperis status.

 

2023-1638.  Cooper v. State.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2023-1646.  Gray v. State.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0007.  State ex rel. Harwell v. Dayton Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0013.  State ex rel. Bradley v. Stormer.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0069.  Grim v. New Holland.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1342.  State ex rel. McGee v. Russo.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for relief from judgment.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1565.  State ex rel. Teagarden v. Igwe.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence,

respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2023-1566.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Whitt.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2023-1573.  State ex rel. Slager v. Trelka.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted in part and denied in part.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days as to the following record-request exhibits attached to the complaint: Exhibits C (Aug. 23, 2023), D (Aug. 28, 2023) E (Sept. 4, 2023), H and I (Sept. 19, 2023), GG, HH, and NN (Oct. 2, 2023), BB (Oct. 4, 2023), MM and OO (Oct. 8, 2023), B and W (Oct. 18, 2023), EE (Oct. 19, 2023), and PP (Oct. 24, 2023).  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted as to the foregoing record requests.  Motion granted as to the remaining record requests.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., dissent in part and would grant the motion as to the entire complaint.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent in part and would deny the motion and grant an alternative writ as to all the record requests. 

 

2023-1599.  Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C.

Madison App. No. CA2022-10-023, 2023-Ohio-2339 .  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated on page 8 of the court of appeals’ November 27, 2023 entry: “Must an employee prove, in addition to the employer having mere knowledge of a missing

safety guard, that the employer, besides doing nothing, made a deliberate decision not to replace the guard in order to establish a deliberate removal under R.C. 2745.01(C)?”  The conflict case is Thompson v. Oberlander’s Tree & Landscape, Ltd., 2016-Ohio-1147 (3d Dist.).  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2024-0064, Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C., and briefing in case Nos. 2023-1599 and 2024-0064 consolidated.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

 

2023-1603.  State v. Hearing.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0026, 2023-Ohio-3704 .  On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that no conflict exists. Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 Jill Flagg Lanzinger, J., of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

2024-0008.  State ex rel. Mobley v. O’Toole.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  Relator’s motion for sanctions denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents in part and would grant respondent’s motion to dismiss.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2024-0052.  State ex rel. Schreiner v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Prohibition.  On intervening respondent Steven W. Kraus’s motion for sanctions.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2024-0074.  Snyder v. Old World Classics, L.L.C.

Medina App. No. 23CA0019-M, 2023-Ohio-4019 .  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated on page 3 of the court of appeals’ January 5, 2024 entry: “Does R.C. 2711.03 require a trial court to hold an oral hearing on a motion to compel arbitration?”  The conflict cases are Chrysler Fin. Servs. v. Henderson, 4th Dist.

Athens No. 11CA4, 2011-Ohio-6813, and Mattox v. Dillard’s, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90991, 2008-Ohio-6488.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2023-1616, Snyder v. Old World Classics, L.L.C., and briefing in case Nos. 2023-1616 and 2024-0074 consolidated.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1616.  Snyder v. Old World Classics, L.L.C.

Medina App. No. 2023CA0019-M, 2023-Ohio-4019.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2024-0074, Snyder v. Old World Classics, L.L.C., and briefing in case Nos. 2023-1616 and 2024-0074 consolidated.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2023-1633.  In re Adoption of B.B.

Lucas App. No. L-23-1078, 2023-Ohio-4134 .  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I through IV.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

2024-0064.  Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C.

Madison App. No. CA2022-10-023, 2023-Ohio-2339 .  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2023-1599, Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C., and briefing in case Nos. 2023-1599 and 2024-0064 consolidated.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 5, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/05/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-787.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1182.  State v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-749.

Hamilton App. No. C-210355, 2022-Ohio-2752 .  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, and Powell, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by DeWine and Powell, JJ.

 Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 Mike Powell, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

2023-0152.  State ex rel. Dillon v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-744.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-600, 2022-Ohio-4773 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Stewart, JJ.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 1, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/01/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-769.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0907.  H.R. v. P.J.E.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112990.  Sua sponte, appellant’s notice of dismissal stricken as the parties have no authority to dismiss this matter.  The previously vacated hearing before the master commissioner is rescheduled for Tuesday, March 26, 2024.  In lieu of attending the hearing, the parties may submit an agreed stipulation setting forth a stipulated amount of reasonable attorney fees incurred by appellee and to be paid by Joseph G. Stafford as a result of the Stafford Law Co., L.P.A.’s frivolous appeal to this court.  The stipulation shall be submitted at least three business days prior to the hearing.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 4, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/04/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-766.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MARCH 4, 2024

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the March 4, 2024 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2022-0143.  State ex rel. McDonald v. Indus. Comm., 172 Ohio St.3d 618, 2023-Ohio-1620.

 

2022-0350.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Purola, 172 Ohio St.3d 645, 2023-Ohio-1768.

 

2022-1041.  State ex rel. Dodson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 172 Ohio St.3d 651, 2023-Ohio-2263.

 

2022-1178.  State ex rel. Casey v. Brown, 172 Ohio St.3d 655, 2023-Ohio-2264.

 

2022-1288.  State ex rel. Harris Indus. Comm., 172 Ohio St.3d 672, 2023-Ohio-3081.

 

2022-1473.  State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins, 172 Ohio St.3d 667, 2023-Ohio-2333.

 

2022-1511.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Stobbs, 172 Ohio St.3d 636, 2023-Ohio-1719.

 

2023-0027.  State ex rel. Duncan v. Driscoll, 172 Ohio St.3d 684, 2023-Ohio-3113.

 

2023-0070.  State ex rel. Russell v. Yost, 172 Ohio St.3d 669, 2023-Ohio-2356.

 

2023-0134.  State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, 172 Ohio St.3d 626, 2023-Ohio-1636.

 

2023-0151.  State v. Reyes, 172 Ohio St.3d 687, 2023-Ohio-3644.

 

2023-0332.  State ex rel. Pinkston v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 172 Ohio St.3d 608, 2023-Ohio-1060.

 

2023-0469.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Romer, 167 Ohio St.3d 680, 2023-Ohio-3099.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re McCoy.

On motion for leave.  Motion denied.

 

2024-0201.  State ex rel. Castellon v. Rose.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondents’ motion to dismiss stricken because it is prohibited by the court’s February 13, 2024 entry referring this case to mediation. 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1360.  Tolento v. Fostoria.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for dismissal.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 5, 2024

 

[Cite as 03/05/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-763.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2024-0067.  State ex rel. Peterson v. Reynolds.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0081.  State v. Davis.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0085.  State v. Stralka.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0086.  State v. Burney.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0124.  State v. Campbell.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0125.  State v. Barnhart.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0014.  State v. Brandon.

Muskingum App. No. CT2017-0081.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2024-0015.  State v. Ratliff.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111874, 2023-Ohio-1970 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2024-0044.  State v. Sitzes.

Clark App. No. 2023-CA-7, 2023-Ohio-3915 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2024-0054.  State v. Lottie.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0063, 2023-Ohio-3947 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2024-0058.  State v. Andreano.

Guernsey App. No. 22 CA 00041, 2023-Ohio-2044 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1602.  Lancaster City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Fairfield App. No. 23 CA 02, 2023-Ohio-3985 .  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2023-0964, Marysville Exempted Village Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision.

 

2023-1605.  Olentangy Local School Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Delaware App. Nos. 23 CAH 01 0003 and 23 CAH 01 0004, 2023-Ohio-3984 .  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2023-0964, Marysville Exempted Village Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision.

 

2023-1614.  State v. Morris.

Hamilton App. No. C-230108, 2023-Ohio-4105 .

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0373.  State v. Belton.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1121, 2023-Ohio-294 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. II and V. 

 

2023-0990.  State v. Jones.

Greene App. Nos. 2022-CA-47 and 2022-CA-48, 2023-Ohio-1512 .  Appellant’s motion to appoint counsel denied.

 DeWine, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., would deny the motion as moot.

 

2023-1462.  Z.J. v. R.M.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0071, 2023-Ohio-3552 .

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1595.  State v. McDaniel.

Darke App. No. 2023-CA-9, 2023-Ohio-3999 .

 

 

2023-1597.  State v. Henry.

Crawford App. Nos. 3-23-06 and 3-23-07, 2023-Ohio-4020 .

 

2023-1598.  Iannetta v. Amazon, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112553, 2023-Ohio-3980 .

 

2023-1606.  State v. Webb.

Lawrence App. No. 22CA18, 2023-Ohio-4050 .

 

2023-1608.  Petty v. Lorain.

Lorain App. No. 23CA011949, 2023-Ohio-4080 .

 

2023-1618.  Wulco, Inc. v. O’Gara Group, Inc.

Butler App. Nos. CA2023-03-033 and CA2023-03-034, 2023-Ohio-4023 .

 

2023-1620.  State v. Boyle.

Greene App. No. 2023-CA-56.

 

2023-1628.  Warman v. LivaNova Deutschland.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-230149 and C-230150, 2023-Ohio-4045 .

 Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1629.  Babylon Capital, L.L.C. v. Workman.

Van Wert App. No. 15-23-04, 2023-Ohio-4091 .

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2023-1634.  State v. Partin.

Montgomery App. No. 29845, 2023-Ohio-4056 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1637.  Fifth Third Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Reiser.

Wood App. No. WD-23-003, 2023-Ohio-4167 .

 

2023-1647.  State v. Herron.

Montgomery App. No. 28146, 2019-Ohio-3292 .

 

 

 

2024-0009.  State v. Robinson.

Summit App. No. 30857.  Appellant’s motion for expedited hearing and decision en banc denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner and Deters, JJ., would deny the motion as moot.

 

2024-0063.  State v. Castellon.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112522, 2023-Ohio-4215 .

 

2024-0069.  State v. Fields.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112693, 2023-Ohio-4543 .

 

2024-0080.  State v. Lenard.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 112283 and 112966, 2023-Ohio-4529 .

 

2024-0117.  State v. Montgomery.

Crawford App. No. 3-23-05, 2023-Ohio-4472 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-0717.  McCarthy v. Lee.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-105, 2022-Ohio-1033 .  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4699, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0718.  McCarthy v. Lee.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-105, 2022-Ohio-1033 .  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4699, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1217.  State ex rel. Brown v. Defendants Have Rights.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2023-Ohio-4695, 223 N.E.3d 1266.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1407.  State v. Lawrence.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-110, 2023-Ohio-3419 .  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1434, 2023-Ohio-4640, 223 N.E.3d 1257.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 29, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/29/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-745.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0150.  Roberts v. Opalich.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112612, 2023-Ohio-4652 .  On appellant’s motion for stay and maintenance of appeal bond posted in lower court pending outcome of appeal.  Motion granted.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2024-0205.  State ex rel. Hunter v. Goldberg.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions denied.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Relator’s emergency motion for alternative writ and/or temporary stay of judgment pending resolution of this action granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint; relator shall file a brief within 10 days of the filing of the evidence; respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.  Execution and enforcement of the trial-court judgment entered on December 27, 2023, in Troutman v. Troutman, Cuyahoga C.P. No. DR20 380424, stayed pending resolution of this action.

Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2023-1344.  Hoskins v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112095, 2023-Ohio-3149 .  On appellant’s motion to stay all filing deadlines and to refer this matter to a court mediation program.  Motion granted.  All filing deadlines for this case stayed until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.  Any third-party mediation costs will not be at this court’s expense.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 29, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/29/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-723.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Hill.

On motion for leave.  Motion denied.

 

In re McCoy.

On two motions for leave.  Motions denied.

 

2023-0637.  Barga v. St. Paris Village Council.

Champaign App. No. 2022 CA 14, 2023-Ohio-1067 .  On unopposed motion of appellee/cross-appellant, St. Paris Village Council, to continue oral argument.  Motion denied.

 

2024-0092.  Meros v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 112483 and 112709, 2023-Ohio-4313 .  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Darrin M. Walker and Eric Penn.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 28, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/28/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-719.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0035.  155 N. Fifth St., Inc. v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2020-263.  On appellee’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion for leave to file written transcription of the board’s hearing on or before February 27, 2024, granted.  Appellee shall file a merit brief within 30 days after filing of the transcript.  Appellee’s motion to order filing of the board’s hearing transcript denied as moot. 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1512.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Port.

Sua sponte, Gregory Darwin Port, Attorney Registration No. 0043838, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before January 22, 2024.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 23, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/23/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-676.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-1083.  Blodharn v. Chambers-Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-645.

In Habeas Corpus.  Writ denied.  Petitioner’s motion for expedited ruling denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0327.  State ex rel. Ohioans for Secure & Fair Elections v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ motion to redact previously filed document containing personal identifying information.  Motion granted.  The clerk shall redact Dale Ho’s residential address from his motion for permission to appear pro hac vice.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1395.  State ex rel. Gordon v. Henry.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due February 16, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 22, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/22/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-648.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2019-1787.  State v. Nicholson, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-604.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-18-634069.  Judgment affirmed.  Sentence ordered to be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the deputy warden on Tuesday, August 10, 2027.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2023-0138.  State ex rel. Ware v. Beggs, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-611.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied as moot.  Relator’s request for statutory damages denied.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner, J., concur in judgment only.

 

2023-0176.  State ex rel. Ware v. Galonski, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-613.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike and motion for leave to file additional evidence.  Motions denied.  Writ denied as moot.  Relator’s request for statutory damages denied.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner, J., concur in judgment only.

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1155.  In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.

Certified Question of State Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Nos. 22-3750, 22-3751, 22-3753, 22-3841, 22-3843, and 22-3844.  On respondents’ unopposed motion to transmit portions of Sixth Circuit record.  Motion granted.  The clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit shall transmit the following portions of the record within 14 days: ECF No. 4176, ECF No. 4153, ECF No. 57-1, ECF No. 62, ECF No. 3326, ECF No. 3327, ECF No. 17, and ECF No. 79.

 

2023-1577.  State v. Brodie.

Medina App. No. 21CA0048-M, 2023-Ohio-3743 .  On appellee’s motion to strike for lack of service.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days of the court’s entry.

 

2024-0161.  State ex rel. Dudley v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Jyoti Jasrasaria, William B. Stafford, and Qizhou Ge.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2024-0261.  State v. Wears.

Union App. No. 14-22-27, 2023-Ohio-4363 .  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 19 and 20 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 21, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/21/2024 Case Announcements #4, 2024-Ohio-647.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2024-0155.  State ex rel. Peterson v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-646.

In Prohibition and Mandamus.  Writs denied.  Relator’s motion to disqualify counsel denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 21, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/21/2024 Case Announcements #3, 2024-Ohio-643.]

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2024-0238.  State ex rel. LeadingAge Ohio v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid.

In Mandamus.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 21, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/21/2024 Case Announcements #3, 2024-Ohio-643.]

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2024-0238.  State ex rel. LeadingAge Ohio v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid.

In Mandamus.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 21, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/21/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-642.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1454.  M.E.D. v. P.K.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112070, 2023-Ohio-3471 .

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J.

_________________

BRUNNER, J., dissenting.

                         This court routinely considers whether the decision from which an appeal is brought qualifies as a final, appealable order.  See, e.g., Harris v. Hildebrand, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2023-Ohio-3005, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 22; Mill Creek Metro. Park Dist. Bd. of Comms. v. Less, 172 Ohio St.3d 24, 2023-Ohio-2332, 221 N.E.3d 813, ¶ 15; State v. Jordan, 169 Ohio St.3d 1478, 2023-Ohio-1027, 206 N.E.3d 715; State v. Johnson, 169 Ohio St.3d 1478, 2023-Ohio-1027, 206 N.E.3d 716.  In this pro se appeal, appellant, P.K., asks us to consider whether the dismissal of his motion to modify child support is a final, appealable order. -relations-court judge denied M.E.D.’s motion in a written decision on February 18, 2022.

                         A hearing on P.K.’s motion to modify his support obligations was held before a magistrate.  Apparently, M.E.D. orally renewed her motion to dismiss at that hearing, but the magistrate denied the motion to dismiss.  The magistrate then issued a decision granting P.K.’s motion to modify his support obligations and set his support at zero.  M.E.D. filed objections, including an objection to the magistrate’s denial of the dismissal for improper service.

                         In a decision issued on September 23, 2022—nearly two years after P.K. filed his motion to modify—the domestic-relations judge issued an order sustaining M.E.D.’s objections, vacating and setting aside the magistrate’s decision, and dismissing P.K.’s motion to modify.  Apparently, the domestic-relations court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction because P.K. did not perfect service of the motion to modify in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of practice.  P.K. appealed that decision to the Eighth District Court of Appeals and proceeded pro se.

                         The court of appeals dismissed P.K.’s appeal, finding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the order P.K. appealed from was not a final, appealable order.  The court of appeals summarily concluded that because the dismissal of P.K.’s motion to modify was for lack of personal jurisdiction, the order was not a dismissal on the merits, and therefore P.K. could simply refile his motion.  But as the dissenting judge pointed out, an order modifying child support cannot retroactively modify the prior order beyond the initial date of the request.  2023-Ohio-3471, ¶ 18 (Gallagher, J., dissenting), citing Smith v. Smith, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 2008 CA 00030, 2009-Ohio-3978, ¶ 41, and Zamos v. Zamos, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2002-P-0085, 2004-Ohio-2310, ¶ 13.  Therefore, even if P.K. can refile, the dismissal serves as a final order with respect to his November 2020 motion to modify, and any future modification of his support obligations will not take effect until P.K. is able to file another motion to modify..

                         The court of appeals did not address whether the dismissal of P.K.’s motion to modify was an order that “affects a substantial right * * * that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment” as to that right or denies him a “meaningful or effective remedy [on] appeal.”  See R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) and (4)(b).  While P.K. may still appeal the dismissal following a final determination of all pending motions in this case, over three years have passed since he filed his motion to modify.  The basis for P.K.’s request for a modification is unclear from the

                        modification due to an unexpected financial hardship or an increased expense for the children.  And if that is the case here, then while P.K. waits to file an appeal following the resolution of all the claims before the domestic-relations court, the garnishment order may continue and fees and arrearages may continue to accrue and compound.  P.K.’s motion to modify apparently had merit because the magistrate initially found grounds to modify P.K.’s support obligations to zero.  We should determine whether an appeal following the dismissal of P.K.’s motion to modify affords him with an effective remedy for the child-support claims raised in his November 2020 motion.

                         And while this court would generally not consider whether the domestic-relations court was correct in dismissing P.K.’s motion to modify in the first instance, we have been willing to consider the underlying merits of a party’s claims when determining whether there was appellate jurisdiction over the claim or case.  See, e.g., Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 169 Ohio St.3d 1457, 2023-Ohio-758, 204 N.E.3d 564 (accepting review of the state’s appeal on proposition of law No. I—regarding jurisdiction—and No. II—regarding the merits).

                         Therefore, I dissent from the court’s decision and would accept P.K.’s appeal.

 

 It appears from the limited information filed at this juncture that P.K. and appellee, M.E.D., were formerly married and share parenting responsibilities of three children in accordance with an order of the Domestic Relations Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  In 2019, P.K. filed a motion to reopen the matter concerning the children.  Then, in September 2020, M.E.D. filed a motion to modify visitation and an emergency motion for supervised visitation.  In November 2020, while the motions were still pending, P.K. filed a motion to modify his child-support and health-insurance obligations.  Fifteen months later, in February 2022, M.E.D. filed a motion to dismiss P.K.’s motion to modify, arguing that the

 

DONNELLY, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 20, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/20/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-610.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 19, 2024

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, have been published in the February 19, 2024 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2021-0759.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson, 172 Ohio St.3d 1231, 2023-Ohio-1585.

 

2021-0934.  In re D.R., 172 Ohio St.3d 495, 2022-Ohio-4493.

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 172 Ohio St.3d 597, 2023-Ohio-4271.

 

2021-1250.  State ex rel. Fluty v. Raiff, 172 Ohio St.3d 542, 2023-Ohio-3285.

 

2022-0148.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 172 Ohio St.3d 556, 2023-Ohio-3382.

 

2022-0191.  State ex rel. Ware v. Parikh, 172 Ohio St.3d 515, 2023-Ohio-759.

 

2022-0966.  State ex rel. Harm Reduction Ohio v. OneOhio Recovery Found., 172 Ohio St.3d 523, 2023-Ohio-1547.

 

2022-1154.  State ex rel. Howard v. Watson, 172 Ohio St.3d 577, 2023-Ohio-3399.

 

2023-0475.  Disciplinary Counsel v. McCloskey, 172 Ohio St.3d 588, 2023-Ohio-3447.

 

2023-1081.  State ex rel. Ottawa Hills Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 172 Ohio St.3d 534, 2023-Ohio-3286.

 

2023-1156.  In re Riley, 172 Ohio St.3d 1251, 2023-Ohio-3267.

 

23-AP-043.  In re Disqualification of Schroeder, 172 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2023-Ohio-2166.

 

23-AP-043.  In re Disqualification of Schroeder, 172 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2023-Ohio-3170.

 

23-AP-061.  In re Disqualification of Schroeder, 172 Ohio St.3d 1238, 2023-Ohio-3171.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0939.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-557.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-024.  Gary Allen Vick Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0071495, last known business address in Parma, Ohio, permanently disbarred from the practice of law and ordered to make restitution of $5,000 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2022-1256.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Adams, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-559.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-039.  Dennis Lee Adams, Attorney Registration No. 0068481, last known business address in Hamilton, Ohio, permanently disbarred from the practice of law and ordered to pay $542.69 to Preble County Court of Common Pleas and to make restitution of $12,971.74 to Teresa and Jerry McAdams, $3,836 to R.R. and/or Kevin Connell, $5,300 to FedEx Custom Critical, Inc., and $3,287 to Eileen Weske.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Tingler.

On motion for leave to file complaint for writ of mandamus.  Motion denied.

 

2024-0111.  Williams v. Perez.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, motion to dismiss of respondent Anneliese Huss stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.09(B).

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2024-0154.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 21, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/21/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-597.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0359.  In re T.D.S., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-595.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110471, 2022-Ohio-525 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2023-0113.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-596.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to proceed to judgment on statutory damages.  Motion granted and statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 awarded.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0617.  State ex rel. WIN Waste Innovations of Seneca Cty., L.L.C. v.  Seneca Cty. Bd. of Health.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.

Relator’s motion for judicial notice denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., would sua sponte dismiss the cause.

 

2023-1058.  State ex rel. Fischer v. Woessner.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add nominal party denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1230.  State ex rel. Bellville v. Washington Twp.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1428.  State ex rel. Robinson v. Sims.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for en banc hearing and ruling denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., concur but would deny relator’s motion as moot.

Stewart, J., would sua sponte dismiss the cause.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would issue an alternative writ.

 

2023-1477.  La Riccia v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied as moot.  Relator’s motion for leave to amend petition granted.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss amended petition granted.  Cause dismissed. 

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., would deny the motion and sua sponte deem the amended complaint filed.

 

2023-1484.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Booth.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would issue an alternative writ as to the October 24, 2023 public-records request.

Brunner, J., dissents and would issue an alternative writ.

 

2023-1499.  Bailey v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Bur. of Classification & Reception.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1502.  State v. Johnson.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1505.  State ex rel. Robinson v. Wesson.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for en banc hearing and ruling denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Brunner, JJ., concur but would deny relator’s motion as moot.

Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would issue an alternative writ.

 

2023-1506.  Newsome v. Wilt.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1510.  State ex rel. Anderson v. Obeng.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Deters, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would issue an alternative writ as to all public-records requests except for kite No. 276719731.

Brunner, J., dissents and would issue an alternative writ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-1513.  State ex rel. Conant v. Free.

In Mandamus.   On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., dissents and would issue an alternative writ. 

 

2023-1522.  McCoy v. Moore.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motions for leave denied as moot.  Cause dismissed. 

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., would deny the motions for leave on the merits. 

 

2023-1523.  State v. Contreras.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0060.  McCoy v. Licking Cty.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Respondent Licking County’s motion to strike denied as moot.  Respondent Licking County’s motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator denied as moot; relator was declared a vexatious litigator in McCoy v. Gonzales-Wells, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2024-Ohio-355, __ N.E.3d __, and McCoy v. Land-Libby, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2024-Ohio-355, __ N.E.3d __.  Respondent Licking County’s motion to revoke relator’s in forma pauperis status denied.  Relator’s motion to supplement motion to vacate & dismiss denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny as moot respondent’s motion to revoke and relator’s motion to supplement.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., would grant the motion to strike and the motion to revoke.

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., would deny the motion to revoke on the merits.

Stewart, J., would deny the motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator and would deny the motion to revoke as moot.

Deters, J., would deny the motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator and would grant the motion to revoke.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0709.  Craig v. Gilchrist.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-52 and 22AP-55, 2022-Ohio-4477 .  On appellant G.T.’s motion for relief in aid of the appeal via correction, modification, and supplementation of the record.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1069.  State ex rel. Barr v. Securus Technologies.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for relief from judgment.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1297.  State ex rel. Pitts v. VanEerten.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for relief from judgment.  Motion denied.

 Deters, J., would deny the motion as moot.

 

2023-1426.  State ex rel. AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113276, 2023-Ohio-3893 .  On appellee’s emergency request to expedite appeal.  Request denied.

 

2023-1433.  State ex rel. AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113276, 2023-Ohio-3893 .  On appellee’s amended emergency request to expedite appeal.  Request denied as moot.

 

2023-1446.  State v. Zamora.

Clermont App. Nos. CA2022-10-060 and CA2022-11-071, 2023-Ohio-1847 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1457.  State ex rel. Brinkman v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint; relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence; respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to submit under seal for in camera inspection all documents believed to be exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. 

 

 

 

2023-1578.  State ex rel. Adkins v. Myers.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days; relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence; respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  Relator’s motion for in camera inspection denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny relator’s motion as moot.

 Stewart, J., would defer ruling on relator’s motion pending consideration of the briefs and evidence.

 

2023-1582.  State ex rel. Adkins v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. Legal Dept.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days; relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence; respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  Relator’s motion for in camera inspection denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny relator’s motion as moot.

 Stewart, J., would defer ruling on relator’s motion pending consideration of the briefs and evidence.

 

2023-1584.  AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113390.  On appellee’s amended emergency request to expedite appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1594.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Bates.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days; relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence; respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would dismiss the cause.

 

2023-1645.  Reigert v. State Med. Bd.

Franklin App. Nos. 23AP-310 and 23AP-316, 2023-Ohio-4557 .  On appellant’s “memorandum in support of motion.”  Memorandum treated as a motion and denied.

 

 

2024-0019.  Columbus v. S. German Village Med. Ctr.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-692.  On appellant’s motion for an emergency stay of the receivership, eviction of tenants, and performance of non-abatement work.  Motion denied.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1419.  State v. Hayes.

Muskingum App. No. CT2023-0044.  Sua sponte, court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker, 162 Ohio St.3d 59, 2020-Ohio-3774, 164 N.E.3d 336, ¶ 3, and cause remanded to the court of appeals.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1280.  Arbor Rehab. & Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Providence Healthcare Mgt., Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112959.  Appellee’s motion for sanctions for frivolous appeal denied.  Sua sponte, G. Brenda Coey, appellants’ counsel of record, ordered to show cause within 14 days why she should not be sanctioned under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(A) for instituting a frivolous appeal.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, J., would not issue the show-cause order.

 

2023-1411.  State v. Spencer.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112058, 2023-Ohio-3359 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-1413.  State v. Emch.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2023AP050031, 2023-Ohio-3553 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would appoint counsel.

 

2023-1435.  Santos v. Buckeye 5, L.L.C.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0117, 2023-Ohio-3602 .

 Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

2023-1442.  Goble v. CNX Gas Co., L.L.C.

Monroe App. No. 22 MO 0014, 2023-Ohio-3603 .

 

2023-1452.  State v. Hopkins.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0115, 2023-Ohio-3585 .

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2023-1489.  State v. Jenkins.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 109421 and 109434, 2023-Ohio-3622 .

Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal, summarily reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand the cause to that court for application of State v. Bourn, 172 Ohio St.3d 343, 2022-Ohio-4321, 224 N.E.3d 1.

Mary Katherine Huffman, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting for Stewart, J.

 

2023-1492.  State v. Jenkins.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109434, 2023-Ohio-3622 .

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal, summarily reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand the cause to that court for application of State v. Bourn, 172 Ohio St.3d 343, 2022-Ohio-4321, 224 N.E.3d 1. 

Mary Katherine Huffman, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting for Stewart, J.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 20, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/20/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-555.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2024-0021.  Martinez v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0022.  Porter v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0024.  State v. Id-Deen.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2024-0039.  State v. Campbell.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1610.  State v. Moore.

Erie App. No. E-22-051, 2023-Ohio-3834 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents.

 

2023-1623.  State v. Shropshire.

Stark App. No. 2022 CA 00159, 2023-Ohio-2783 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents.

 

2023-1631.  State v. Allen.

Clark App. No. 2023-CA-6, 2023-Ohio-3655 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2023-1650.  State v. Carter.

Allen App. No. 1-23-03, 2023-Ohio-2918 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1531.  In re P.M.S.

Warren App. No. CA2022-05-036, 2023-Ohio-3825 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-1538.  New Albany-Plain Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-732, 2023-Ohio-3806 .  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2023-0964, Marysville Exempted Village Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision.

 

 

 

2023-1551.  New Albany-Plain Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-750.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2023-0964, Marysville Exempted Village Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision.

 

2023-1554.  New Albany-Plain Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-751.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2023-0964, Marysville Exempted Village Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision.

 

2023-1555.  New Albany-Plain Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-743.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2023-0964, Marysville Exempted Village Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision.

 

2023-1557.  State ex rel. Boggs v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112111, 2023-Ohio-3871 .

 DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1211.  State v. Boyd.

Montgomery App. No. 29447, 2023-Ohio-2079 .

 

2023-1238.  State v. Jackson.

Allen App. No. 1-22-27, 2023-Ohio-2193 .

 

2023-1398.  Bobie v. Bobie.

Butler App. No. CA2022-12-119, 2023-Ohio-3293 .  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

 

2023-1514.  State v. Roosa.

Portage App. No. 2023-P-0003, 2023-Ohio-3757 .

 

 

 

2023-1520.  State ex rel. Phillips v. May.

Marion App. No. 9-23-20.  Appellant’s motion for supplementation of the record denied.

 DeWine, J., would deny the motion as moot.

 

2023-1524.  State v. Grace.

Fairfield App. No. 2022 CA 00039, 2023-Ohio-3781 .

 

2023-1529.  State v. Brusiter.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112410, 2023-Ohio-3794 .

 

2023-1530.  State v. Baldwin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112440, 2023-Ohio-3795 .

 

2023-1533.  Speigel v. Ianni.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220467, C-230012, and C-230036, 2023-Ohio-3809 .

 

2023-1544.  State v. Reynolds.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112139, 2023-Ohio-3873 .

 

2023-1546.  White v. Salem.

Lake App. No. 2023-L-065, 2023-Ohio-3839 .

 

2023-1547.  State v. Houston.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112689, 2023-Ohio-3888 .

 

2023-1552.  State v. Cunningham.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0049, 2023-Ohio-3300 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-1553.  Cleveland v. Bates.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112167, 2023-Ohio-3627 .

 

2023-1556.  Roush v. Blazek.

Coshocton App. No. 2023 CA 0009, 2023-Ohio-3917 .

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2023-1559.  State v. Sweeney.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-719, 2023-Ohio-3854 .

 

2023-1564.  Worthington v. Gideon.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-475.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2023-1569.  State v. Lewis.

Delaware App. No. 23CAA100089.

 

2023-1570.  State v. Walton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112127 and 112892, 2023-Ohio-3872 .

 Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

2023-1571.  State v. Alexander.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1183, 2023-Ohio-2708 .

 Fischer, J., dissents.

Stewart, J., not participating.

 

2023-1572.  State v. Johnson.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-427, 2023-Ohio-3897 .

 

2023-1574.  El Attar v. Marine Towers E. Condominium Owners’ Assn., Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111695, 2023-Ohio-2581 .

 Stewart, J., not participating.

 

2023-1576.  State v. Howard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112024, 2023-Ohio-3870 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and III.

 

2023-1585.  State v. Struckman.

Hamilton App. No. C-210640, 2022-Ohio-2848 .

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2023-1586.  State v. Scott.

Preble App. No. CA2023-08-009.

 

2023-1589.  State v. Marcum.

Montgomery App. No. 29823, 2023-Ohio-4058 .

 

2023-1625.  State v. Trujillo.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112442, 2023-Ohio-4125 .

 

2023-1627.  Atlas Indus. Contractors, L.L.C. v. Andrews.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-465.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

 

2023-1641.  La Riccia v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111976, 2023-Ohio-1816 .

 

2023-1648.  State v. Gales.

Summit App. No. 30532, 2023-Ohio-2753 .

 

2024-0016.  State v. Patterson.

Hamilton App. No. C-170329, 2018-Ohio-3348 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2023-1168.  Mann v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220022 and C-220039, 2023-Ohio-2672 .  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2023-Ohio-4410, 223 N.E.3d 484.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-1185.  Crawford v. Bellevue Hosp.

Erie App. No. E-22-039, 2023-Ohio-2709 .  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2023-Ohio-4410, 223 N.E.3d 493.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1190.  State v. Rogers.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-546, 2023-Ohio-2749 .  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2023-Ohio-4410, 223 N.E.3d 488.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, J., dissents.

 

2023-1196.  Hounchell v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-220021, 2023-Ohio-2501 .  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2023-Ohio-4410, 223 N.E.3d 493.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

 

 

2023-1205.  Rohrer v. Moore.

Licking App. No. 23CA00022.  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2023-Ohio-4410, 223 N.E.3d 489.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1229.  State v. Horn.

Wood App. No. WD-21-062, 2023-Ohio-138 .  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1433, 2023-Ohio-4640, 224 N.E.3d 56.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

February 16, 2024

[Cite as 02/16/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-594.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

2023-0024. State ex rel. Walters v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-552.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-560, 2022-Ohio-4587. On appellant’s motion for oral argument. Motion denied. Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

2023-0180. Disciplinary Counsel v. Warner, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-551.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-021. Jason Daniel Warner, Attorney Registration No. 0066451, last known business address in Marion, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no credit for time served under his interim felony suspension.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 23, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/23/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-163.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1431.  State ex rel. Phillips v. Cool.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1519.  Keith v. May.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1534.  Sanders v. O’Brien.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion for expedited writ.  Motion denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1539.  Finnell v. Di Martino.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

 

2023-1542.  Blanton v. McGuffey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1430.  State v. Finnell.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220440 and C-220441, 2023-Ohio-2563 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2023-1444.  State v. Haines.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0106, 2023-Ohio-3016 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1498.  State v. Lanier.

Belmont App. No. 22 BE 0070, 2023-Ohio-3088 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-1509.  State v. Pitts.

Pickaway App. No. 23CA14.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1526.  State v. Timm.

Delaware App. No. 21-CAA-11-0060, 2023-Ohio-3768 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1285.  Estate of Cook v. Montville Twp.

Medina App. No. 22CA0046-M, 2023-Ohio-3002 .

DeWine, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-1289.  State v. Smith.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111274, 2023-Ohio-603 .

 Fischer and Donnelly, J., would hold the cause for the decision in 2023-1204, State v. Wilcox.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-1299.  State v. Kennedy.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-534 and 22AP-536, 2023-Ohio-3078 .

 

2023-1344.  Hoskins v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112095, 2023-Ohio-3149 .  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-1463.  Hunt v. Alderman.

Summit App. No. 30344, 2023-Ohio-3454 .

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-1541.  Goomai v. H&E Ent., L.L.C.

Hamilton App. No. C-230099, 2023-Ohio-3901 .

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0963.  State v. Anderson.

Monroe App. No. 22 MO 0001, 2023-Ohio-4447 .

 

2023-1034.  State v. Chester.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0060, 2023-Ohio-2122 .

 

 

2023-1060.  State v. Humphrey.

Montgomery App. Nos. 29479 and 29480, 2023-Ohio-1834 .

 

2023-1073.  State v. O.E.P.-T.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-500, 2023-Ohio-2035 .

 

2023-1110.  State v. Mallory.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112074, 2023-Ohio-1975 .

 

2023-1119.  Martin v. Ohio Univ.

Athens App. No. 22CA14, 2023-Ohio-2511 .  Appellants’ “miscellaneous motion” denied.

 

2023-1207.  State v. Smith.

Summit App. No. 30022, 2023-Ohio-3135 .

 

2023-1277.  In re Disinterment of Glass.

Montgomery App. Nos. 29700 and 29707, 2023-Ohio-3509 .

 

2023-1287.  Wireman v. Wireman.

Allen App. No. 1-22-72, 2023-Ohio-3007 .

 

2023-1294.  State v. Thompkins.

Muskingum App. No. CT 2022-0085 , 2023-Ohio-2871 .

 

2023-1301.  Warner v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112471, 2023-Ohio-3157 .

 

2023-1304.  State v. Lewis.

Hamilton App. No. C-220457, 2023-Ohio-3036 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2023-0621, State v. Hale.

 Deters, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1305.  State v. Abrams.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112102, 2023-Ohio-3056 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

2023-1306.  Greene v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220023 and C-220037, 2023-Ohio-3069 .

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

2023-1308.  Stratman v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220027 and C-220032, 2023-Ohio-3035 .

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

2023-1310.  State v. Struckman.

Hamilton App. No. C-220658, 2023-Ohio-3582 .

 Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1312.  Champlain Ents., L.L.C. v. Kuiper.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112248, 2023-Ohio-3059 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1313.  State v. T.C.N.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112428, 2023-Ohio-3156 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-1320.  State v. Parrish.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111990, 2023-Ohio-3356 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2023-1321.  Hoerig v. Bowling Green State Univ.

Wood App. No. WD-22-047, 2023-Ohio-3189 .

 

2023-1323.  State v. Passmore.

Hancock App. No. 5-22-39, 2023-Ohio-3209 .

 

2023-1325.  V.T. Larney, Ltd. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0112, 2023-Ohio-3123 .

 

2023-1326.  State v. Rykena.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 113054 and 113055.

 Deters, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1328.  Cleveland 2, L.L.C. v. Dixon.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113173.

 

2023-1330.  State v. Taylor-Billings.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011914, 2023-Ohio-3104 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-1331.  A. Morgan Bldg. Group, L.L.C. v. Owners Ins. Co.

Summit App. No. 30482, 2023-Ohio-3133 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2023-1336.  Arnoff v. Ferguson.

Summit App. No. 30399, 2023-Ohio-3511 .

 

2023-1341.  State v. Shelton.

Hamilton App. No. C-220513, 2023-Ohio-2458 .

 

2023-1345.  State v. Mott.

Warren App. No. CA2022-10-067, 2023-Ohio-2268 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

 

2023-1346.  Martens v. Findlay.

Hancock App. No. 5-23-32.

 

2023-1349.  Nichols v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-220350, 2023-Ohio-3177 .

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-1350.  State v. Craig.

Wood App. No. WD-22-043.

 

2023-1363.  Pugh v. Okuley’s Pharmacy & Home Med.

Defiance App. No. 04-23-04, 2023-Ohio-3208 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent. 

 

2023-1365.  Patel v. Huntington Banc Shares Fin. Corp.

Lake App. No. 2023-L-036, 2023-Ohio-3218 .

 

2023-1369.  French v. Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C.

Jefferson App. No. 22 JE 0024, 2023-Ohio-3228 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-1371.  State v. Carrillo.

Delaware App. Nos. 22CAA090062 and 22CAA090063, 2023-Ohio-3264 .

 

2023-1373.  Heskett v. Morris.

Licking App. No. 2023 CA 00034, 2023-Ohio-3236 .

 

2023-1376.  State v. Sproles.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1184, 2023-Ohio-3403 .

 

2023-1378.  State v. Sowell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112558, 2023-Ohio-3252 .

 

2023-1381.  State v. Friess.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1121, 2023-Ohio-3409 .

 

2023-1382.  State v. Wagner.

Summit App. No. 30067, 2023-Ohio-1659 .

 

2023-1383.  State v. Keith.

Marion App. No. 9-22-28, 2023-Ohio-3428 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would appoint counsel.

 

2023-1396.  Boli v. Huntington Natl. Bank.

Stark App. No. 2023CA00020, 2023-Ohio-3308 .

 

2023-1399.  State v. Schumacher.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113066.

 

2023-1404.  OLB Group, Inc. v. Blue Square Resolutions, L.L.C.

Hamilton App. No. C-220502, 2023-Ohio-2694 .

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1405.  Brook Park v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112368, 2023-Ohio-3365 .

 

2023-1406.  Henry Cty. Land Reutilization Corp. v. Pelmear.

Henry App. No. 7-23-03, 2023-Ohio-2718 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

 

2023-1408.  Mill Creek Metro. Park Dist. Bd. of Commrs. v. Hough.

Mahoning App. No. 21MA065, 2023-Ohio-3426 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1409.  Rankin v. Kirsh.

Hamilton App. No. C-220632, 2023-Ohio-3371 .

 

2023-1410.  State v. Efford.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 112077 and 112078, 2023-Ohio-3360 .

Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2023-1415.  State ex rel. Bower v. Cincinnati.

Hamilton App. No. C-220511, 2023-Ohio-3369 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-1416.  State v. McIntire.

Huron App. No. H-22-010.

 

2023-1420.  State v. Lawson.

Summit App. No. 30409, 2023-Ohio-3456 .

 

2023-1421.  In re S.J.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220221 through C-220224, 2023-Ohio-3441 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-1422.  Hawkins v. Dept. of Natural Resources.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-689.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1438.  Lanza v. Lanza.

Lake App. No. 2023-L-024, 2023-Ohio-3531 .

 

2023-1439.  State v. Motley.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 111718 and 111720, 2023-Ohio-1811 .

 

2023-1440.  Troon Mgt., Ltd. v. Adams Family Trust.

Pickaway App. No. 22CA19, 2023-Ohio-3489 .

 

2023-1441.  State v. Evans.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111964, 2023-Ohio-2688 .

 

2023-1443.  In re D.J.

Summit App. No. 30185, 2023-Ohio-3523 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1447.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-280.

 

2023-1449.  State v. Birt.

Butler App. No. CA2022-12-121, 2023-Ohio-2913 .

 

2023-1450.  State v. Peterson.

Wood App. No. WD-22-061, 2023-Ohio-3544 .

 

2023-1451.  State v. Sullivan.

Lorain App. Nos. 19CA011454 and 22CA011859, 2023-Ohio-3520 .

 

2023-1453.  State v. Woods.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1195, 2023-Ohio-3549 .

 

2023-1455.  State v. Marshall.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1207, 2023-Ohio-3542 .

 

2023-1456.  State v. James.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0107, 2023-Ohio-3524 .

 

2023-1458.  Gallick v. Educational Credit Mgt. Co.

Wayne App. No. 21AP0054, 2023-Ohio-278 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1459.  State v. Smith.

Belmont App. No. 22 BE 0019, 2023-Ohio-3587 .

 

2023-1460.  State v. Mitchell.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1166, 2023-Ohio-3543 .

 

2023-1464.  State v. Hicks.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011871, 2023-Ohio-3517 .

 

 

2023-1466.  State v. Ferrell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 104047.

 

2023-1467.  State v. Mills.

Summit App. No. 30668, 2023-Ohio-3783 .

 

2023-1471.  Reedy v. Astoria Skilled Nursing & Rehab.

Stark App. No. 2023CA00079.

 

2023-1476.  In re Adoption of E.G.C.

Clinton App. No. CA2023-05-011, 2023-Ohio-3563 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1478.  State v. Warth.

Hamilton App. No. C-220477, 2023-Ohio-3641 .

 

2023-1480.  State v. Harwell.

Montgomery App. No. 29793, 2023-Ohio-3657 .

 

2023-1485.  Earth Mobile, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111851, 2023-Ohio-3354 .

 

2023-1487.  State v. Bradley.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112320, 2023-Ohio-3630 .

 

2023-1491.  State v. Thorp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112263, 2023-Ohio-3629 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1511.  State v. Ferrell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113246.

 

2023-1537.  State v. Urbanski.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1304, 2023-Ohio-3966 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2023-0402.  State ex rel. Stokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-482, 2023-Ohio-468 .  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1436, 2023-Ohio-1769, 210 N.E.3d 532.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0783.  State ex rel. Omni Energy Group, L.L.C. v. Vendel.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1413, 2023-Ohio-4259, 222 N.E.3d 653.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0907.  H.R. v. P.J.E.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112990.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4185, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1121.  Nunn v. Mitchell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111944, 2023-Ohio-2484 .  Reported at 172 Ohio St.3d 1409, 2023-Ohio-4200, 222 N.E.3d 640.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1560.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilkinson.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2023-014.  Nathaniel Earl Wilkinson, Attorney Registration No. 0097010, last known business address in Brunswick, Ohio, publicly reprimanded.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents and would remand the matter to the board.

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 22, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/22/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-188.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JANUARY 22, 2024

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the January 22, 2024 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2018-1746.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton, 172 Ohio St.3d 1213, 2023-Ohio-1001.

 

2019-1298.  State v. Bourn, 172 Ohio St.3d 343, 2022-Ohio-4321.

 

2021-0800.  Bliss v. Johns Manville, 172 Ohio St.3d 367, 2022-Ohio-4366.

 

2022-0232.  State ex rel. Davis v. Kennedy, 172 Ohio St.3d 383, 2023-Ohio-1593.

 

2022-0416.  State ex rel. Jackson v. Watson, 172 Ohio St.3d 380, 2023-Ohio-401.

 

2022-1243.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fleming, 172 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2023-Ohio-1005.

 

2023-0177.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Estadt, 172 Ohio St.3d 391, 2023-Ohio-2347.

 

2023-0656.  Page v. Geauga Cty. Probate & Juvenile Court, 172 Ohio St.3d 400, 2023-Ohio-2491.

 

23-AP-082.  In re Disqualification of Allen, 172 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2023-Ohio-3238.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1426.  State ex rel. AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113276, 2023-Ohio-3893 .  On appellant’s motion to supplement the record.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1604.  Byerly v. Cashier’s Office.

Marion App. No. 9-23-54.  On appellant’s motion to compel appointment of counsel.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 24, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/24/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-202.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0125.  State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-200.

Trumbull App. No. 2016-T-0085, 2022-Ohio-4571 .  On appellants’ motion for oral argument.  Motion denied.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0711.  State ex rel. Edward Smith Corp. v. Marsh, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-201.

Hamilton App. No. C-230127.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0994.  Shank v. Ninth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted; the Ninth District Court of Appeals is not sui juris and therefore may not be sued.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2023-1142.  State ex rel. Taylor v. Matia.

In Prohibition.  On Jane Roe and Jane Doe’s motion to intervene.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1223.  State ex rel. Turner v. Cuyahoga Cty.

In Mandamus.  On motions to dismiss of respondent city of Cleveland and respondents Cuyahoga County, Clerk of Courts Nailah K. Byrd, and Court of Common Pleas Judge Reeve W. Kelsey.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Cheryl M. Wiltshire.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1235.  Turner v. Hochheiser.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Cuyahoga County and Magistrate Yosef Hochheiser.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Cheryl M. Wiltshire.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1347.  Davis v. Canton.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s request to seal this matter.  Request denied.  Respondent city of Canton’s motion to dismiss granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., concur and would rule on relator’s “request for forgiveness and notice” and would deny it.

 

2023-1390.  State ex rel. Turner v. Cuyahoga Cty.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-1391.  State ex rel. Turner v. Wiltshire.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Cheryl Michelle Wiltshire, city of Cleveland, and Mayor Justin Bibbs.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to Chief Prosecutor Aqueelah Jordan.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1393.  State ex rel. Pesta v. Blakeman.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s amended motion to dismiss complaint with attachments.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., concur.

 Stewart, J., concurs but would deny the motion to strike as moot.

 Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny the motion to dismiss and issue an alternative writ.

 Deters, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant the motion to strike.

DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would deny the motion to dismiss, issue an alternative writ, and grant the motion to strike.

 

2023-1429.  Conyers v. Warden, Allen Corr. Inst.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for stay denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., concurs but would deny the motion for stay as moot.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny the motion to dismiss and sua sponte dismiss the cause.

 

2023-1436.  Fields v. Muskingum Cty. Prosecutor.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ joint motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1445.  Newman v. Warden, Allen Corr. Inst.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1461.  State ex rel. Past, Present, & Future Viable Preborn Citizens of Ohio v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1468.  State ex rel. Robinson v. Adult Parole Auth.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent and would order respondent to file an answer within 14 days and would issue an alternative writ.

 

2023-1469.  State ex rel. Mitchell v. Eleventh Dist. Court of Appeals Judges.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1470.  Jabr v. Franklin Cty. Mun. Court, Criminal Div.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1472.  Green v. Costello.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1473.  State ex rel. Pierce v. Ohio Supreme Court Clerk.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to correct complaint.  Motion denied as moot.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant relator’s motion, sua sponte dismiss the cause, and deny respondent’s motion as moot.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part would grant relator’s motion, deny respondent’s motion, and sua sponte dismiss the cause.

 

2023-1474.  State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1486.  State ex rel. Dubose v. Ghiz.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1490.  Sanders v. Stuff.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for stay denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1525.  State ex rel. Weiler v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1044.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B).  Motion denied.

 

2023-0707.  State ex rel. West v. Adams Cty. Sheriff.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for alternative writ.  Motion granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of

respondents’ brief.  Relator’s motion to strike respondents’ reply, motion to amend and supplement complaint, and second motion to amend denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., would deny the motion for alternative writ.

 Donnelly and Deters, JJ., would grant the motion to amend and supplement and the second motion to amend.

 Stewart, J., would deny the motion for alternative writ and grant the second motion to amend.

 

2023-0751.  State v. Myers.

Warren App. No. CA2023-01-013.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated on the fifth page of the court of appeals’ May 15, 2023 entry: “Is a trial court’s decision on a motion for appointment of experts in a capital postconviction proceeding a provisional remedy pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) and therefore a final order?”  The conflict case is State v. Powell, 2019-Ohio-4286, 148 N.E.3d 51 (6th Dist.).  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2023-0838, State v. Myers, and briefing in case Nos. 2023-0751 and 2023-0838 consolidated.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0879.  State ex rel. Gordon v. Clark.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike.  Motion denied as moot.  Relator’s motion for relief from judgment treated as a motion for reconsideration and stricken as untimely under S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A).

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., would treat relator’s motion for relief from judgment as a Civ.R. 60(B) motion and deny it on the merits.

 

2023-0895.  La Riccia v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111976, 2023-Ohio-1816 .  On appellant’s “motion for review.”  Motion denied.

 

2023-0896.  State v. Johnson.

Montgomery App. No. 29659, 2023-Ohio-1686 .  On appellant’s motion for order or relief pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(A)(1).  Motion denied.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0959.  State ex rel. Culgan v. Jefferson Cty. Clerk of Courts.

In Mandamus.  Relator’s motion to strike respondent’s answer to the amended complaint and/or to impose sanctions denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to

present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart and Deters, JJ., would defer ruling on the motion to strike and/or to impose sanctions.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would sua sponte dismiss the cause.

 

2023-1201.  State ex rel. Mack v. Richland Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for in camera review of evidence.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file evidence under seal for in camera inspection within 20 days.

 

2023-1318.  State v. Logan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111533, 2023-Ohio-3353 .  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated on the court of appeals’ September 29, 2023 entry: “Does R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) require a mandatory prison term and preclude the imposition of community-control sanctions on an underlying felony when a defendant is found guilty on a corresponding firearm specification?”  The conflict cases are State v. Wofford, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180411, 2019-Ohio-2815; State v. Shields, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 28573, 2020-Ohio-3204; State v. Wolfe, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-21-16, 2022-Ohio-96; State v. Culp, 2020-Ohio-5287, 162 N.E.3d 194 (6th Dist.); State v. Christian, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 02 CA 170, 2005-Ohio-1440; and State v. White, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-34, 2011-Ohio-2364.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2023-1417, State v. Logan, and briefing in case Nos. 2023-1318 and 2023-1417 consolidated.

 

2023-1327.  State ex rel. Gatehouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc. v. Columbus Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for leave to file John Doe affidavits.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to submit under seal for in camera inspection all records it has withheld or redacted.

 Brunner, J., would grant the motion on the condition that the affidavits be filed under seal without pseudonyms.

 

2023-1354.  Ware v. Vigluicci.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to address in their briefs, and permitted to present evidence as to, whether relator should be sanctioned under R.C. 2323.51, Civ.R. 11, and/or S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).

 

2023-1388.  State ex rel. Rittman v. Spitler.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s emergency motion for expedited alternative writ.  Motion denied as moot.  Tara Boler and Trista Bise’s motion to intervene as respondents granted; answer and motion for judgment on the pleadings that are attached to the motion to intervene deemed filed as of the date of the court’s entry.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the date of this entry; relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence; respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 

2023-1395.  State ex rel. Gordon v. Henry.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted as to item Nos. 1, 5 through 12, and 14 identified on pages 3 through 5 of the motion.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file within 14 days an answer as to item Nos. 2, 3, 4, 13, and 15 identified in the motion.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted as to item Nos. 2, 3, 4, 13, and 15 identified in the motion.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.  

Fischer, J., dissents in part and would grant the motion as to all items.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent in part and would issue an alternative writ as to all items.

 

2023-1414.  State ex rel. Culgan v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint; relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence; respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2023-1432.  State ex rel. Fischer Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113237, 2023-Ohio-3891 .  On appellee’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Appellant’s motion to consolidate case Nos. 2023-1425, 2023-1432, and 2023-1434 denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1433.  State ex rel. AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113276, 2023-Ohio-3893 .  On appellant’s motion to consolidate case Nos. 2023-1426 and 2023-1433.  Motion denied as moot.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss granted.  Appellee’s motion to strike or prohibit appellant’s motion for reconsideration denied as moot.

 

2023-1434.  State ex rel. Fischer Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113237, 2023-Ohio-3891 .  On appellee’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Appellant’s motion to consolidate case Nos. 2023-1425, 2023-1432, and 2023-1434 denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1564.  Worthington v. Gideon.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-475.  On appellant’s emergency motion for stay of execution pending appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1588.  Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman, Ltd. Partnership.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-638, 2023-Ohio-3556 .  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated on the court of appeals’ December 7, 2023 entry: “May a court apply the equitable principles announced in Ward v. Washington Distribs., Inc., 67 Ohio App.2d 49 (6th Dist.1980), to relieve a tenant from their failure to submit a notice to renew a lease at the time required by the lease agreement?”  The conflict case is Fifth Third Bank W. Ohio v. Carrol Bldg. Co., 180 Ohio App.3d 490, 2009-

Ohio-57, 905 N.E.2d 1284 (2d Dist.).  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2023-1448, Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman, Ltd. Partnership, and briefing in case Nos. 2023-1448 and 2023-1588 consolidated.

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0838.  State v. Myers.

Warren App. No. CA2023-01-013.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2023-0751, State v. Myers, and briefing in case Nos. 2023-0751 and 2023-0838 consolidated.

 DeWine, J., dissents.

 

2023-1417.  State v. Logan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111533, 2023-Ohio-3353 .  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2023-1318, State v. Logan, and briefing in case Nos. 2023-1318 and 2023-1417 consolidated.

 

2023-1448.  Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman, Ltd. Partnership.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-638, 2023-Ohio-3556 .  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2023-1588, Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. v. SuperAsh Remainderman, Ltd. Partnership, and briefing in case Nos. 2023-1448 and 2023-1588 consolidated.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1528.  Souders v. Jackson.

Jackson App. No. 23CA16.  Appellees’ motion to dismiss and motion to stay briefing denied as moot.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 23, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/23/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-213.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0425.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Wilson, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-182.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s requests for statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees denied.

 Fischer, Luper Schuster, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

 Betsy Luper Schuster, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

2023-0663.  State ex rel. Walker v. Ballinger, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-181.

Marion App. No. 9-23-09.  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 23, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/23/2024 Case Announcements #3, 2024-Ohio-232.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0104.  State v. Carswell.

Sandusky App. No. S-22-018, 2023-Ohio-4574 .  On appellant’s motion for stay of mandate in advance of filing a memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 24, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/24/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-233.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1619.  State v. Rainey.

Hamilton App. No. C-230015, 2023-Ohio-4043 .  On appellant’s motion for leave to file revised document.  Motion granted.  Amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction deemed filed as of the date of the court’s entry.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 25, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/25/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-241.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0369.  State ex rel. Mobarak v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-221.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-482, 2023-Ohio-436 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-0976.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Billingsley, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-222.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-051.  Lon’Cherie’ Darchelle Billingsley, Attorney Registration No. 0089450, last known address in Cleveland, Ohio, publicly reprimanded.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., not participating.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 26, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/26/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-272.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1253.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Nowicki.

On respondent’s response to the show-cause order issued by this court on January 4, 2024.  No action shall be taken at this time, provided that respondent enters into a payment plan with the attorney general after this matter is referred for collection.

 

2023-1563.  State v. Brown.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0042, 2023-Ohio-3906 .  On appellee’s motion to strike memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days of the court’s entry.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0177.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Estadt.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, John Robert Estadt, Attorney Registration No. 0016397, last known business address in St. Clairsville, Ohio.  Application granted.  John Robert Estadt reinstated to the practice of law. 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1446.  Ramos v. Fresh Mark Canton.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00076, 2022-Ohio-3642 .  On joint application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 29, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/29/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-287.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1592.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike for failure to provide service.  Motion denied.  Relator may, within ten days of the court’s entry, file a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss and to find the action frivolous.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 29, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/29/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-299.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2024-0052.  State ex rel. Schreiner v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-290.

In Prohibition.   Writ denied.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 31, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/31/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-302.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0539.  State v. Macklin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111117, 2022-Ohio-4400 .  On motion of amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General, for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae shall share time allotted to appellant.

 

2023-1286.  In re Application of Kingwood Solar I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 21-117-EL-BGN.  On unopposed motion of Greene County Board of Commissioners et al. to intervene as appellees.  Motion granted.

 

2024-0028.  State ex rel. Smith v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

Hamilton App. No. C-230585.  On appellant’s motion to supplement the record.  Motion denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1358.  In re Resignation of Cox.

Sua sponte, Donald A. Cox, Attorney Registration No. 0024788, last known business address in Orient, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his certificate of admission and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before December 18, 2023.

 

 

 

 

2023-1481.  In re Saunders.

Sua sponte, James Dalton Saunders, Attorney Registration No. 0067908, last known business address in Washington, D.C., found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before December 21, 2023.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0334.  State v. Beasley.

Summit C.P. No. CR-2012-01-0169-A.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due January 23, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Caused dismissed.  Appellant’s motion to supplement the incomplete record denied as moot.

 

2023-0425.  Afzaal, L.L.C. v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2021-306.  On joint application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0439.  State ex rel. Moro v. Freeman.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due January 26, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1256.  State v. Jones.

Montgomery App. No. 29602, 2023-Ohio-1997 .  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due January 11, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1257.  State v. Kinney.

Monroe App. No. 22 MO 0002, 2023-Ohio-2549 .  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due January 11, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

2023-1309.  State v. Shields.

Washington App. No. 22CA11, 2023-Ohio-2331 .  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due January 11, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 31, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/31/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-332.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0140.  State v. Rowland.

Columbiana App. No. 22 CO 0037, 2023-Ohio-4806 .  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to appellant’s motion for stay no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 1, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 31, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/31/2024 Case Announcements #3, 2024-Ohio-334.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2024-0090.  State ex rel. Henderson v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-333.

In Mandamus.  Cause dismissed.  Relator’s motion for leave denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs in judgment only and would reach the merits of the case.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 2, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/02/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-354.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1649.  State ex rel. Goldschmidt v. Triggs.

Hamilton App. No. C-230555.  On appellant’s motion to supplement the record with hearing transcript.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 2, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/02/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-355.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1387.  McCoy v. Gonzales-Wells.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondents’ motion to strike denied as moot.  Relator’s motion to dismiss and motion to dismiss that motion denied as moot.  Respondents’ motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator granted.  Relator, Charles McCoy, found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Accordingly, Charles McCoy prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart, J., concur.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would grant respondents’ motion to strike.

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny respondents’ motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator.

Deters, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny respondents’ motion to strike on the merits.

 

2023-1483.  McCoy v. Land-Libby.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s motion to strike denied.  Respondent’s motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator granted.  Relator, Charles McCoy, found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Accordingly, Charles McCoy prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review. 

Relator’s motion for leave denied as moot.  Relator’s motion to dismiss and motion to dismiss that motion denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, JJ., concur.

 Stewart, J., concurs but would deny respondent’s motion to strike as moot.

 DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant respondent’s motion to strike and deny relator’s motion for leave on the merits.

Donnelly and Deters, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny respondent’s motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny respondent’s motion to strike as moot and would deny respondent’s motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 1, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/01/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-357.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2024-0078.  State ex rel. Renner v. Athens Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-356.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0140.  State v. Rowland.

Columbiana App. No. 22 CO 0037, 2023-Ohio-4806 .  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion granted.

 DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 1, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/01/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-358.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0155.  State ex rel. Peterson v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of the answer, evidence, and briefs: Respondents shall file their answer to the complaint no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, February 5, 2024; relator shall file her evidence and merit brief no later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 8, 2024; respondents shall file their evidence and merit brief no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, February 12, 2024; and relator may file a reply brief no later than 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 14, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 2, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/02/2024 Case Announcements #3, 2024-Ohio-362.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0161.  State ex rel. Dudley v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file a response, if any, to relators’ motion for expedited scheduling order no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, February 5, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 5, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/05/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-378.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 5, 2024

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the February 5, 2024 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2009-1918.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer, 172 Ohio St.3d 1225, 2023-Ohio-2932.

 

2021-1387.  State ex rel. Pool v. Sheffield Lake, 172 Ohio St.3d 453, 2023-Ohio-1204.

 

2022-0108.  State ex rel. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. O’Donnell, 172 Ohio St.3d 407, 2023-Ohio-428.

 

2022-0142.  State ex rel. Friendship Supported Living, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 172 Ohio St.3d 414, 2023-Ohio-957.

 

2022-0545.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Bowen, 172 Ohio St.3d 431, 2023-Ohio-1105.

 

2022-0702.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 172 Ohio St.3d 438, 2023-Ohio-1177.

 

2022-0782.  State v. Schilling, 172 Ohio St.3d 479, 2023-Ohio-3027.

 

2022-0784.  Harris v. Hildebrand, 172 Ohio St.3d 471, 2023-Ohio-3005.

 

2022-0988.  State ex rel. Internatl. Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 1536, AFL-CIO v. Sakacs, 172 Ohio St.3d 462, 2023-Ohio-2976.

 

2022-1604.  In re Application of Davis, 172 Ohio St.3d 402, 2023-Ohio-161.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Hill.

On motion for leave.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1425.  State ex rel. Fischer Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113237, 2023-Ohio-3891 .  On appellee’s motion to supplement the record.  Motion denied.

 

2024-0002.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Air Quality Dev. Auth.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that within 14 days, relator shall submit a request for issuance of an additional summons at an alternative address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service as to respondent.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2024-0073.  U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Inc. v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On joint motion for referral to mediation.  Motion granted.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 2, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/02/2024 Case Announcements #4, 2024-Ohio-380.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2024-0072.  State ex rel. Thomas v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-379.

In Prohibition and Mandamus.  Writs denied.  Relators’ motion for leave to amend the caption of the complaint granted.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Stewart, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Brunner, JJ.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 7, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/07/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-424.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0470.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bulson.

Sua sponte, Douglas Whitney Bulson Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0020983, last know business address in Columbus, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before January 2, 2024.

 

2023-1400.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fannin.

Sua sponte, Steven Scott Fannin, Attorney Registration No. 0085907, last known business address in Fairlawn, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before January 3, 2024.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 8, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/08/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-426.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1155.  In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.

Certified Question of State Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Nos. 22-3750, 22-3751, 22-3753, 22-3841, 22-3843, and 22-3844.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Kelley C. Schiffman, Anthony J. Dick, and Noel J. Francisco.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2024-0161.  State ex rel. Dudley v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ motion for expedited scheduling order.  Motion denied.

 

2024-0178.  State v. Pinckney.

Summit App. No. 30334, 2023-Ohio-4630 .  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 25 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 9, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/09/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-447.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0958.  State ex rel. Reed v. Northeast Ohio Med. Univ.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 8, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/08/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-475.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0198.  State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co.

Licking App. No. 23CA0071.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to appellant’s motion for stay in advance of filing a memorandum in support of jurisdiction no later than 3:00 p.m. on Friday, February 9, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

  

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 12, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/12/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-476.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1177.  State v. Leasure.

Sandusky App. No. S-22-017.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs, with an opinion.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion.

_________________

KENNEDY, C.J., concurring. 

1                     I vote not to accept this jurisdictional appeal for review.  I write separately to address concerns raised by the dissenting opinion and to explain why this case does not present us with the opportunity to review the possible illusory benefit of jointly recommended sentences.

2                     In this case, we cannot reach the question whether plea agreements that include jointly recommended sentences are illusory, because the propositions of law presented do not challenge the validity of such agreements.  Rather, the propositions of law presented in this appeal question the effective assistance of counsel when a trial court simultaneously grants a defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw a plea and denies a motion by defense counsel to withdraw from representation.  Here, appellant-defendant, Nichalus Leasure, argues that “the [trial] court should have made sure he had counsel who could effectively represent him on the issue of the plea withdrawal, and its possible ramifications,” not on the ramifications of entering a plea agreement with a jointly recommended sentence.

3                     Additionally, contrary to the dissenting opinion’s assertion, this case does not present the “perfect example of the illusion of a ‘jointly recommended sentence’ within a plea agreement,” dissenting opinion, ¶ 8, because Leasure acknowledges that he understood that the

 

1                    support of jurisdiction, Leasure admits that “[n]either of the pleas entered was an agreed upon sentence, and there is no question from the record that [he] was aware that the sentencing court was not bound by any recommendation.”  Based on this acknowledgment, the record here does not allow this court to review whether Leasure agreed to a plea that included a jointly recommended sentence without understanding the ramifications of that plea.

2                     If this were a case about a plea agreement with an agreed sentence, then I would join the dissenting opinion and vote to grant jurisdiction to hear the appeal.  However, this is not a case about a plea agreement with an agreed sentence; this is a case about a plea agreement with a jointly recommended sentence in which the defendant knew that the trial court was not bound by the parties’ recommendation.  Therefore, I find that this is not the appropriate case to address the possibility that plea agreements with recommended sentences offer only an illusory benefit to defendants, and accordingly, I vote to deny jurisdiction.

 

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

1                     The resolution of criminal cases through guilty pleas procured as the result of plea agreements between the state and a criminal defendant is woven into the fabric of our criminal-justice system.  By one estimate, less than 4 percent of federal criminal cases are disposed of through jury trials, and that figure might be close to just 1 percent for state felony cases.  Diamond & Salerno, Reasons for the Disappearing Jury Trial: Perspectives from Attorneys and Judges, 81 La.L.Rev. 119, 122 (2020).  Ohio beats the state average, but only just—with about 2 percent of criminal cases being resolved through trial.  Grasha, ‘Can this case be won?’  How a plea deal works in Ohio and why there are so many, Cincinnati Enquirer (Dec. 19, 2023), available at https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/2023/12/19/heres-how-plea-deals-work-in-ohio -and-why-there-are-so-many/71856932007/ (accessed Jan. 24, 2024) [https://perma.cc/D5LL -2NLP].  Given that plea agreements are part of the everyday administration of criminal justice in Ohio, this court has a responsibility to ensure robust oversight over the accuracy and integrity of the plea process.  This case highlights serious issues with plea agreements involving jointly

 

1                    1  Because this court has decided not to exercise its jurisdiction over this appeal, I respectfully dissent.

2                     Following negotiations with prosecutors, Nichalus Leasure entered guilty pleas to three counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of sexual imposition for alleged actions involving two minor victims.  2023-Ohio-2710, ¶ 2-4.  In exchange for Leasure’s pleas, the state agreed to dismiss the remaining charges against Leasure and to jointly recommend with defense counsel that Leasure serve an aggregate prison term of seven years.  Id. at ¶ 4.  After Leasure entered his guilty pleas but before the trial court proceeded to sentencing, Leasure’s relationship with his appointed counsel apparently broke down.  These developments prompted Leasure to ask the trial court for permission to withdraw his guilty pleas and for the appointment of new counsel.  Id. at ¶ 5.  Following a hearing, the trial court denied Leasure’s request for new counsel but permitted him to withdraw his guilty pleas.  Id. at ¶ 6-12.

3                     These events led to a second plea agreement.  This time around, Leasure would plead guilty to the same four offenses as before, but the jointly recommended sentence increased to an aggregate prison term of 11 years.  Id. at ¶ 13.  Once again, the trial court accepted Leasure’s guilty pleas.  And during sentencing, the state requested that the trial court impose the jointly recommended sentence.  Id. at ¶ 13-14.  Yet after hearing statements from Leasure and from the victims and their mother, and weighing the relevant sentence considerations, the trial court went beyond the recommended sentence and imposed an aggregate prison term of 12 years.  Id. at  ¶ 15-22.

4                     This sequence of events is troubling.  First, given the limited record available at this stage in the appellate proceedings, it is unclear why the recommended sentence that formed part of Leasure’s plea deal increased between the first and second pleas, despite the fact that the number and severity of the offenses to which Leasure pleaded guilty remained the same.  More unsettling, though, is that despite Leasure’s maintaining his side of the bargain by pleading guilty and the state’s requesting that Leasure receive the jointly recommended sentence, the trial court

 

1. The chief justice’s concurring opinion points out that Leasure failed to squarely address the issues surrounding the jointly recommended sentence in his propositions of law.  Concurring opinion, ¶ 2.  Fair enough.  But we have exercised our discretionary jurisdiction over cases with inartfully crafted propositions that involved much lower stakes.  As this dissent points out, there are serious questions about what happened here that are representative of the issues arising from plea agreements with jointly recommended sentences and that implicate this court’s responsibility to supervise Ohio’s criminal-justice system.  What’s more, Leasure’s liberty is at stake.  That is enough for this court to accept his appeal.

1                    illusion of a “jointly recommended sentence” within a plea agreement.2 

2                     It is a settled principle that plea agreements are contracts between the state and a criminal defendant.  As a result, “[p]rinciples of contract law are generally applicable to the interpretation and enforcement of plea agreements.”  State v. Bethel, 110 Ohio St.3d 416, 2006-Ohio-4853, 854 N.E.2d 150, ¶ 50, citing United States v. Wells, 211 F.3d 988, 995 (6th Cir.2000).  These principles require plea agreements to possess the same elements as other contracts—offer, acceptance, consideration, a manifestation of mutual assent, and a meeting of the minds—to be enforceable.  State v. Perez, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111296, 2023-Ohio-83, ¶ 22, citing State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109963, 2021-Ohio-3099, ¶ 34.  Given the contractual nature of plea agreements, the parties to the agreement are entitled to the benefit of their bargain.  These principles are especially at play when an agreed sentence is part of the plea agreement.  In that situation, a defendant gives up his right to a trial and its attendant rights, as well as certain appellate rights, in exchange for the benefit of a guarantee that he will not be subject to a sentence greater than what he’s agreed to.  State v. Huffman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105805, 2018-Ohio-1192, ¶ 16-18; see also State v. Elliott, 2021-Ohio-424, 168 N.E.3d 33, ¶ 5-6 (1st Dist.) (discussing a defendant’s motivations for entering into a plea agreement and the rights waived following a guilty plea).  Meanwhile, the state secures a conviction and an acceptable sentence but often gives up its right to prosecute more severe or additional offenses.  Huffman at ¶ 19.  In this context, it is easy to see the contractual nature of plea agreements.  Each side agrees to withstand a detriment in exchange for a desired benefit.

3                     By contrast, these contractual elements that attach to a plea agreement with an agreed sentence do not exist with the type of plea agreement Leasure entered here, in which the state and Leasure agreed to a jointly recommended sentence.  In a plea agreement in which the parties jointly make a sentencing recommendation, the sentencing recommendation is just that—a recommendation.  Elliott at ¶ 15-16.  To be sure, trial courts need not accept any plea

 

2. In her concurring opinion, the chief justice takes issue with my description of this case as a “perfect example” of the illusory nature of jointly recommended sentences, because Leasure was aware that the recommended sentence did not constrain the trial court’s sentencing discretion.  Concurring opinion at ¶ 3.  Leaving aside the fact that the basis for that assertion comes from a single sentence in Leasure’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction that lacks any citation to the record, I think the issue here goes deeper.  The fact that Leasure was aware that the promised recommendation wasn’t binding on the trial court does not somehow cure the illusory nature of the parties’ plea agreement.  Nor does that fact forestall broader concerns about the minimal weight such promises carry in the resolution of criminal cases through plea agreements. 

1                    State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 28.  But that is a contingency common to all plea agreements.  The concern here is that not only is the recommended sentence not binding on the court, id., but it doesn’t even carry the hallmarks of the bargained-for exchange that comes with an agreed sentence.  There is no limitation on the defendant’s sentencing exposure.  Nor is there any sacrifice by the state, beyond simply agreeing to suggest a possible sentence to the trial court during the sentencing process.  I fail to see how this sort of arrangement provides any benefit to a criminal defendant and imposes any detriment to the state.  It is closer to an illusory promise that imposes no real obligation or duty of performance on the state.  See Black’s Law Dictionary 1407 (10th Ed.2014).  Under these circumstances, a defendant gives up his constitutional rights to trial in exchange for the mere suggestion of a sentence that the trial court can ignore.  Meanwhile, the state gets a conviction without the time and expense of a trial, and all it needs to offer in return are—what a friend of mine who still sits on the trial bench calls—the sleeves from its vest.

2                     A criminal defendant should be made aware that a plea agreement that includes a jointly recommended sentence provides him no real benefit.  Indeed, this case shows how meaningless jointly recommended sentences are.  Even though Leasure pleaded guilty, and the prosecution requested that the trial court impose the jointly recommended sentence that formed part of Leasure’s plea agreement, the trial court—without reference to or reliance on sentencing data for defendants convicted of offenses similar to Leasure’s and without providing any other explanation for its decision—imposed a sentence that is a year longer than that which the parties recommended.  An arbitrary additional year that no one had advocated for.  What is more, the trial court did so with impunity because the 11-year sentence the state agreed to recommend during its bargaining with Leasure was simply a suggestion the trial court was free to ignore.

3                     It does not take much imagination to see how this process could be abused.  Prosecutors could agree to a jointly recommended sentence to procure a guilty plea, knowing full well that the trial-court judge they are appearing before will impose a sentence far beyond the recommendation.  Yet the defendant lacks any recourse because he ostensibly got what he bargained for.  And all of this is above board under our caselaw.

4                     Because of their ubiquity, plea agreements are integral to our criminal-justice system.  It is precisely because plea agreements are so widely used, however, that they must be subject to exacting scrutiny.  This case provides this court with an opportunity to address the

 

1                    declines to seize on that opportunity, and because it does so, I dissent.

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 12, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/12/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-492.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0073.  U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Inc. v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Brad S. Keeton.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2024-0205.  State ex rel. Hunter v. Goldberg.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to relator’s emergency motion for alternative writ and/or temporary stay of judgment pending resolution of this action no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 15, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0308.  State ex rel. Lakewood v. Saffold.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 12, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/12/2024 Case Announcements #3, 2024-Ohio-493.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0610.  State ex rel. Obetz v. Stinziano.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion for oral argument.  Motion granted.

Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., dissent.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 12, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/12/2024 Case Announcements #4, 2024-Ohio-520.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0198.  State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co.

Licking App. No. 23CA0071.  On appellant’s motion for stay in advance of filing a memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 13, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/13/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-523.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1255.  State v. Maxcy-Tipton, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-448.

Wood App. No. WD-22-003, 2022-Ohio-3502 .  Judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Daniel, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4035 , __ N.E.3d __.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., concur in judgment only for the reasons set forth in their separate opinions in Daniel.

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2022-1637.  State v. Heflin, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-449.

Wood App. No. WD-22-006.  Judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Daniel, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4035 , __ N.E.3d __.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., concur in judgment only for the reasons set forth in their separate opinions in Daniel.

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2023-0810.  State v. Hall, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-450.

Sandusky App. No. S-22-016.  Judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Daniel, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4035 , __ N.E.3d __.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., concur in judgment only for the reasons set forth in their separate opinions in Daniel.

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0011.  Solon v. Butz.

Stark App. No. 2023CA00078.  On appellant’s motion to strike (failure to provide service).  Motion denied.  Appellant may file a response to appellees’ motion to dismiss within ten days.

 

2024-0146.  Geis v. Markling.

Summit App. No. 30494.  On appellant’s request for mediation.  Request denied.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1135.  Miller v. Mission Essential Group, L.L.C.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-448 and 22AP-449, 2023-Ohio-3077 .  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1290.  State ex rel. Fenstermaker v. Drake.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due February 9, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1604.  Byerly v. Cashiers Office.

Marion App. No. 9-23-54.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due February 5, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties in the following cases have reached a settlement.  The cases are returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.

 

2023-1300.  State ex rel. Mauk v. Sheldon.

In Mandamus.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  This case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2023-1360.  Tolento v. Fostoria.

In Mandamus.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  This case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

_________________

 

The court refers the following cases to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for each case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in these cases until mediation has concluded.

 

2024-0201.  State ex rel. Castellon v. Rose.

In Mandamus.

 

2024-0203.  State ex rel. Castellon v. O’Malley.

In Mandamus.

 

_________________

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2023-0936.  State ex rel. Huwig v. Ohio Dept. of Health.

In Mandamus.  

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 13, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/13/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-524.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2014-0997.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Armengau.

On respondent’s motion to stay or vacate respondent’s suspensions pending resolution of respondent’s current disciplinary proceedings.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2014-1564.  In re Armengau.

On respondent’s motion to stay or vacate respondent’s suspensions pending resolution of respondent’s current disciplinary proceedings.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2024-0036.  In re Resignation of Boyuk.

On application for retirement or resignation of Walter Charles Boyuk, Attorney Registration No. 0009810, last known address in St. Clairsville, Ohio.  Application accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2024-0094.  In re Resignation of Crossin.

On application for retirement or resignation of Amy Marie Etoll Crossin, Attorney Registration No. 0093856, last known address in Lithopolis, Ohio.  Application accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2024-0118.  In re Resignation of Leon.

On application for retirement or resignation of Robert James Leon, Attorney Registration No. 0078077, last known business address in Gahanna, Ohio.  Application accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 14, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/14/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-532.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0316.  Schaad v. Alder, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-525.

Hamilton App. No. C-210349, 2022-Ohio-340 .  Judgment affirmed.

 DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents, with an opinion.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2022-1208.  State ex rel. Cassens Corp. v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-526.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-93, 2022-Ohio-2936 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0954.  State v. McDonald, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-527.

Hamilton App. No. C-220328, 2023-Ohio-1987 .  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Stewart, J., dissents and would order briefing on proposition of law No. II.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1387.  McCoy v. Gonzalez-Wells.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s motion to supplement evidence in support.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1550.  In re Kohler.

Sua sponte, Anthony Edward Kohler, Attorney Registration No. 0032826, last known business address in Springfield, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before January 10, 2024.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2024-0002.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Air Quality Dev. Auth.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 15, 2024

 

[Cite as 02/15/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-554.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0987.  State v. Palmer, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-539.

Clermont App. No. CA2021-07-035, 2022-Ohio-2181 .  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer and Deters, JJ.

 

2023-0978.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Driftmyer, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-540.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-044.  Sarah Ann Miller Driftmyer, Attorney Registration No. 0089222, last known business address in Toledo, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year and ordered to make restitution of $250 to Ralphael Reynolds within 60 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0938.  Enger v. Black.

Wayne App. No. 22AP0010, 2023-Ohio-1932 .  Appellant has neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.07(B)(1) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals’ order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. 8.01(A).  Sua sponte, appellant ordered to inform the court within 14 days of the status of the motion to

certify a conflict, or this court shall proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(A)(1).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 19, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/19/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-184.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0104.  State v. Carswell.

Sandusky App. No. S-22-018.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to appellant’s motion for stay of mandate in advance of filing a memorandum in support of jurisdiction no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, January 22, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 17, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/17/2024 Case Announcements #3, 2024-Ohio-156.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0052.  State ex rel. Schreiner v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Prohibition.  On Steven W. Kraus’s motion for leave to intervene as respondent.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 18, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/18/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-155.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0488.  State v. Johnson, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-134.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110347, 2022-Ohio-81 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

 

2023-0611.  State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-135.

Geauga App. No. 22-G-0037, 2023-Ohio-1536 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1155.  In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.

Certified Question of State Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Nos. 22-3750, 22-3751, 22-3753, 22-3841, 22-3843, and 22-3844.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Philip S. Goldberg, Ethan J. Bond, Andrew Hatchett, Brian D. Boone, Zoe A. Jacoby, and Morgan L. Ratner.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-1508.  Ho v. Co.

Hamilton App. No. C-220319, 2023-Ohio-3698 .  On appellant’s motion to refer case to mediation.  Motion denied.

 

2024-0080.  State v. Lenard.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 112283 and 112966, 2023-Ohio-4529 .  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B)(1) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 19 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 17, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/17/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-153.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0078.  State ex rel. Renner v. Athens Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of the answer, evidence, and briefs: Respondent shall file an answer to the complaint no later than Thursday, January 18, 2024; relator shall file her evidence and merit brief no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, January 22, 2024; respondent shall file its evidence and merit brief no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 25, 2024; and relator may file a reply brief no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 26, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2024-0090.  State ex rel. Henderson v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of the answer, evidence, and briefs: Respondent shall file an answer to the complaint no later than Friday, January 19, 2024; relator shall file his evidence and merit brief no later than Monday, January 22, 2024; respondent shall file its evidence and merit brief no later than Thursday, January 25, 2024; and relator may file a reply brief no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, January 29, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 17, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/17/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-148.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0824.  State ex rel. Gilreath v. Cuyahoga Job & Family Servs., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-103.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator awarded $1,000 in statutory damages.  Relator’s request for court costs and attorney fees denied.  Respondents’ motion to stay discovery denied as moot.

 DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs in judgment only.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny relator’s request for statutory damages.

 

2023-0501.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Powers, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-104.

In Mandamus.  Writ of mandamus denied in part as moot and limited writ granted.  Ruling on relator’s request for award of statutory damages deferred until respondent has complied with limited writ.  Relator’s request for court costs denied.  Relator’s motion for leave to file rebuttal evidence granted in part and denied in part.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinion, which was previously issued as an entry in response to an affidavit of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

23-AP-193.  In re Disqualification of Sundermann, 2023-Ohio-4884 (decided Dec. 29, 2023).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0654.  State v. Glover.

Hamilton App. No. C-220088, 2023-Ohio-1153 .  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellant.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 16, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/16/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-136.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2024-0072.  Thomas v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Prohibition and Mandamus.  Sua sponte, case converted into an original action involving expedited election matter and ordered to proceed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.  Respondent shall file an answer to the complaint no later than Thursday, January 18, 2024; relators shall file their evidence and merit brief no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, January 22, 2024; respondent shall file its evidence and merit brief no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 25, 2024; and relators may file a reply brief no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 26, 2024.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 16, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/16/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-102.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1286.  State ex rel. Yost v. FirstEnergy Corp., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-101.

Franklin App. Nos. 21AP-443, 21AP-444, and 21AP-445, 2022-Ohio-3400 .  Judgment reversed and trial-court orders reinstated.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Lewis, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Ronald C. Lewis, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Tingler.

On motion for leave to file a motion to vacate order.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0695.  In re A.P.

Gallia App. Nos. 21CA14 and 21CA15, 2022-Ohio-1577 .  On appellant’s motion to appoint Robert W. Bright as counsel and for filing fee to be waived and appellant’s renewed motion to appoint Bright as counsel.  Motions denied as moot.

 

2023-0075.  State v. Kirkland.

Lorain App. No. 19CA011485, 2022-Ohio-4325 .  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0105.  Johnson v. Houser.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1272.  On appellant’s motion to appoint counsel.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0263.  State v. Elek.

Lorain App. No. 20CA011611, 2023-Ohio-41 .  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0449.  State v. Harrell.

Summit App. Nos. 30104 through 30109, 2022-Ohio-3217 .  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0601.  In re A.W.

Summit App. No. 30486, 2023-Ohio-1268 .  On appellant’s motion to appoint counsel.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0787.  State v. Harrell.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0817.  State v. McCloud.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011873.  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0999.  State v. Church.

Guernsey App. No. 23CA000001, 2023-Ohio-2107 .  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-1033.  State v. Finnell.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220440 and C-220441, 2023-Ohio-2563 . On appellant’s amended motion for appointment of counsel in felony cases.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-1276.  State v. Nelson.

Meigs App. No. 22CA10, 2023-Ohio-3566 .  On appellant’s motion to appoint Christopher Bazeley as counsel for appeal.  Motion denied as moot.  

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 12, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/12/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-94.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0974.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews.

On certification of default.  Amanda Ann-Carmen Andrews, Attorney Registration No. 0088814, last known business address in Port Clinton, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-0993.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brooks.

On certification of default.  Phyllis Elaine Brooks, Attorney Registration No. 0015199, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-1515.  In re Resignation of Kingsbury.

On application for retirement or resignation of Dorothea Jane Kingsbury, Attorney Registration No. 0009993, last known business address in Mayfield Village, Ohio.  Application accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 12, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/12/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-86.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2020-1533.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Bruner.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Harvey Bruce Bruner, Attorney Registration No. 0004829, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio.  Application granted.  Harvey Bruce Bruner reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 11, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/11/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-55.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Bozsik.

On application for leave to file a mandamus complaint.  Application denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 10, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/10/2024 Case Announcements #2, 2024-Ohio-51.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1163.  State ex rel. Berry v. Booth.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint; relator shall file a brief within 10 days of the filing of the evidence; respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 DeWine, J., dissents in part and would grant the motion as to the requests identified in paragraph Nos. 5 through 18 of the complaint.

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 10, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/10/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-50.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1300.  State ex rel. Mauk v. Sheldon.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for partial dismissal.  Application granted as to relator’s claims against respondents David Markel and Mifflin Township Fire Department.  Cause remains pending as to all remaining respondents.  

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1392.  Sanders v. O’Brien.

Summit App. No. 30876, 2023-Ohio-3614 .  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due January 5, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1412.  State ex rel. Harris v. Hatheway.

Hamilton App. No. C-230460.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due January 2, 2024, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2024-0026.  State ex rel. Sours v. MGQ, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-31, 2023-Ohio-4289 .  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 8, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/08/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-28.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JANUARY 8, 2024

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the January 8, 2024 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2009-1918.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer, 172 Ohio St.3d 1207, 2023-Ohio-433.

 

2019-0912.  State v. Grievous, 172 Ohio St.3d 171, 2022-Ohio-4361.

 

2020-0742.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Heller, 172 Ohio St.3d 1211, 2023-Ohio-1205.

 

2020-1129.  Ohio Pub. Works Comm. v. Barnesville, 172 Ohio St.3d 195, 2022-Ohio-4603.

 

2021-0718.  McClain v. State, 172 Ohio St.3d 213, 2023-Ohio-4722.

 

2021-1090, 2021-1091, and 2021-1181.  State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty., 172 Ohio St.3d 295, 2023-Ohio-1063.

 

2021-1440.  TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, 172 Ohio St.3d 225, 2022-Ohio-4677.

 

2022-0017.  State ex rel. Am. Homeowner Preservation, L.L.C. v. Montgomery Cty., 172 Ohio St.3d 317, 2023-Ohio-1282.

 

2022-0362.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Wells, 172 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2023-Ohio-1239.

 

2022-0493.  State ex rel. Heyside v. Calabrese, 172 Ohio St.3d 240, 2023-Ohio-406.

 

2022-0561.  State ex rel. Hatfield v. Miller, 172 Ohio St.3d 247, 2023-Ohio-429.

 

2022-0605.  State ex rel. Gallagher v. Collier-Williams, 172 Ohio St.3d 264, 2023-Ohio-748.

 

2022-0617.  State ex rel. Adkins v. Cantrell, 172 Ohio St.3d 319, 2023-Ohio-1323.

 

2022-0630.  State ex rel. Reynolds v. Kirby, 172 Ohio St.3d 273, 2023-Ohio-782.

 

2022-0677.  State ex rel. Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Skelton, 172 Ohio St.3d 257, 2023-Ohio-485.

 

2022-0680.  State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 172 Ohio St.3d 318, 2023-Ohio-1283.

 

2022-0811.  State ex rel. Justice v. State, 172 Ohio St.3d 270, 2023-Ohio-760.

 

2022-0953.  Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Diam, 172 Ohio St.3d 315, 2023-Ohio-1118.

 

2022-0983.  State ex rel. Straughter v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 172 Ohio St.3d 335, 2023-Ohio-1543.

 

2022-1262.  State ex rel. Haddix v. Warden, 172 Ohio St.3d 339, 2023-Ohio-1637.

 

2022-1512.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Russ, 172 Ohio St.3d 329, 2023-Ohio-1337.

 

2023-0218.  State ex rel. N. Canton City Council v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 172 Ohio St.3d 254, 2023-Ohio-726.

 

2023-0295.  State ex rel. Richardson v. Gowdy, 172 Ohio St.3d 281, 2023-Ohio-976.

 

2023-0313.  State ex rel. Gold v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Elections, 172 Ohio St.3d 288, 2023-Ohio-1051.

 

2023-0395.  In re Kingsbury, 172 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2023-Ohio-920.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

23-AP-165.  In re Disqualification of Berhalter, 2023-Ohio-4881 (decided Dec. 11, 2023).

 

23-AP-168.  In re Disqualification of Kuhn, 2023-Ohio-4882 (decided Dec. 15, 2023).

 

23-AP-185.  In re Disqualification of Cook, 2023-Ohio-4883 (decided Dec. 21, 2023).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Workman.

On application for leave to proceed with appeal.  Application denied.

 

2023-0996.  Shields v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111774, 2023-Ohio-1368 .  On appellant’s motion to supplement the record.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 5, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/05/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-13.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0733.  Adams v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2015-1090, 2016-1061, 2017-1867, 2018-1143, 2019-1632, and 2020-1347.  Sua sponte, cause to be scheduled for oral argument before the court pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.07(A)(1).

 

2024-0011.  Solon v. Butz.

Stark App. No. 2023CA00078.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B)(1) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, page 15 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1049.  In re Resignation of O’Brien.

Sua sponte, Jacqueline Ann O’Brien, Attorney Registration No. 0083137, last known business address in Highland Heights, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender her certificate of admission and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 29, 2023.

 

2023-1178.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Crossin.

Sua sponte, Amy Marie Etoll Crossin, Attorney Registration No. 0093856, last known address in Lithopolis, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 27, 2023.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1171.  State ex rel. Lipkins v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due December 28, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 4, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/04/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-8.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0970.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kelley.

On respondent’s motion to terminate probation.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1156.  In re Riley.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 3, 2024

 

[Cite as 01/03/2024 Case Announcements, 2024-Ohio-1.]

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2022-0958.  State ex rel. Reed v. Northeast Ohio Med. Univ.

In Mandamus.  Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to this case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2023-0069.  Grim v. New Holland.

In Mandamus.  The court returns this case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2023-0425.  Afzaal, L.L.C. v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2021-306.  Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to this case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellant shall file either an application for dismissal or a merit brief within 60 days.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a merit brief is not filed within 60 days.

 

2023-1630.  Frambes Entertainment, L.L.C. v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2020-2186.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 29, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/29/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4810.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1082.  State v. Randolph, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4753.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1140, 2022-Ohio-2909 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1515.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Gaul, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4751.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-039.  Daniel Gaul, Attorney Registration No. 0009721, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year and immediately suspended from judicial office without pay for the duration of his disciplinary suspension.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, D’Apolito, Jamison, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 David A. D’Apolito, J., of the Seventh District Court of Appeals, sitting for Donnelly, J.

 Terri Jamison, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Stewart, J.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0471.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4752.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-034.  Mark Stewart Bennett, Attorney Registration No. 0069823, last known business address in Westlake, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the entire suspension conditionally stayed.

Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Deters, J.

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

23-AP-081.  In re Disqualification of Clark, 2023-Ohio-4774 (decided Oct. 13, 2023).

 

23-AP-158.  In re Disqualification of Leuthold, 2023-Ohio-4775 (decided Dec. 5, 2023).

 

23-AP-166.  In re Disqualification of Leach, 2023-Ohio-4776 (decided Dec. 1, 2023).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/28/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4773.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0407 and 2022-0424.  Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4670.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-74, 2022-Ohio-629 .  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2022-0460 and 2022-0658.  Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4723.  

Lucas App. No. L-21-1095, 2022-Ohio-1266 .  Judgment reversed on the authority of Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4670, __ N.E.3d __, and cause remanded.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0693 and 2022-0880.  Wood v. Lynch, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4698.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-289, 2022-Ohio-1381 .  Judgment reversed on the authority of Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4670, __ N.E.3d __.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2022-0717 and 2022-0718.  McCarthy v. Lee, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4699.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-105, 2022-Ohio-1033 .  Judgment reversed on the authority of Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4670, __ N.E.3d __.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in Everhart.

 

2022-0732.  McCarthy v. Lee, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4696.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-426, 2022-Ohio-1413 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Stewart, JJ.

 

2022-0779.  State v. Mills, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4716.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1084, 2022-Ohio-969 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 Donnelly, J., would dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently accepted because the court of appeals appropriately applied settled caselaw.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2022-0781 and 2022-0890.  Maxwell v. Lombardi, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4700.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-556, 2022-Ohio-1686 .  Judgment reversed on the authority of Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4670 , __ N.E.3d __.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1121 and 2022-1166.  Ewing v. UC Health, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4701.

Hamilton App. No. C-210390, 2022-Ohio-2560 .  Judgment reversed on the authority of Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4670, __ N.E.3d __.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2023-0552.  Rossi v. Atrium Med. Ctr., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4702.

Warren App. No. CA2022-05-027, 2023-Ohio-984 .  Judgment affirmed on the authority of Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-4670, __ N.E.3d __, and Wilson v. Durrani, 164 Ohio St.3d 419, 2020-Ohio-6827, 173 N.E.3d 448.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0004.  Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

Hamilton App. No. C-220504, 2022-Ohio-4540 .  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Andrew L. Schlafly.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031 .  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Shannon Y. Shin.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0372.  Kennedy v. W. Res. Senior Care.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0055, 2023-Ohio-264 .  Sua sponte, cause no longer held for the decision in 2022-0407 and 2022-0424, Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., and stay of briefing schedule lifted as to proposition of law No. III only.  The clerk of the court shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals of Portage County, and the parties shall brief this case as to proposition of law No. III in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 

2023-1204.  State v. Wilcox.

Hamilton App. No. C-220472, 2023-Ohio-2940 .  On appellee’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellee.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/27/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4730.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1182.  State v. Kyles.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112202, 2023-Ohio-2691 .  On appellee’s motion for appointment of counsel.   Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellee.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 26, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/26/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4697.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF DECEMBER 25, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the December 25, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1062.  Smathers v. Glass, 172 Ohio St.3d 84, 2022-Ohio-4595.

 

2021-0670.  State v. Barnes, 172 Ohio St.3d 63, 2022-Ohio-4486.

 

2021-1158.  State v. Morris, 172 Ohio St.3d 98, 2022-Ohio-4609.

 

2022-0244.  State ex rel. Fair Housing Opportunities of Northwest Ohio v. Ohio Fair Plan, 172 Ohio St.3d 149, 2023-Ohio-2667.

 

2022-0304.  Stingray Pressure Pumping, L.L.C. v. Harris, 172 Ohio St.3d 130, 2023-Ohio-2598.

 

2022-0515.  State v. Tancak, 172 Ohio St.3d 114, 2023-Ohio-2578.

 

2022-0567.  State ex rel. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 172 Ohio St.3d 106, 2023-Ohio-2213.

 

2022-0596.  Wildcat Drilling, L.L.C. v. Discovery Oil & Gas, L.L.C., 172 Ohio St.3d 160, 2023-Ohio-3398.

 

2022-1411.  State ex rel. Woods v. Heekin, 172 Ohio St.3d 112, 2023-Ohio-2334.

 

2022-1518.  State ex rel. Sands v. Lake Cty. Common Pleas Court, 172 Ohio St.3d 146, 2023-Ohio-2599.

 

2023-0036.  In re Robinson, 172 Ohio St.3d 1204, 2023-Ohio-64.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1446.  Ramos v. Canton.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00076, 2022-Ohio-3642.  On joint motion for postponement of oral argument.  Motion granted pending final resolution of parties’ settlement agreement.

 

2023-1619.  State v. Rainey.

Hamilton App. No. C-230015, 2023-Ohio-4043.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B)(1) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 18 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/27/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4695.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1251.  In re Z.C., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4703.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0014, 2022-Ohio-3199 .  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0447.  Longo v. Lorain Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div.

In Prohibition.  On relators’ motion for leave to file second amended verified complaint.  Motion denied.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss amended complaint granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-1029.  Epling v. State.

Miscellaneous case.  On relators’ motion for counsel.  Motion denied.  Motions to dismiss of respondents Fairfield Medical Center and Fairfield County Juvenile and Probate Court Judge Terre L. Vandervoort granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1035.  State ex rel. Dowell v. Byrd.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1072.  Stralka v. Malesic.

In Quo Warranto.  On respondent Bishop Edward C. Malesic’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Pope Francis.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1106.  State ex rel. Mulinix v. Gill.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motion for an expedited decision on the remaining issues or, in the alternative, for a stay of the appellate-court proceedings.  Motion denied as moot.  Relator’s motion for an expedited clarification of the court’s decision dated September 8, 2023, and motion “to strike the ‘motion to dismiss complaint’ ” or, in the alternative, for leave of court to file a response denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1153.  State ex rel. Hughes v. Allen.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-1203.  Holloway v. Parikh.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-1210.  Smith v. Baldwin.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

 

2023-1217.  State ex rel. Brown v. Defendants Have Rights.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.

 

2023-1220.  Durham v. Parikh.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and as to respondent Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Pavan Parikh, would deny the motion and grant an alternative writ.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-1221.  State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2023-1222.  State ex rel. Ferrell v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals Judges.

In Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-1224.  State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2023-1237.  Epling v. State.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motions to amend case type and request to “add HHS.”  Motions and request denied as moot.  Motions to dismiss of respondents Lancaster Police Department and Lancaster Utilities Collection Office; Department of Job and Family Services; Community Action Program Commission of the Lancaster Fairfield County Area; state of Ohio; and White House, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, United States House of Representatives, and Federal Bureau of Investigation granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1255.  Griffin v. Booth.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to submit evidence denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents and would deny the motions and grant an alternative writ.  

 

2023-1270.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Hanni.

In Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1272.  Weatherford v. DeWine.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1291.  State ex rel. Fenstermaker v. Madden.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

 

2023-1297.  State ex rel. Pitts v. VanEerten.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1302.  State ex rel. Robinson v. Lombardi.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1307.  State ex rel. Robinson v. Reed.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., would sua sponte dismiss the cause.

 

2023-1311.  State ex rel. Hale v. Spaeth.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1324.  Sanders v. O’Brien.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s motion for order to show cause.  Motion denied as moot.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2023-1333.  State ex rel. Gregory v. Lucas Cty. Common Pleas Clerk of Court.

In Mandamus.  Upon consideration of respondent’s answer and pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.

Deters, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ as to requested documents A through G and I.

 

2023-1338.  State ex rel. Barker v. Adult Parole Auth.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to stay denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1342.  State ex rel. McGee v. Russo.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss and request to declare relator a vexatious litigator.  Motion granted and request denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1348.  State ex rel. Fenstermaker v. Schiffel.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs and would sua sponte declare relator to be a vexatious litigator.

 

2023-1351.  State ex rel. Baker v. McBride.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

Brunner, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ as to requested document No. 6.

Deters, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ as to requested document Nos. 2, 6, and 7.

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2015-0080.  State ex rel. McIntyre v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motion to show cause and to compel respondents to dispose of all charges and provide relator with a final, appealable order.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0439.  State ex rel. Moro v. Freeman.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 

2023-0809.  Caldwell v. Whirlpool Corp.

Marion App. No. 9-22-61, 2023-Ohio-1530 .  On appellee’s motion to strike appellant Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s merit brief.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

Stewart, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1130.  West v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-1192.  State ex rel. Satta v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2023-1212.  Makuch v. Makuch.

Geauga App. No. 2023-G-0007, 2023-Ohio-2729 .  Sua sponte, Joseph G. Stafford, counsel of record for appellant, ordered to show cause within 14 days why he should not be sanctioned under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(A) for instituting a frivolous appeal.

 

2023-1218.  State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana Cty. Jail.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

Fischer, J., dissents.

Donnelly and Deters, JJ., dissent and would dismiss the petition as moot. 

 

2023-1290.  State ex rel. Fenstermaker v. Drake.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-1339.  Akron City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2021-2377.  On appellee Akron City School District Board of Education’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Because the appeal instituted by appellants originated from a board-of-revision proceeding, this court lacks jurisdiction under R.C. 5717.04 to decide it.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that Donald Vargo’s name is stricken from all documents filed in the case and Vargo is prohibited from filing any other documents in this court on behalf of another.  The clerk of this court shall refer the matter to the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law for investigation and review as it deems appropriate.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining parties.  Cause dismissed.  

 

2023-1392.  Sanders v. O’Brien.

Summit App. No. 30876, 2023-Ohio-3614 .  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion for supersedeas appeal bond denied.

 

2023-1406.  Henry Cty. Land Reutilization Corp. v. Pelmear.

Henry App. No. 7-23-03, 2023-Ohio-2718 .  On appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal.  Motion denied.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1149.  State v. Riley.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112302, 2023-Ohio-2588 .  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1234.  State v. Castile.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-155, 2023-Ohio-2860 .

 

2023-1267.  State v. Sebring.

Wayne App. No. 22AP0032, 2023-Ohio-2911 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 26, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/26/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4640.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1367.  Sajn v. Black.

In Habeas Corpus.  Petitioner’s motion to proceed as indigent denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant the motion. 

 

2023-1368.  McDonald v. Black.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1403.  May v. Curley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1335.  State v. Krouskoupf.

Muskingum App. No. CT2023-0012, 2023-Ohio-2765.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1337.  State v. Dukes.

Summit App. No. 30366, 2023-Ohio-2863.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1352.  State v. Gillard.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0040, 2023-Ohio-2682.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent. 

 

2023-1353.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111473, 2022-Ohio-4641.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1372.  State v. Dahlberg.

Ashtabula App. No. 2020-A-0030, 2021-Ohio-550.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1375.  State v. Lacy.

Erie App. No. E-22-043, 2023-Ohio-1923.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1385.  State v. Jenkins.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011874, 2023-Ohio-2635.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1242.  State v. Turner.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111808, 2023-Ohio-2874.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1069, State v. Taylor.

 Kennedy, C.J., would not hold the cause.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

2023-1260.  In re B.C.A.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-101, 2023-Ohio-2931.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0934, In re Application of Adelaide.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0972.  State v. Quinn.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1135, 2023-Ohio-1300 .

 

2023-0983.  State v. Arnold.

Hamilton App. No. C-220253, 2023-Ohio-1639 .

 Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1145.  State v. Boyle.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113045, 2023-Ohio-3161 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-1228.  Hale v. Toth.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112030, 2023-Ohio-2954 .

 

2023-1229.  State v. Horn.

Wood App. No. WD-21-062, 2023-Ohio-138 .

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1233.  Pollnow v. Polivka.

Trumbull App. Nos. 2022-T-0104 and 2022-T-0105, 2023-Ohio-2830 .

 

2023-1240.  State v. Murphy.

Hamilton App. No. C-220512, 2023-Ohio-2853 .

 

2023-1251.  State v. Fenderson.

Erie App. No. E-22-034, 2023-Ohio-2903 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II. 

 

 

2023-1259.  State v. Pencille.

Ashtabula App. Nos. 2022-A-0093 through 2022-A-0096, 2023-Ohio-2922 .

 

2023-1262.  Watson v. Rankin-Thoman, Kinman-Kindell Co.

Marion App. No. 9-23-51.

 

2023-1263.  State v. Salem.

Butler App. No. CA2023-01-002, 2023-Ohio-2914 .

 

2023-1265.  In re A.P.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-570 and 22AP-571, 2023-Ohio-2463 .

 

2023-1266.  State v. Gray.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111263, 2023-Ohio-2951 .

 

2023-1268.  Rusu v. Carter-Jones Lumber Co.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0085, 2023-Ohio-2927 .

 

2023-1269.  State v. Thompson.

Noble App. No. 21 NO 0487, 2023-Ohio-2942 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. IV. 

 

2023-1276.  State v. Nelson.

Meigs App. No. 22CA10, 2023-Ohio-3566 .

 

2023-1279.  State v. Robertson.

Seneca App. No. 13-22-16, 2023-Ohio-2200 .

 

2023-1281.  Myers v. Medina Cty. Planning Comm.

Medina App. No. 22CA0083-M, 2023-Ohio-3003 .

 

2023-1282.  Crane v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-117, 2023-Ohio-3031 .

 

2023-1283.  State v. Sanon.

Hamilton App. No. C-220125, 2023-Ohio-2742 .

 DeWine, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-1284.  In re I.L.J.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112239, 2023-Ohio-2960 .

 

2023-1298.  State v. Syvilaylack.

Fairfield App. No. 2022 CA 00043, 2023-Ohio-3033 .

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1315.  State v. Riddle.

Hamilton App. No. C-220506, 2023-Ohio-3037.  Appellant’s motion for appointed counsel, to stay, and to remand denied.

 Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would accept the appeal.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-1334.  State v. Arroyo-Garcia.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-890, 2016-Ohio-7006 .

 

2023-1366.  State v. Murphy.

Montgomery App. No. 29559, 2023-Ohio-3276 .

 

2023-1374.  State v. Unger.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0089, 2023-Ohio-3334 .

 

2023-1377.  State v. Stallworth.

Hamilton App. No. C-220247, 2023-Ohio-3316 .

 Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1379.  State v. O’Neal.

Hamilton App. No. C-220541, 2023-Ohio-3268 .

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1380.  State v. Blade.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112084, 2023-Ohio-3054 .

 

2023-1397.  State v. Wilkerson.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0034, 2023-Ohio-3596 .

 

 

2023-1407.  State v. Lawrence.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-110, 2023-Ohio-3419 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2023-0314.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Tyack.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-313.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3673, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0928.  State v. Helms.

Summit App. No. 30455, 2023-Ohio-1875.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1456, 2023-Ohio-3670, 218 N.E.3d 971.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1022.  State v. Wright.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-275, 2023-Ohio-2134.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1477, 2023-Ohio-3789, 219 N.E.3d 972.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/18/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4572.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1525.  State ex rel. Weiler v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.  The motion does not contain a certificate of service as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(D)(1).  Sua sponte, relator ordered to immediately serve the emergency motion on respondent.  Respondent shall file a response, if any, to the emergency motion within ten days of the court’s entry.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/15/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4580.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0004.  Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4570.

Hamilton App. No. C-220504, 2022-Ohio-4540.  Sua sponte, appeal dismissed due to a change in the law.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents and would dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently accepted.

Byrne, J., dissents and would proceed with addressing the propositions of law previously accepted for review.

Matthew Byrne, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 19, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/19/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4595.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0465.  State ex rel. Spencer v. Forshey, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4568.

Noble App. No. 22 NO 0500, 2023-Ohio-776 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0588.  State ex rel. Davic v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4569.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-301, 2023-Ohio-1195.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion for oral argument denied.  Appellee’s request to declare appellant to be a vexatious litigator denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1254.  State ex rel. Mounts v. Powers.

Hamilton App. No. C-230367.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1317.  State ex rel. Westerfield v. Crawford Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

Crawford App. No. 3-23-26.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due December 11, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio

and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 19, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/19/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4615.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0572.  State v. Jones.

Hamilton App. No. C-220007, 2023-Ohio-844.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file simultaneous briefs that address whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal under Article IV, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution and/or any other applicable law.  In addition, the court invites the filing of amicus curiae briefs addressing this issue.  All briefs shall be filed within 14 days, and no responsive briefs are permitted.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

Fischer, J., concurs but would frame the supplemental-briefing issue as whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal under Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(B)(2)(a)(ii), Section 2(B)(2)(b), or Section 2(B)(2)(e) (including whether the opinion issued by the First District Court of Appeals constitutes a judgment) and/or any other applicable law, and would request amicus briefing from the Ohio Attorney General and the Ohio Public Defender only.

Betsy Luper Schuster, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/20/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4626.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0914.  State ex rel. WTOL Television, L.L.C. v. Cedar Fair, L.P., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4593.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.  Relators’ requests for statutory damages and attorney fees denied, and court costs awarded to relator.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2023-0919.  State ex rel. Martre v. Cheney, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4594.

Allen App. No. 1-23-05.  Judgment affirmed.  Relator’s motion for default judgment denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Hutchison.

On motion to grant leave.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0990.  State v. Jones.

Greene App. Nos. 2022-CA-47 and 2022-CA-48, 2023-Ohio-1512.  On appellee’s motion to strike.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days of the court’s entry.

 

2023-1608.  Petty v. Lorain.

Lorain App. No. 23CA011949, 2023-Ohio-4080.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B)(1) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 19 through 28 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/22/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4669.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0382.  State v. Swazey, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4627.

Medina App. No. 21CA0031-M, 2022-Ohio-993 .  Judgment affirmed and cause remanded to the trial court.

 Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1512.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Port.

On certification of default.  Gregory Darwin Port, Attorney Registration No. 0043838, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 14, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/14/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4526.]

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0772.  State v. Jones.

Hamilton App. No. C-230005.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Fischer, J., would also accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. III and IV.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 Michael L. Tucker, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 14, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/14/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4525.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1562.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Stenson.

Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-047.  On the board’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/13/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4493.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of M. Keith Moskowitz.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0925.  Epling v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. Family Preservation Unit.

Miscellaneous case.  On relator’s motion for leave to amend/additional information, motion to halt surgery proceedings, and “motion for leave to amend/additional information/new findings updates.”  Motions denied as moot.  Motion of respondents Tallmadge Elementary School, Jen Meadows, Shelby Day, Julie Anderson, Michele Matchett, and Elizabeth Wyslutsky to strike the November 6, 2023 motion for leave to amend/additional information, motion to strike the evidence video, and motion to strike the motion to halt surgery proceedings denied as moot.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/12/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4489.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1401.  State v. Shank.

Medina App. No. 2023CA0034-M.  On appellee’s motion to strike for lack of service.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a response to appellant’s motion for delayed appeal within ten days of the court’s entry.

 

2023-1402.  State ex rel. Lucas v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Vehicle Inspection.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that within 14 days, relator shall submit a written request for ordinary-mail service pursuant to Civ.R. 4.6(D) or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service as to respondent Matthew Loesch.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2023-1296.  VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2019-1233.  The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellant/cross-appellee shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.  As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, this court may dismiss this case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/11/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4482.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0356.  State v. Fork.

Sandusky App. No. S-21-022, 2023-Ohio-242.  On joint motion for continuance of oral argument.  Motion granted.  Oral argument scheduled for December 12, 2023, canceled.  Oral argument will be rescheduled at a later date.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/12/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4410.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1303.  Weatherford v. Harris.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1319.  Sudberry v. Stuff.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1252.  State v. Foster.

Summit App. No. 30443, 2023-Ohio-2466.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1256.  State v. Jones.

Montgomery App. No. 29602, 2023-Ohio-1997.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1257.  State v. Kinney.

Monroe App. No. 22 MO 0002, 2023-Ohio-2549.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1309.  State v. Shields.

Washington App. No. 22CA11, 2023-Ohio-2331.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1182.  State v. Kyles.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112202, 2023-Ohio-2691 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1204.  State v. Wilcox.

Hamilton App. No. C-220472, 2023-Ohio-2940 .

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0956.  State v. Burton.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1105, 2023-Ohio-1596 .

 

2023-0971.  State v. Delgado.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111992.

 

2023-1157.  Townsend v. AutoNation Wickliff.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111993.

 

2023-1158.  State v. Shabazz.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112140, 2023-Ohio-2775 .

 

 

2023-1160.  Arnold v. Geneva.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0119, 2023-Ohio-2643 .

 

2023-1164.  State v. Carver.

Highland App. No. 19CA17, 2023-Ohio-2839 .

 

2023-1165.  State v. Taylor.

Lawrence App. No. 21CA13, 2023-Ohio-2994 .

 

2023-1167.  B&N Coal, Inc. v. Blue Racer Midstream, L.L.C.

Noble App. No. 22 NO 0490, 2023-Ohio-2641 .

 

2023-1168.  Mann v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220022 and C-220039, 2023-Ohio-2672 .

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-1169.  State v. Gilmore.

Fulton App. No. F-23-005.

 

2023-1175.  State v. Blake.

Columbiana App. No. 22 CO 0020, 2023-Ohio-2748 .

 

2023-1185.  Crawford v. Bellevue Hosp.

Erie App. No. E-22-039, 2023-Ohio-2709 .

 

2023-1190.  State v. Rogers.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-546, 2023-Ohio-2749 .

Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-1191.  State v. Tucker.

Clark App. No. 2022-CA-79, 2023-Ohio-2894 .

 

2023-1194.  Mickens v. Berry Global, Inc.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0066, 2023-Ohio-885 .

 

2023-1195.  State v. Smith.

Ross App. No. 22CA21, 2023-Ohio-1504 .

 

 

 

2023-1196.  Hounchell v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-220021, 2023-Ohio-2501 .

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-1199.  State v. Ramirez.

Defiance App. No. 4-23-01.

 

2023-1200.  State v. Simpson.

Allen App. No. 1-22-79, 2023-Ohio-3207 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II. 

 

2023-1202.  State v. Jones.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-626, 2023-Ohio-4145 .

 

2023-1205.  Rohrer v. Moore.

Licking App. No. 23CA00022.

 

2023-1208.  State v. Tetak.

Muskingum App. No. CT2019-0052.

 

2023-1209.  State v. Graham.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0086, 2023-Ohio-2728 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1215.  State v. Powell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111672, 2023-Ohio-2770 .

 

2023-1226.  State v. Miller.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0075, 2023-Ohio-2826 .

 

2023-1231.  State v. Tutt.

Preble App. Nos. CA2022-04-005 and CA2022-08-015, 2023-Ohio-2819 .

 

2023-1239.  State v. Moore.

Summit App. No. 29581, 2023-Ohio-2864 .

 

2023-1243.  State v. Cooper.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00091, 2023-Ohio-2897 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1250.  Woodgeard v. Hines.

Hocking App. No. 22CA7, 2023-Ohio-2362 .

 

2023-1278.  Loch v. Myers.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1153, 2023-Ohio-2981 .

 

2023-1295.  State v. Brand.

Hamilton App. No. C-220602, 2023-Ohio-3321 .

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-1314.  State v. Hale.

Butler App. Nos. CA2023-03-019 and CA2023-03-021, 2023-Ohio-3199 .

 

2023-1316.  State v. Chamblin.

Hamilton App. No. C-220488, 2023-Ohio-3129 .

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-1329.  Jones v. Soto.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011870, 2023-Ohio-3107 .

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

2022-1052.  State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Common Pleas Court.

Hocking App. No. 20CA9.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3534, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellees’ motion to set response deadline denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., would deny appellees’ motion on the merits.

 

2023-0398.  Armengau v. Bur. of Sentence Computation.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1462, 2023-Ohio-3697, 219 N.E.3d 946.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0754.  State v. Kramer-Kelly.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111233, 2023-Ohio-1031.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1445, 2023-Ohio-3432, 218 N.E.3d 950.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0933.  Lipin v. Bruns.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1466, 2023-Ohio-3741, 219 N.E.3d 955.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion for leave to file memorandum of law denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/07/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4409.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1020.  In re Application of S. Branch Solar, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 21-669-EL-BGN.  On South Branch Solar, L.L.C.’s motion for leave to intervene as appellee.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/06/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4384.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinion, which was previously issued as an entry in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

23-AP-070.  In re Disqualification of Celebrezze, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4383 (decided Aug. 18, 2023).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/05/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4375.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1473.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 18-1875-EL-GRD, 18-1876-EL-WVR, 18-1877-EL-AAM, 19-1121-EL-UNC, 20-680-EL-UNC, and 20-1041-EL-UN.  On appellant/cross-appellee’s motion to reschedule oral argument.  Motion granted.  Oral argument will be scheduled at a later date.

 

2023-0111 and 2023-0130.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 08-1094-EL-SSO, 08-1095-EL-ATA, 08-1096-EL-AAM, and 08-1097-EL-UNC.  On Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel’s motion to reschedule oral argument.  Motion granted.  Oral argument will be scheduled at a later date.

 

2023-0213.  State v. Grad.

Medina App. No. 22CA0011-M, 2022-Ohio-4221.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2023-1521.  Cardington v. Fulton.

In Mandamus.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 4, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/04/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4333.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinion, which was previously issued as an entry in response to an affidavit of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.031.

 

23-AP-154.  In re Disqualification of Schooley, 2023-Ohio-4332 (decided Nov. 14, 2023).

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1400.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fannin.

On certification of default.  Steven Scott Fannin, Attorney Registration No. 0085907, last known business address in Fairlawn, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 12/01/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4325.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0993.  In re E.S., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4273.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110378, 2021-Ohio-4606.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 30, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/30/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4304.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0470.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bulson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4258.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-032.  Douglas W. Bulson Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0020983, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for 18 months with 12 months conditionally stayed.

 DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Deters, J.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0580.  Hicks v. Union Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

Clermont App. No. CA2022-10-057, 2023-Ohio-874.  Sua sponte, joint motion of appellant and amicus curiae the Buckeye Institute for leave to participate in oral argument stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.06(B), because it was not filed at least 15 days before the December 13, 2023 oral argument.

 

2023-1150.  Sullivan v. Barrett.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to strike for failure to make service.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0468.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Daniell.

Sua sponte, Ric Daniell, Attorney Registration No. 0032072, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 26, 2023.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 29, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/29/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4274.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1223.  State ex rel. Turner v. Cuyahoga Cty.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this cause should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service as to respondent Cheryl Michelle Wiltshire within the time period since the complaint was filed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/27/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4272.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4271.

On complaints invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion to dismiss filed by respondent Senator Robert McColley and Representative Jeffrey LaRe and motion to dismiss filed by respondent Secretary of State Frank LaRose.  Motions granted.  Motion to vacate filed by respondents Senator McColley, Representative LaRe, and Secretary LaRose denied as moot.  Petitioners’ motion for leave to file instanter objections to the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s September 29, 2023 revised General Assembly plan denied.  Causes dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Stewart, JJ.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/28/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4270.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0254.  State ex rel. Ames v. Ondrey, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4188.

Geauga App. No. 2022-G-0044, 2023-Ohio-510 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0323.  State ex rel. King v. Watson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4189.

Marion App. No. 9-22-66.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion for judicial notice denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1235.  Turner v. Hochheiser.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that within 14 days, relator shall submit a request for issuance of an additional summons at an alternative address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service as to respondent Cheryl M. Wiltshire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1085.  State ex rel. Charles J. Kubicki, L.L.C. v. Oldfield.

In Prohibition.  On relators’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1488.  In re Application of Border Basin I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 21-277-EL-BGN.  On appellants’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2023-1288.  Jones Apparel Group/Nine West Holdings v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2020-53 and 2020-54.  The court returns this case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellant/cross-appellee shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.  As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, this court may dismiss this case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/27/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4235.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF NOVEMBER 27, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the November 27, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0191.  State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co., 171 Ohio St.3d 663, 2022-Ohio-4345.

 

2020-1093.  Siltstone Servs., L.L.C. v. Guernsey Cty. Community Dev. Corp., 171 Ohio St.3d 762, 2022-Ohio-4659.

 

2020-1583.  State v. Scott, 171 Ohio St.3d 651, 2022-Ohio-4277.

 

2021-0361.  Michael v. Miller, 171 Ohio St.3d 733, 2022-Ohio-4543.

 

2021-0497.  Brandt v. Pompa, 171 Ohio St.3d 693, 2022-Ohio-4525.

 

2021-0579.  State v. Bunch, 171 Ohio St.3d 775, 2022-Ohio-4723.

 

2021-0756 and 2021-0769.  State v. Bollar, 171 Ohio St.3d 678, 2022-Ohio-4370.

 

2021-0980.  Doe v. Greenville City Schools, 171 Ohio St.3d 763, 2022-Ohio-4618.

 

2021-1491.  State v. Ashcraft, 171 Ohio St.3d 747, 2022-Ohio-4611.

 

2021-1592.  State ex rel. Hunt v. E. Cleveland, 171 Ohio St.3d 796, 2023-Ohio-407.

 

2022-0296.  State v. Dickerson, 171 Ohio St.3d 794, 2022-Ohio-4732.

 

2022-0297.  State v. Jenkins, 171 Ohio St.3d 795, 2022-Ohio-4731.

 

2022-0513.  State ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 171 Ohio St.3d 806, 2023-Ohio-692.

 

2022-0756.  State ex rel. Martre v. Watson, 171 Ohio St.3d 810, 2023-Ohio-749.

 

2022-0814.  Westerfield v. Bracy, 171 Ohio St.3d 803, 2023-Ohio-499.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/28/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4200.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1253.  Kelley v. Gray.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.  Petitioner’s motion to supplement and motion to amend denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs but would deny the motion to amend as moot.

Deters, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant the motions.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1211.  State v. Boyd.

Montgomery App. No. 29447, 2023-Ohio-2079.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1238.  State v. Jackson.

Allen App. No. 1-22-27, 2023-Ohio-2193.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1232.  Schlegel v. Summit Cty.

Summit App. No. 30377, 2023-Ohio-2866 .

Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0716.  State v. Jones.

Hamilton App. No. C-230062.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent. 

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0820.  State v. Carbaugh.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0050, 2023-Ohio-1269 .

 

2023-0892.  State v. Stroud.

Hamilton App. No. C-220270, 2023-Ohio-1395 .

 Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0935.  State v. Clemmons.

Montgomery App. No. 29638, 2023-Ohio-1832 .

 

2023-0965.  State v. Sanchez.

Stark App. No. 22CA00071.  Appellant’s motion to address court denied.

 

2023-1100.  Robinholt v. Wilson.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011782, 2023-Ohio-248 .

 

2023-1107.  Holtrey v. Wiedeman.

Warren App. No. CA2023-01-011, 2023-Ohio-2440 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-1108.  State v. Sheets.

Jackson App. No. 22CA1, 2023-Ohio-2592 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

2023-1114.  State v. Miller.

Clark App. No. 2022-CA-58, 2023-Ohio-2508 .

 

2023-1115.  Besack v. Kroger Co.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-341, 2023-Ohio-2497 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-1116.  Scio v. North Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

Harrison App. No. 22 HA 0006, 2023-Ohio-2479 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-1120.  State v. Schwieterman.

Greene App. No. 2023-CA-14, 2023-Ohio-2613 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart, J., dissent. 

 

2023-1121.  Nunn v. Mitchell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111944, 2023-Ohio-2484 .

 

2023-1122.  In re Guardianship of Pond.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAF 12 0081, 2023-Ohio-2492 .

 

2023-1124.  State v. Williams.

Hamilton App. No. C-220473, 2023-Ohio-2674 .

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-1128.  Stephenson v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220020 and C-220036, 2023-Ohio-2500 .

 Brunner, J., dissents.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

2023-1129.  State v. Gibson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111440, 2023-Ohio-2481 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III.

 

2023-1132.  2646 Mayfield, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Treasurer.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112039, 2023-Ohio-2583 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

2023-1133.  Maplewood at Chardon, L.L.C. v. Stinn.

Geauga App. No. 2023-G-0005, 2023-Ohio-2539 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2023-1134.  State v. Chester.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112929.

 

2023-1137.  In re Estate of Pursell v. Pursell.

Allen App. No. 01-23-04, 2023-Ohio-2531 .

 

2023-1139.  Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. v. Edge Eng. & Science, L.L.C.

Hamilton App. No. C-220634, 2023-Ohio-2605 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1162.  State v. Snider.

Belmont App. No. 22 BE 0020, 2023-Ohio-2639 .

 

2023-1166.  State v. Hoffman.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0124, 2023-Ohio-2645 .

 

2023-1176.  State v. Bennett.

Ross App. No. 21CA3751, 2023-Ohio-2734 .

 

2023-1179.  State v. Roper.

Summit App. No. 30396, 2023-Ohio-2681 .

 

2023-1183.  Childs v. Kroger Co.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-524, 2023-Ohio-2034 .

 

2023-1184.  In re P.B.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2023 AP 04 0027, 2023-Ohio-2851 .

 

2023-1188.  In re K.R.B.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2023 AP 04 0028, 2023-Ohio-2852 .

 

2023-1189.  State v. White.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-572.

 

2023-1206.  Lott v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

Washington App. No. 23CA16.

 

2023-1216.  In re I.R.

Summit App. Nos. 30500, 30501, 30502, 30529, 30530, and 30531, 2023-Ohio-3044 .

 

2023-1241.  State v. Acosta.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1277.

 

2023-1261.  ParkPlay Solutions, L.L.C. v. Avon Lake.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011848, 2023-Ohio-3103 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

2022-0321.  State v. Miller.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110571, 2022-Ohio-378.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3448, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0692.  State v. Berry.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111453, 2023-Ohio-605.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2023-Ohio-3288, 217 N.E.3d 798.  On amended motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0709.  Craig v. Gilchrist.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-52 and 22AP-55, 2022-Ohio-4477.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1406, 2023-Ohio-2972, 215 N.E.3d 556.  On amended motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0760.  Pottinger v. Ohio Dept. of Corr. & Rehab.

In Habeas Corpus.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1457, 2023-Ohio-3670, 218 N.E.3d 978.  On motion for leave to file revised documents and amended motion for reconsideration.  Motions denied.

 Fischer, J., would deny the amended motion for reconsideration as moot.

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., would disregard the amended motion for reconsideration.

 

2023-0770.  State ex rel. Greer v. Delaware Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2023-Ohio-3432, 218 N.E.3d 942.  On motion for reconsideration and en banc consideration.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant the motion to the extent that it requests reconsideration. 

 

2023-0914.  JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Loseke.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111983, 2023-Ohio-1893.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1438, 2023-Ohio-3328, 217 N.E.3d 812.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0937.  Lipin v. Brogan.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1443, 2023-Ohio-3432, 218 N.E.3d 950.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1273.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Buchbinder.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2023-012.  Robert Charles Buchbinder, Attorney Registration No. 0039623, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, publicly reprimanded.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-1275.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Bush.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2023-014.  Joseph John Bush III, Attorney Registration No. 0056134, last known business address in Youngstown, Ohio, publicly reprimanded.

Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents and would reject the consent-to-discipline agreement and remand the matter to the board.

Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/22/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4194.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1070.  State ex rel. Clark v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4183.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.  Relator’s request for statutory damages denied, and court costs awarded to relator.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would award relator $1,000 in statutory damages.

 

2023-0080.  State ex rel. Block v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4184.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-137, 2022-Ohio-4474 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2023-0907.  H.R. v. P.J.E., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4185.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112990.  On consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this case, the court declines to accept jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(4).  Memorandum in support of jurisdiction deemed frivolous.  Reasonable attorney fees may be recouped by appellee from appellant’s counsel.  Joseph G. Stafford, Nicole A. Cruz, and Kelley R. Tauring declared to be vexatious litigators.  Appellee’s motion to strike denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0907.  H.R. v. P.J.E.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112990.  Matter referred to master commissioner Ryan O’Rourke for the purpose of conducting a hearing to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees that appellee shall be entitled to recoup from appellant’s counsel and to make a recommendation to the court regarding that amount.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

1996-2787.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington.

Sua sponte, William Terry Washington, Attorney Registration No. 0051948, last known business address in Vienna, Virgina, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before July 11, 1997.

 

2023-1156.  In re Riley.

Sua sponte, Tyrone Riley, Attorney Registration No. 0010605, last known business address in Toledo, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 16, 2023.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0534.  State ex rel. Borges v. Ohio Elections Comm.

In Prohibition and Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1370.  State ex rel. AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott.

In Procedendo and Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 21, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/21/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4187.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0472.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4168.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-037.  Tracie M. Hunter, Attorney Registration No. 0061225, last known business address in Cincinnati, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with credit for time served under interim felony suspension.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Gallagher and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Lewis, J.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 Sean C. Gallagher, J., of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 Ronald C. Lewis, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

2023-1002.  In re Application of Cline, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4169.

On Report by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, No. 858.  Pending registration application of Jared Michael Cline of Uniontown, Ohio, disapproved and applicant permitted to reapply as a candidate for admission to the practice of law no earlier than December 1, 2023.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0751.  State v. Myers.

Warren App. No. CA2023-01-013.  On motion for leave of John P. Parker to withdraw and appoint Elizabeth A. Arrick as substitute counsel.  Motion granted.

 

2023-0838.  State v. Myers.

Warren App. No. CA2023-01-013.  On motion for leave of John P. Parker to withdraw and appoint Elizabeth A. Arrick as substitute counsel.  Motion granted.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1481.  In re Saunders.

James Daulton Saunders, Attorney Registration No. 0067908, last known business address in Washington, District of Columbia, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0923.  Smith v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due November 13, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 17, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/17/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4156.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1449.  State v. Miree.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110749, 2022-Ohio-3664.  On appellant’s motion to consolidate with 2022-1458, State v. Duncan, for briefing, argument, and decision.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, the stay of briefing is lifted.  This cause is consolidated with 2022-1458, State v. Duncan, and briefing and oral argument in case Nos. 2022-1449 and 2022-1458 shall be consolidated.  Appellant Jaidee Miree and appellant Desmond Duncan may each file a separate brief.  Appellants shall file their briefs within 40 days from the date the clerk of the court files the record from the court of appeals in this cause.  The parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.01 through 16.04.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that 20 minutes shall be allotted to each side for oral argument.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1458.  State v. Duncan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110784, 2022-Ohio-3665.  Sua sponte, this cause is consolidated with 2022-1449, State v. Miree, and briefing and oral argument in case Nos. 2022-1449 and 2022-1458 shall be consolidated.  Appellant Jaidee Miree and appellant Desmond Duncan may each file a separate brief.  Appellants shall file their briefs within 40 days from the date the clerk of the court files the record from the court of appeals in 2022-1449, State v. Miree.  The parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.01 through 16.04.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that 20 minutes shall be allotted to each side for oral argument.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 17, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/17/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4154.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1356.  In re Resignation of Brueggeman.

On application for retirement or resignation of Edward Paul Brueggeman, Attorney Registration No. 0029159, last known business address in Miamitown, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-1358.  In re Resignation of Cox.

On application for retirement or resignation of Donald A. Cox, Attorney Registration No. 0024788, last known business address in Orient, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-1361.  In re Resignation of Buttars.

On application for retirement or resignation of Austin Roan Buttars, Attorney Registration No. 0091338, last known business address in Idaho Falls, Idaho.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-1384.  In re Resignation of Reinier.

On application for retirement or resignation of Joseph Frederick Reinier, Attorney Registration No. 0081274, last known business address in Grove City, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 16, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/16/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4117.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0004.  Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

Hamilton App. No. C-220504, 2022-Ohio-4540.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file simultaneous briefs that address the effect on this cause, if any, of the passage of Issue 1.  The parties shall file their briefs within 21 days, and no responsive briefs are permitted.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/15/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4116.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

 

In re Judicial Campaign Complaint

Against Stephanie Lynn Williams,

  Respondent.

Case No. 2023-1389

 

 

 

 

ORDER OF THE COMMISSION OF JUDGES

 

 This matter came to be reviewed by a commission of five judges appointed by the Supreme Court of Ohio on November 8, 2023, in accordance with Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)(1).  The commission members are Judge Elizabeth Gill, Chair, and Judges Michael Ater, Samuel Bluedorn, Dominic Coletta, and Katarina Cook.

 

Procedural History

 

Complainant, Dino Conrad, filed a judicial-campaign grievance with the Board of Professional Conduct against respondent, Stephanie Lynn Williams, a candidate for Judge of the Cambridge Municipal Court.  After review by a probable-cause panel of the board under Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(B), the director of the board filed a formal complaint.  The complaint alleged that respondent violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and (G) when she, knowingly or with reckless disregard, twice posted photographs of herself in a judicial robe without the appropriate disclaimer identifying herself as a magistrate and inaccurately referred to herself as a judge at a “Meet the Candidate” night and in two radio advertisements.   

 

 The formal complaint was heard by a hearing panel of the board.  That hearing panel issued a report of its findings, conclusions, and recommendations.  In the report, the hearing panel recommended that respondent pay a $1,000 fine for her violation of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and (G), the costs of the proceedings, and attorney fees in an amount to be determined by the commission.  

 

The commission received and reviewed the copy of the record certified by the board, including the joint stipulations, the joint exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings before the

hearing panel.  The commission also reviewed the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended sanction.  On November 9, 2018, the commission conducted a telephone conference during which it deliberated on this matter.  Upon review of the entire record, the commission unanimously agreed with the panel’s conclusion.

 

Commission Opinion

 

 Under Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)(1), the commission is charged with reviewing the record to determine whether it supports the hearing panel’s findings and determine whether the hearing panel abused its discretion.  Based on the record certified by the hearing panel and the report issued by the hearing panel, the commission unanimously holds that the hearing panel did not abuse its discretion and that the record supports the panel’s findings that respondent violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and (G) as alleged in Count 1 of the complaint and as stipulated by the parties.

 

Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) makes it a violation to “[p]ost, publish, broadcast, transmit, circulate, or distribute information concerning the judicial candidate or an opponent, either knowing the information to be false or with a reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.”  Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(G) makes it a violation to “[m]isrepresent his or her identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact or the identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact of an opponent.”

 

To establish a violation of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and (G) by respondent requires a finding that respondent acted “knowingly” or “with reckless disregard.”  The meanings of these terms are established by the Code of Judicial Conduct and case law.  Specifically, Jud.Cond.R. 4.6(G) defines “knowingly” as meaning “actual knowledge of the fact in question.  A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.”  A judicial candidate “acts ‘recklessly’ if the result is possible and the candidate chooses to ignore the risk.”  In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Moll, 135 Ohio St.3d 156, 2012-Ohio-5674, 985 N.E.2d 436, ¶ 11. 

 

Based on the joint stipulations, the joint exhibits, and the hearing transcript, the hearing panel did not abuse its discretion in finding that respondent knowingly or recklessly violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and (G).  Judicial candidates are responsible for reviewing and approving the contents of all campaign materials before they or their campaigns disseminate those materials.  Jud.Cond.R. 4.2(A)(2).  Paragraph one of the complaint addresses two instances in which respondent’s campaign posted photos of her in a judicial robe but with no disclaimer or other language identifying her as a magistrate. The parties stipulated that on these two occasions, respondent’s campaign committee posted the photos without a proper disclaimer.  The photos are stipulated exhibits in the record, and the parties agreed that the exhibits are authentic and admissible.  The parties also stipulated that these two photos knowingly or recklessly misrepresented respondent’s qualifications.  The hearing panel reviewed the evidence and agreed.

 

The same goes for the statement respondent made at a Guernsey County Republican Club “Meet the Candidate” event and the two radio advertisements referred to in paragraphs two and three of the complaint.  The parties stipulated that the recordings of these events were authentic and admissible and each included respondent’s misstatements that she was a judge when she was

actually a magistrate.  The parties likewise stipulated that these misstatements were made knowingly or recklessly and that they violated Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and (G).  The hearing panel reviewed the evidence and agreed.

 

Accordingly, after reviewing the evidence in the record, the commission finds that clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The commission further finds that the hearing panel did not abuse its discretion. 

 

 The commission concurs with the hearing panel’s recommendation that respondent be required to pay a fine of $1,000 for her violations of Jud.Cond.R. 4.3(A) and (G) and the costs of the proceedings.  The commission also concurs with the hearing panel’s recommendation that respondent pay complainant’s reasonable attorney fees.

 

 To determine the reasonable attorney fees, complainant and his counsel shall, within 14 days, submit briefing and any accounting, billing entries, and affidavit(s) in support of his request for attorney fees. Within 14 days of complainant’s filing his brief and evidence in support, respondent shall submit any briefing and evidence in opposition.  No replies are permitted.  When the commission issues its award of attorney fees, it will finalize this court’s order and direct its secretary to issue a statement of costs along with instructions regarding the payment of fines, costs, and attorney fees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/13/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4075.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF NOVEMBER 13, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the November 13, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0677.  Eighmey v. Cleveland, 171 Ohio St.3d 636, 2022-Ohio-4729.

 

2020-1032.  Lindsay v. Garfield, 171 Ohio St.3d 636, 2022-Ohio-4730.

 

2021-0130.  Neuro-Communication Servs., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 171 Ohio St.3d 606, 2022-Ohio-4379.

 

2021-0611.  State ex rel. Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 171 Ohio St.3d 593, 2022-Ohio-4237.

 

2021-0761.  State v. Schubert, 171 Ohio St.3d 617, 2022-Ohio-4604.

 

2021-1380.  State v. Ramunas, 171 Ohio St.3d 579, 2023-Ohio-579.

 

2021-1463.  State ex rel. M.D. v. Kelsey, 171 Ohio St.3d 646, 2023-Ohio-2165.

 

2022-0047.  Marchbanks v. Ice House Ventures, L.L.C., 171 Ohio St.3d 637, 2023-Ohio-1866.

 

2023-0612.  In re Resignation of Keating, 171 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2023-Ohio-2192.

 

2023-0614.  In re Resignation of Pilla, 171 Ohio St.3d 1231, 2023-Ohio-2196.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 9, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/09/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4054.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0603.  State v. Daniel, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4035.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1104, 2022-Ohio-1348 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2023-0426.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Carson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4036.

On Final Report by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the Supreme Court, No. 2021-002.  Brett Carson enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio and civil penalty imposed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0514.  In re R.G.M.

Muskingum App. Nos. CT2022-0046 and CT2022-0047, 2023-Ohio-685.  On appellant’s motion for leave to file revised merit brief.  Motion granted.  Appellant’s revised merit brief deemed filed as of October 26, 2023.

 

 

2023-1409.  Rankin v. Kirsh.

Hamilton App. No. C-220632, 2023-Ohio-3371.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B)(1) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 16 and 17 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction are stricken.

 

2023-1415.  State ex rel. Bower v. Cincinnati.

Hamilton App. No. C-220511, 2023-Ohio-3369.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B)(1) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 20 through 23 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction are stricken.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0795.  State ex rel. Hobbs v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-308, 2023-Ohio-1759.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/08/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4048.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0974.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews.

Sua sponte, Amanda Ann-Carmen Andrews, Attorney Registration No. 0088814, last known business address in Port Clinton, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 2, 2023.

 

2023-0993.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brooks.

Sua sponte, Phyllis Elaine Brooks, Attorney Registration No. 0015199, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 5, 2023.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/07/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-4034.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0872.  State v. Watson.

Ashland App. No. 22-COA-027, 2023-Ohio-1469 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion, joined by Stewart, J.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1}It is a basic principle of due process that an individual cannot be punished for doing what the law “ ‘plainly allows him to do.’ ”  State v. Rahab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152, 2017-Ohio-1401, 80 N.E.3d 431, ¶ 8, quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363, 98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978), citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 738, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) (Black, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).  Flowing from this first principle comes a second: “[A] sentence vindictively imposed on a defendant for exercising his constitutional right[s] * * * is contrary to law,” id., citing State v. O’Dell, 45 Ohio St.3d 140, 147, 543 N.E.2d 1220 (1989).

2                    {¶ 2}Despite these bedrock foundations of due-process jurisprudence, the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s imposition here of a more severe sentence following a criminal defendant’s successful appeal of his original sentence.  And this affirmance was pronounced despite the trial court’s having stated during the resentencing hearing and on the record that the court of appeals relied on “bad law” in reversing the defendant’s sentence.  Because I am concerned about the chilling effect that allowing the trial court’s actions to go unchecked in this case might have on other defendants’ decisions to exercise their right to appeal, I dissent from this court’s decision not to exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.

 

1                    {¶ 3}As part of a plea agreement, Michael Watson pleaded guilty to multiple offenses for acts he had committed when he was 17 years old.  2023-Ohio-1469, 213 N.E.3d 1175, ¶ 3-4.  Under the plea deal, Watson agreed to testify against his codefendants.  Id. at ¶ 4.  In exchange, the state agreed to join Watson in recommending to the trial court that Watson be sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 38 years to life.  Id.  Under this proposed resolution, the trial court, on accepting the agreement, retained the discretion to impose a sentence that was less severe or more severe than the one recommended by the parties.  See State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1, 922 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 28, citing State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58, 2005-Ohio-3674, 831 N.E.2d 430, ¶ 6 (“trial courts may reject plea agreements and * * * are not bound by a jointly recommended sentence”).  Thus, Watson had no assurances (at least none that were incorporated into the limited record available at this stage of the appellate process) that the trial court would follow the joint recommendation.  Nevertheless, the trial court accepted Watson’s guilty pleas and imposed the jointly recommended sentence.  2023-Ohio-1469 at ¶ 5.

2                    {¶ 4}Watson then appealed his sentence, asserting that it was unconstitutional because the trial court had not articulated its consideration of Watson’s youth before imposing a sentence that included a potential term of life imprisonment.  Id. at ¶ 6; see also State v. Watson, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 20-COA-014, 2021-Ohio-1361, ¶ 8-10.  The Fifth District agreed with Watson, reversed his sentence, and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing.  2023-Ohio-1469 at ¶ 6, citing Watson at ¶ 10, 14.  In support of its decision, the Fifth District relied on our holding in State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309, 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952, which requires a trial court to articulate its consideration of a juvenile offender’s youth as a mitigating factor before imposing a sentence that includes a possibility of life imprisonment.  Id. at ¶ 2, 36, 41; see also 2023-Ohio-1469 at ¶ 6; Watson at ¶ 8-10.

3                    {¶ 5}The case returned to the trial court, and Watson had the chance to present mitigating evidence about his youth in a resentencing hearing.  2023-Ohio-1469 at ¶ 7-10.  For its part, the state presented Watson’s institutional report, which set out instances of Watson’s misconduct since his imprisonment.  Id. at ¶ 11.  Despite this additional evidence, the state did not ask the trial court to impose more prison time for Watson beyond the original sentence, asking instead that the trial court reimpose its original sentence.  Id. at ¶ 12.  Though not offered as evidence by either party, the trial court also considered its observations of Watson’s behavior during the trial of a codefendant when determining Watson’s new sentence.  See id. at ¶ 27, 36.

 

1                    {¶ 6}In its opinion, the Fifth District describes what happened next at Watson’s resentencing hearing as a “discussion” about this court’s holding in Patrick and other developments in sentencing law that had come about since Watson’s original sentencing hearing.  2023-Ohio-1469, 213 N.E.3d 1175, at ¶ 13.  But the portions of the resentencing-hearing transcript that the court of appeals relied on and that were provided by Watson in his jurisdictional memorandum to this court belie such a benign characterization.  Rather than discuss Patrick, the trial court stated outright that this court was “flat out wrong” when it decided that case and that the Fifth District was wrong for applying the holding in Patrick to Watson’s case.  2023-Ohio-1469 at ¶ 26, 34.  The trial court justified its criticisms by pointing to an intervening decision by the United States Supreme Court that it believed had rendered Patrick “bad law” and had eviscerated Patrick’s authority, making it inconsequential.  Following its criticism of the court of appeals’ analysis, the trial court increased the minimum sentence that Watson must serve before becoming eligible for parole by five years.  It is here where my concerns lie.

2                    {¶ 7}To be sure, a resentencing hearing following remand from the court of appeals requires more than a rubber-stamping of the trial court’s original sentence.  But the process is not wholly unfettered either.  The resentencing process is one “by which the defendant is to be sentenced anew, with the trial court following the instructions provided by a reviewing court.”  State v. Clark, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-020550, 2003-Ohio-2669, ¶ 6; see also Giancola v. Azem, 153 Ohio St.3d 594, 2018-Ohio-1694, 109 N.E.3d 1194, ¶ 15, quoting Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 462 N.E.2d 410 (1984), syllabus (“ ‘an inferior court has no discretion to disregard the mandate of a superior court in a prior appeal in the same case’ ”).  The genesis of Watson’s first appeal was a question of law—the constitutionality of his original sentence.  And it was on that basis that the court of appeals vacated the original sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for it to articulate its consideration of Watson’s youth as a mitigating factor.  Similarly, the purpose of the resentencing hearing was for the trial court to impose a sentence that followed the law set out by this court in Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309, 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952, and applied by the court of appeals in its decision vacating Watson’s original sentence.

3                    {¶ 8}Yes, the state presented additional evidence at the resentencing hearing of Watson’s behavior in prison since his original sentencing hearing, but it is telling that the state did not ask the trial court to add time to Watson’s sentence.  What is more, had Watson not prevailed on

 

1                    appeal of his original sentence, the trial court would not have been able to consider the state’s additional evidence or its observation of Watson’s demeanor during the trial of a codefendant.  Nor can the trial court’s consideration of this evidence be separated from its hostility, expressed on the record, to the Fifth District’s legal basis for remanding the case for resentencing.  Given these circumstances, I find it difficult to see how Watson is not being punished for having exercised his right to appeal in the first instancewhat the law plainly allowed him to do.

2                    {¶ 9}In affirming Watson’s increased sentence on appeal, the Fifth District characterized the trial court’s language criticizing the appellate court’s decision to remand Watson’s case for resentencing after the initial appeal as “bluster” and “inappropriate” but ultimately dismissed it as “inconsequential.”  2023-Ohio-1469, 213 N.E.3d 1175, at ¶ 26.  The reality remains, however, that Watson won his first appeal, and his reward was the opening of the doors for the trial court to add another five years to the prison term that he must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

3                    {¶ 10}I fear the court of appeals’ vindication of the trial court’s conduct here will complicate the calculus that criminal defendants and their counsel use when deciding whether to exercise the defendant’s appellate rights.  And it does not take much imagination to see how a case like Watson’s will result in defendants—who possess colorable claims for review—foregoing an appeal for fear of retaliation or negative treatment, even if their appeal is successful.  With this possibility in mind, and because this court declines to take up these issues by not exercising jurisdiction over this appeal, I dissent.

 

STEWART, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/07/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4033.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0169.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Carter, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3992.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-027.  Gregory Erwin Carter, Attorney Registration No. 0038953, last known business address in Newark, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years with one year conditionally stayed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Deters, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J. 

 

2023-0197.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3993.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-541.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0712.  State v. Harris.

Lorain App. Nos. 22CA011887 and 22CA011890, 2023-Ohio-1426.  On appellant’s motion for leave to file motion for relief from judgment, motion for leave to file motion to revise filed document, and motion for leave to file motion for stay or to hold in abeyance.  Motions denied as moot because leave is not required.

 

 

2023-1011.  In re Application of Birch Solar, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 20-1605-EL-BGN.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Eric L. Christensen.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2022-1446.  Ramos v. Canton.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00076.  The court returns this case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/08/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-4015.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0311.  Driggins v. Bracy, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4018.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0039, 2023-Ohio-205 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0473.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Scribner, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4017.

Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-033.  Theodore Ferris Scribner, Attorney Registration No. 0076063, last known business address in Akron, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years with 18 months conditionally stayed.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0690.  State ex rel. James v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Procedendo.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating. 

 

 

2023-0890.  Lackey v. Werner.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1045.  State ex rel. Williams v. Parikh.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Cause dismissed.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur but would grant the motion.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-1101.  Blair v. McGruffey.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to mitigate.  Motion denied.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1103.  Tate v. Bennett.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1104.  State ex rel. Little v. Harmon.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1113.  Krouskoupf v. Fifth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0391.  State ex rel. Feathers v. Wright.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motions to vacate or set aside judgment of dismissal.  Motions denied.  Relator’s motion for court order denied.

 Brunner, J., would deny the motion for court order as moot.

 

2023-0732.  Mays v. State.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for void judgment.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0744.  Heinz v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s request for criminal investigation.  Request denied.

 

2023-1277.  In re Disinterment of Glass.

Montgomery App. Nos. 29700 and 29707, 2023-Ohio-3509.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0975.  Ackman v. Mercy Health W. Hosp., L.L.C.

Hamilton App. No. C-220507, 2023-Ohio-2075 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0996.  Shields v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111774, 2023-Ohio-1368 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., would hold the cause for the decision in 2023-0631, Phoenix Lighting Group, L.L.C. v. Genlyte Thomas Group, L.L.C.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

  

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1016.  Woodstock Solar Project, L.L.C. v. Rush Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals.

Champaign App. No. 2023-CA-7, 2023-Ohio-2215 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would vacate the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the cause for further consideration in light of 2023 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 501.

 

2023-1025.  State v. Urbanek.

Ottawa App. No. OT-22-017, 2023-Ohio-2249 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/07/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3952.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1181.  Hope v. Mackey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1198.  State v. Smith.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1174.  State v. Stevens.

Summit App. No. 30336, 2023-Ohio-2153.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., dissent. 

 

2023-1193.  State v. Ray.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0026, 2023-Ohio-2375.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1059.  Look Ahead Am. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections.

Stark App. No. 2022-CA-00152, 2023-Ohio-2494.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.

 Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-1076.  Hild v. Samaritan Health Partners.

Montgomery App. No. 29652, 2023-Ohio-2408 .

 Deters, J., would accept the appeal only on the proposition of law of appellants Consolidated Anesthesiologists, Inc., Vincent M. Phillips, and Sandra Ward and proposition of law No. I of appellants Good Samaritan Hospital, Samaritan Health Partners, and Premier Health Partners.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0789.  State v. Seals.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0045, 2023-Ohio-1261 .

 

2023-0899.  Carothers v. Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, L.L.P.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1110, 2023-Ohio-1907.  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

Fischer, J., would accept the cross-appeal on proposition of law No. I.

Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1006.  Franchetti v. Pozniak.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1251.

 

2023-1019.  In re G.E.

Wayne App. Nos. 22AP0043 and 22AP0044, 2023-Ohio-2223 .

 

2023-1021.  In re Av. S.

Wayne App. Nos. 22AP0036 through 22AP0042, 2023-Ohio-2222 .

 

2023-1033.  State v. Finnell.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220440 and C-220441, 2023-Ohio-2563 .

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

2023-1040.  State v. Thomas.

Hamilton App. No. C-230363.  Appellant’s motion for relief denied.

 DeWine, J., would deny the motion as moot.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

2023-1041.  Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C. v. Leonard.

Clermont App. No. CA2022-09-048, 2023-Ohio-2271 .

 

2023-1043.  State v. Lauck.

Hancock App. No. 5-22-07, 2023-Ohio-1433 .

 

2023-1048.  State v. Abudu.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111837, 2023-Ohio-2294 .

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1053.  Finger v. Liberty Mut. Personal Ins. Co.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112349, 2023-Ohio-2308 .

 

2023-1055.  State v. Bond.

Richland App. No. 2019CA0033, 2023-Ohio-2361 .

 

2023-1074.  Alselaim v. Ahreshien.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1169, 2023-Ohio-2420.  Appellant’s motion to certify conflict and motion for judicial notice denied.

 DeWine, J., would deny the motion for judicial notice as moot.

 

2023-1077.  Mellon v. O’Brien.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112418, 2023-Ohio-2393 .

 

2023-1080.  State v. Parrish.

Clark App. No. 2022-CA-89, 2023-Ohio-2409 .

 

2023-1087.  Youngstown Cent. Area Community Improvement Corp. v. Youngstown.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 00088, 2023-Ohio-2427 .

 

2023-1089.  Snyder v. Northcoast Research Holdings, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111632, 2023-Ohio-612 .

 DeWine, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-1090.  State v. Lillo.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111935, 2023-Ohio-2380 .

 

2023-1096.  State v. Ramsey.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 112149 and 112150, 2023-Ohio-2389 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-1099.  ATCL 1, L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Pharmacy.

Summit App. No. 30049, 2023-Ohio-59 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1117.  Pietrangelo v. Hudson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111805, 2023-Ohio-820 .

 

2023-1151.  State v. Mitchell.

Hamilton App. No. C-220471, 2023-Ohio-2604 .

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-1173.  State v. Yeager.

Lake App. Nos. 2022-L-048 and 2022-L-050, 2023-Ohio-2730 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1044.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3028, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1523.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3096, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0326.  State ex rel. Massillon Administration Bldg. v. Elum.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00153, 2023-Ohio-1829.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1414, 2023-Ohio-3100, 216 N.E.3d 671.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

2023-0482.  State ex rel. Jackson v. Foley.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1415, 2023-Ohio-3100, 216 N.E.3d 674.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0550.  State v. Reddick.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0039, 2023-Ohio-765.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1411, 2023-Ohio-3095, 216 N.E.3d 668.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0773.  State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Sheriff.

Hocking App. No. 22CA9, 2023-Ohio-1446.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1406, 2023-Ohio-2972, 215 N.E.3d 563.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0782.  Brew v. Brew.

Hamilton App. No. C-220140, 2023-Ohio-1457.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1407, 2023-Ohio-2972, 215 N.E.3d 564.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s request for expedited consideration and motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum denied.

 DeWine, J., would deny the request and the motion for leave as moot. 

 

2023-0895.  La Riccia v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111976, 2023-Ohio-1816.  Reported at 171 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2023-Ohio-3169, 216 N.E.3d 704.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 3, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/03/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3991.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

 

In re Dicken, Hocking Cty. Commr.

On October 18, 2023, the state of Ohio presented a request that the chief justice establish a special commission of three retired judges pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C).  Pursuant to R.C. 3.16, the special commission shall be established by the chief justice, not sooner than 14 days after receipt of the request, to consider the suspension from public office of Jessica E. Dicken, Hocking County Commissioner, in relation to felony charges pertaining to official conduct in office.  

Accordingly, the following three retired judges are hereby appointed and directed to proceed as provided by R.C. 3.16:

 

Judge David E. Cain 

 

Judge James L. Kimbler

 

Judge William A. Klatt

   

 Pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C)(1), at least one member of the special commission is of the same party as the public official and all members of the special commission shall receive compensation for their services and reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with special-commission functions, from funds appropriated by the attorney general’s office.

 It is further ordered that Bryan Smeenk, deputy chief legal counsel in the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel at the Supreme Court of Ohio, shall serve as secretary to the special commission, with authority to contact the parties, schedule

hearings, and sign orders on behalf of and at the direction of the special commission.

 All documents in this matter shall be filed with the secretary to the special commission either by mail or in another manner directed by the secretary.  The original and five copies of all documents shall be filed.  All documents filed with the special commission shall also be served on all other parties to this matter on the day of filing with the secretary.  

 Pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C)(2), all meetings of the special commission shall be closed to the public and the records shall not be made available to the public for inspection or copying until the special commission issues its written report or otherwise concludes its proceedings.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/01/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3969.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-1322.  State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3959.

In Mandamus, Procedendo, and Prohibition.  Writs denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/02/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3968.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0969.  State v. Peters.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0106, 2023-Ohio-2028 .

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., concurring.

                        {¶ 1} This court does not have the record in this case to review, because we have not accepted jurisdiction over the case and thus have not ordered that the record be sent to us.  We have three substantive filings before us: (1) appellant Elijah D. Peters’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction, (2) the state of Ohio’s memorandum in response, and (3) the Eleventh District Court of Appeals’ decision and judgment entry below.  None of those filings reveal the facts underlying the crimes that Peters pled guilty to. this is rarely whether or by whom the crimes were committed.  Rather, the real issue is often one of culpability: Should the person who committed the heinous acts be found criminally guilty?

                        {¶ 3} Although the filings before us tell us little about what happened before the court proceedings in the case, the newspaper article from the Tribune Chronicle provides some disheartening background information.  As reported in the article, according to Peters’s father, Peters “has the thought processes of a 14-year-old.”  According to Peters’s aunt, he “doesn’t understand the full repercussions of his actions.”  And according to Peters’s grandmother, he has “the mind of a child.”  I understand that each of these people has an interest in seeking what is best for Peters—but there is no contrary information in any of the filings before us.

                        {¶ 4} Moreover, it was in the time period soon after he was charged with the crimes that Peters was found incompetent to stand trial, suggesting that he may have been incompetent when the heinous acts were committed.  But nothing in the filings suggests that anybody has considered that issue.  I find that disturbing.  Our criminal-justice system, as it should, treats people who are developmentally disabled or who suffer other forms of mental disability differently than it treats people without those limitations.  Justice is not served by channeling people who may have been mentally incompetent at the time of their offenses into the general prison population—which is what appears to be happening in this case.

                        {¶ 5} Instead of addressing Peters’s substantive mental-health issues, the staff psychiatrist assigned to Peters appears to have been primarily focused on restoring him to competency, which presumes that Peters had been competent at some point in the past.  This assessment was performed solely so that he could stand trial or, as happened, plead guilty.  Should restoring a person to competency so that the person can stand trial or plead guilty be an integral part of our criminal-justice system?  Should a psychiatrist be charged with coaching a person with an IQ that is between “intellectual disability and * * * below average intelligence,” 2023-Ohio-2028, ¶ 7, to a point at which that person is somehow able to answer enough questions about the criminal-justice system to be deemed competent to stand trial?  Given our system of separation of powers, judges are not in a position to answer these questions, but I think the questions should be asked and that the people who develop policy in this area should answer them.

                        {¶ 6} The proposition of law submitted in this case does not help us get to the real issue—culpability—because that issue was never raised.  I think it should be.

 

{¶ 2} The three filings before us state that Peters was initially found incompetent to stand trial by the court.  Though we have no access to the evidence that was considered in that determination, the finding of incompetence is uncontradicted.  The crimes committed were heinous.  According to a newspaper article in the Tribune Chronicle dated September 23, 2022, then-20-year-old Peters pled guilty to, among other things, two counts of rape of a girl who was under the age of 13 and one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a girl who was 13 years old.  Burghill Man Gets 10 to 15 for Sex Offenses, Tribune Chronicle (Sept. 23, 2022), https://www.tribtoday.com/news/local-news/2022/09/burghill-man-gets-10-to-15-for-sex-offenses/ (accessed Oct. 23, 2023) [https://perma.cc/RJF9-DN9R].  The question in a case like

 

_________________

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/02/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3967.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1463.  State ex rel. Repp v. Best, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3924.

In Quo Warranto and Prohibition.  Respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.  Sua sponte, relator’s remaining claims dismissed.  Cause dismissed.

Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Deters, J.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/01/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3955.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0595.  Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3921.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110428, 2022-Ohio-1062 .  Judgment affirmed.

Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1207.  State v. Smith.

Summit App. No. 30022, 2023-Ohio-3135.  On appellant’s motion to amend.  Motion granted.  Appellee shall file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction, if any, within 30 days of the filing of the amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction.

 

2023-1237.  Epling v. State.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that within 14 days, relator shall submit a request for issuance of an additional summons at an alternative address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service on respondent United States of America Terrorists.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 31, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/31/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3944.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1242.  State ex rel. Mather v. Oda, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3907.

In Prohibition.  Writ granted.  Relators’ motion to strike intervening respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and for the imposition of sanctions denied.  Intervening respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings denied.  Relators’ motion to strike joint evidence of respondents and intervening respondents denied with regard to exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, 8, and 9.  Relators’ motion to strike joint evidence of respondents and intervening respondents granted with regard to exhibit Nos. 6 and 7.

Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and concurs in judgment in part, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1159.  Klein’s Pharmacy & Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Prohibition.  On motions for application pro hac vice of Steven P. Blonder and Nenand Milenkovich.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2020-1193.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vagotis.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Christina Nicole Vagotis, Attorney Registration No. 0096246, last known address in Avon, Ohio.  Application granted.  Christina Nicole Vagotis reinstated to the practice of law. 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0808.  State ex rel. Bates v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due October 27, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0879.  State ex rel. Gordon v. Clark.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due October 27, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0986.  State v. Haywood.

Columbiana App. No. 21 CO 0035, 2023-Ohio-1121.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due October 26, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1078.  State ex rel. Taylor v. Hildebrand.

Madison App. No. CA2023-04-009.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due October 23, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2023-1056.  Total Renal Care, Inc. v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2019-848.  The court returns this case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellant shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through

16.07.  As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, this court may dismiss this case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.

 

2023-1360.  Tolento v. Fostoria.

In Mandamus.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 30, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/30/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3937.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0907.  H.R. v. P.J.E.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112990.  Sua sponte, appellant ordered to file a response, if any, to appellee’s motion to strike response to the September 29, 2023 order no later than 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 1, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 30, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/30/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3923.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF OCTOBER 30, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the October 30, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0341.  Lycan v. Cleveland, 171 Ohio St.3d 550, 2022-Ohio-4676.

 

2020-0485 and 2020-0826.  State v. Jones, 171 Ohio St.3d 496, 2022-Ohio-4485.

 

2020-1158.  Sinley v. Safety Controls Technology, Inc., 171 Ohio St.3d 332, 2022-Ohio-4153.

 

2020-1392.  State v. Yerkey, 171 Ohio St.3d 367, 2022-Ohio-4298.

 

2020-1505.  State v. Brunson, 171 Ohio St.3d 384, 2022-Ohio-4299.

 

2021-0066.  Bunta v. Superior VacuPress, L.L.C., 171 Ohio St.3d 464, 2022-Ohio-4363.

 

2021-0215.  State v. Haynes, 171 Ohio St.3d 508, 2022-Ohio-4473.

 

2021-0241.  Walling v. Brenya, 171 Ohio St.3d 346, 2022-Ohio-4265.

 

2021-0452.  State v. Jackson, 171 Ohio St.3d 412, 2022-Ohio-4365.

 

2021-0622.  State v. Weaver, 171 Ohio St.3d 429, 2022-Ohio-4371.

 

2021-0860.  State v. Lloyd, 171 Ohio St.3d 353, 2022-Ohio-4259.

 

2021-0913.  State v. Hill, 171 Ohio St.3d 524, 2022-Ohio-4544.

 

2021-1047.  State v. Fisk, 171 Ohio St.3d 479, 2022-Ohio-4435.

 

2021-1060.  State v. Brasher, 171 Ohio St.3d 534, 2022-Ohio-4703.

 

2021-1432.  State v. Bailey, 171 Ohio St.3d 486, 2022-Ohio-4407.

 

2022-0159.  In re Adoption of H.P., 171 Ohio St.3d 453, 2022-Ohio-4369.

 

2022-0264.  State ex rel. Swopes v. McCormick, 171 Ohio St.3d 492, 2022-Ohio-4408.

 

2022-0418.  Bell v. McConahay, 171 Ohio St.3d 564, 2023-Ohio-693.

 

2022-1217.  State ex rel. Cartwright v. Ohio Adult Parole Bd., 171 Ohio St.3d 568, 2023-Ohio-1717.

 

2022-1220.  State ex rel. Allenbaugh v. Sezon, 171 Ohio St.3d 573, 2023-Ohio-1754.

 

2023-0648.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Norton, 171 Ohio St.3d 1225, 2023-Ohio-1740.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-1049.  In re Resignation of O’Brien.

On application for retirement or resignation of Jacqueline Ann O’Brien, Attorney Registration No. 0083137, last known business address in Highland Heights, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 3, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/03/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-4014.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

 

2023-1389.  In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Williams.

Pursuant to Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)(1) and R.C. 2701.11, the Supreme Court appoints the following judges to serve on the five-judge commission to consider the report of the hearing panel of the Board of Professional Conduct in 2023-1389, In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Stephanie Lynn Williams:

 

Judge Michael Ater  Ross County Court of Common Pleas 

  (Fourth District) 

 Judge Samuel Bluedorn  Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas 

   (Eleventh District) 

 Judge Dominic Coletta Lyndhurst Municipal Court

   (Eighth District)

 Judge Katarina Cook Summit County Court of Common Pleas 

   (Ninth District)

 Judge Elizabeth Gill Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

  (Tenth District)

 

The court designates Judge Elizabeth Gill as chair of the commission.

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2701.11, Robert W. Horner III, Administrative Director of the Supreme Court of Ohio, shall serve as secretary to the commission, with authority to sign entries and orders on behalf of and at the direction of the commission.

 

All pleadings and documents in this matter shall be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.  Service on the commission shall be made by serving the secretary at clc@sc.ohio.gov or 65 South Front Street, 7th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215.  The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio shall apply to all proceedings before the commission, except as otherwise ordered by the court.  The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall serve all orders of this court and the commission on the parties to this action.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 3, 2023

 

[Cite as 11/03/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-4016.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0809.  Caldwell v. Whirlpool Corp.

Marion App. No. 9-22-61, 2023-Ohio-1530.  On motion of Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to realign as appellant.  Motion granted.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

Stewart, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/27/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3902.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1122.  State v. Kimes.

Delaware App. No. 21 CAA 10 0055, 2022-Ohio-2759.  On appellant’s motion to proceed to judgment on pending motion to appoint counsel.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-1277.  In re Disinterment of Glass.

Montgomery App. Nos. 29700 and 29707, 2023-Ohio-3509.  On appellant’s motion for referral to mediation.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 26, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/26/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3868.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

In re Cases Held for State v. Hacker and State v. Simmons, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3863.

The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed on the authority of State v. Hacker, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-2535, __ N.E.3d __ : 2021-0591, State v. Sinkhorn; 2021-0996, State v. Rodriguez; 2022-0328, State v. Whetstone; 2022-0335, State v. Delvallie, 2022-0341, State v. Green; 2022-0393, State v. McCalpine; 2022-0394, State v. Hardy; 2022-0395, State v. Winkler; 2022-0400, State v. Campbell; 2022-0414, State v. Gamble; 2022-0415, State v. Sealey; 2022-0429, State v. Jenkins; 2022-0433, State v. Hardin-Rogers; 2022-0434, State v. Coleman; 2022-0435, State v. Reed; 2022-0451, State v. Gopar; 2022-0452, State v. Hines; 2022-0453, State v. Davidson; 2022-0454, State v. Polk; 2022-0455, State v. Anderson; 2022-0467, State v. Gilmer; 2022-0468, State v. Taylor; 2022-0469, State v. Drewery; 2022-0470, State v. Aldridge; 2022-0471, State v. McCarver; 2022-0477, State v. Whittenberg; 2022-0480, State v. Sitgraves; 2022-0484, State v. Debose; 2022-0486, State v. Corrigan; 2022-0489, State v. Young; 2022-0490, State v. Patterson; 2022-0491, State v. Jackson; 2022-0492, State v. Cambria; 2022-0494, State v. Cambria; 2022-0495, State v. Wurtz; 2022-0496, State v. Reed; 2022-0498, State v. Tolliver; 2022-0499, State v. Gillespie; 2022-0500, State v. Houchens; 2022-0501, State v. Sender; 2022-0503, State v. Bell; 2022-0516, State v. McGlothin; 2022-0517, State v. Mitchell; 2022-0520, State v. Ransom; 2022-0522, State v. Bradley; 2022-0524, State v. Walker; 2022-0537, State v. Primm; 2022-0539, State v. Perry; 2022-0540, State v. Mitchell; 2022-0542, State v. Durand; 2022-0544, State v. Harris; 2022-0549, State v. Dudas; 2022-0551, State v. Holsey; 2022-0553, State v. Daniel; 2022-0577, State v. Davis; 2022-0588, State v. Sanders; 2022-0590, State v. Hunter; 2022-0613, State v.

Parker; 2022-0621, State v. Byrd; 2022-0622, State v. Daniel; 2022-0623, State v. Cloud; 2022-0647, State v. D.S.; 2022-0648, State v. Thomas; 2022-0649, State v. Watkins; 2022-0650, State v. Turner; 2022-0651, State v. Riemer; 2022-0665, State v. Toney; 2022-0676, State v. Vince; 2022-0681, State v. Ratliff; 2022-0682, State v. Butts; 2022-0725, State v. Burris; 2022-0742, State v. Brown; 2022-0758, State v. Boyd; 2022-0768, State v. Bond; 2022-0769, State v. Philpot; 2022-0804, State v. Smith; 2022-0815, State v. Scott; 2022-0820, State v. Alexander; 2022-0856, State v. Hope; 2022-0858, State v. Clausing; 2022-0869, State v. Doughty; 2022-0873, State v. McNary; 2022-0887, State v. Davis; 2022-0935, State v. Nicholson; 2022-0967, State v. Johnson; 2022-0971, State v. Colon; 2022-0981, State v. Jones; 2022-0990, State v. Heard; 2022-1013, State v. Sharp; 2022-1014, State v. Darden; 2022-1021, State v. Bolden; 2022-1024, State v. Beatty; 2022-1065, State v. Thompson; 2022-1096, State v. Fields; 2022-1122, State v. Kimes; 2022-1137, State v. Clark; 2022-1139, State v. Torres; 2022-1144, State v. Waters; 2022-1158, State v. Gettings; 2022-1159, State v. Shepard; 2022-1162, State v. Brown; 2022-1167, State v. Crawford; 2022-1200, State v. R.W.; 2022-1231, State v. Carano; 2022-1266, State v. Dowdell; 2022-1283, State v. Pugh; 2022-1287, State v. Llapur; 2022-1293, State v. Harper; 2022-1326, State v. Long; 2022-1365, State v. Knox; 2022-1366, State v. Reffitt; 2022-1380, State v. Thomason; 2022-1393, State v. Joyce; 2022-1399, State v. Washington; 2022-1429, State v. Brown; 2022-1430, State v. Day; 2022-1445, State v. Allen; 2022-1455, State v. Bryant; 2022-1456, State v. Eggleton; 2022-1459, State v. Morris; 2022-1472, State v. Wells; 2022-1508, State v. Stevens; 2022-1550, State v. Woods; 2022-1597, State v. Collins; 2023-0020, State v. Thornton; 2023-0029, State v. Sharp; 2023-0031, State v. Bradford; 2023-0032, State v. Stearns; 2023-0033, State v. Allen; 2023-0074, State v. Milton; 2023-0094, State v. Terry; 2023-0127, State v. Glaze; 2023-0128, State v. Lovelace; 2023-0129, State v. Rodgers; 2023-0272, State v. Rogers; 2023-0277, State v. Graves; 2023-0278.  State v. White; 2023-0281, State v. Howard; 2023-0322, State v. Roberts; 2023-0377, State v. Murray; 2023-0380, State v. Jordan; 2023-0392, State v. Thomas; 2023-0434, State v. Allen; 2023-0457, State v. Dotson; 2023-0460, State v. Potter; 2023-0533, State v. Rice; 2023-0537, State v. Barker; 2023-0565, State v. Dotson; 2023-0570, State v. Bell; 2023-0604, State v. Taylor; 2023-0622, State v. Riggins; and 2023-0684, State v. Freshwater.

The causes in the following cases are dismissed as having been improvidently accepted: 2022-0147, State v. Patterson; 2022-0969, State v. Giancaterino; and 2022-1146, State v. Harrison.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 The judgment of the court of appeals in the following case is affirmed on the authority of State v. Hacker, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-2535, __ N.E.3d __: 2022-1437, State v. Haynes.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would dismiss the cause as having been improvidently accepted.

 Deters, J., not participating. 

__________________

 

The causes in the following cases are dismissed as having been improvidently accepted: 2022-1088, State v. Guyton; 2022-1089, State v. Mosley; 2022-1090, State v. O’Neal; 2022-1234, State v. Edwards; 2022-1250, State v. Johnson; 2022-1383, State v. Bacon; and 2022-1600, State v. Reed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent and would order briefing on proposition of law Nos. II, III, and IV in 2022-1088, State v. Guyton, and hold the other causes for the decision in Guyton.

 Deters, J., not participating.

__________________

 

The cause in the following case is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted: 2022-1281, State v. Fraley.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would order briefing on proposition of law Nos. II, III, and IV.

__________________

 

The causes in the following cases are dismissed as having been improvidently accepted: 2022-1345, State v. Dixon; and 2023-0235, State v. Bruce.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would hold the causes for the decision in 2022-1088, State v. Guyton.

 Deters, J., not participating.

__________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

The cause in the following case is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted: 2022-1500, State v. Heath.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Stewart, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2022-1088, State v. Guyton.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

 

2023-0504.  State ex rel. Simpson v. Melnick, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3864.

Montgomery App. No. 29554, 2023-Ohio-1236 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

In re Bridgeforth.

On recommendation by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law.  Recommendation adopted.  Respondent, Henry Clay Bridgeforth, Attorney Registration No. 0038388, reinstated to the practice of law.

 

1997-2646.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington.

Sua sponte, William Terry Washington, Attorney Registration No. 0051948, last known business address in Vienna, Virginia, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before June 5, 1998.

 

2011-2049.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Seabrook.

Sua sponte, Eric Maurice Seabrook, Attorney Registration No. 0069118, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his attorney-registration card and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 9, 2012.

 

2023-1178.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Crossin.

On certified order of United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals, No. D2023-0033.  Amy Marie Etoll Crossin, Attorney Registration No. 0093856, last known address in Lithopolis, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for 30 days.  Respondent will not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until such time as respondent is

reinstated to the practice of law before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 25, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/25/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3860.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of James Kallianis Jr.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0411.  Tera, L.L.C. v. Rice Drilling D, L.L.C.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0047, 2023-Ohio-427.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Anna Rotman.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-1024.  State v. Echols.

Hamilton App. No. C-220133, 2023-Ohio-2206.  On appellant’s motion to appoint the Office of Ohio Public Defender as counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

2023-1072.  Stralka v. Malesic.

In Quo Warranto.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this cause should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service as to respondent Pope Francis within the time period since the complaint was filed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 25, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/25/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3858.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1033.  State v. Gwynne, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3851.

Delaware App. No. 16 CAA12 0056, 2021-Ohio-2378.  Motion for reconsideration granted and judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Trapp and Brunner, JJ.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Trapp, J.

 Mary Jane Trapp, J., of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, sitting for Donnelly, J.

 

2023-0249 and 2023-0375.  State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3832.

Erie App. Nos. E-23-001, 2023-Ohio-323, and E-22-052.  Judgments affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0484.  State ex rel. Hutchinson v. Sehlmeyer.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner and Deters, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2023-0647.  Emerson v. Facebook.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Meta Platforms, Inc., and Mark Zuckerberg.  Motion granted.  Relator’s objection filed on July 17, 2023, denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0805.  State ex rel. McCain v. Huffman.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion for order and relief denied.  Cause dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would defer ruling on respondents’ motions, order relator to file a response within 14 days, and grant relator’s motion. 

 

2023-0827.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Horton.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondents’ motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator denied.  Relator’s motion for sanctions and motion for in camera inspection of records denied.  Cause dismissed.

 DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner, J., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny the motion to dismiss and grant an alternative writ.

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0857.  Emerson v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent Lucas County Common Pleas Court’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Ohio Department of Taxation.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0957.  Jones v. State.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

2023-0987.  State ex rel. Taylor v. Hess.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s request to take judicial notice denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0989.  Roper v. Cooper.

In Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1141.  State ex rel. Campbell v. Cordova.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motion for leave to seal all court filings or, in the alternative, to seal complaint, initial response, reply briefs, and all exhibits attached thereto.  Motion granted only as to exhibit Nos. 3 and 12 attached to complaint and Nos. 23 and 24 attached to relator’s opposition to motion to dismiss.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss granted.  Relator’s motion requesting immediate preparation and release of transcript of July 25, 2023 family-court hearing and continuation thereof denied as moot.  Relator’s motion to compel respondent Robert G. Abney to immediately release all written materials in his possession relating to husband’s alleged audio recording of July 25, 2023, denied as moot.  Relator’s motion for default judgment denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1207.  State v. Smith.

Summit App. No. 30022, 2023-Ohio-3135.  On relator’s written statement asking for a motion to stay.  Request denied.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0951.  State v. Hunt.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111892, 2023-Ohio-1977 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2023-1227.  State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Prohibition.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3668, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration and clarification.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/24/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3847.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0736.  State v. Jordan, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3800.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210198 and C-210199, 2022-Ohio-1512.  Judgment reversed.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Epley, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J., and joined in part by Brunner, J., in that she would dismiss the cause as having been improvidently accepted.

Chris Epley, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

2022-1548.  State ex rel. Payne v. Rose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3801.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s request for statutory damages denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1236.  State ex rel. AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to refer this matter to mediation.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0245.  State ex rel. Marlow v. Hamersville.

In Mandamus.  Relator did not file an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement in accordance with this court’s August 16, 2023 entry and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1091.  State ex rel. Spotleson v. Medlab Ohio, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-362, 2023-Ohio-2464.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due October 16, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2023-1300.  State ex rel. Mauk v. Sheldon.

In Mandamus.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 23, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/23/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3822.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0294.  State v. Sheckles.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220255 and C-220256, 2023-Ohio133.  On motion of amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General, for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae shall share time allotted to appellant.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/20/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3821.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On appellants’ unopposed motion to enlarge time for oral argument.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/20/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3803.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0793.  In re Application of Harvey Solar I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 21-164-EL-BGN.  Appellee’s merit brief fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03(C)(1) (a merit brief “shall not exceed fifty numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities cited, the certificate of service, and the appendix”).  Sua sponte, pages 51 through 53 of the merit brief stricken.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0448.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Samuel Ray Smith II, Attorney Registration No. 0076242, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio.  Application granted.  Samuel Ray Smith II reinstated to the practice of law.  Respondent shall work with a monitoring attorney designated by relator for a period of one year.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/24/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3789.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1126.  Coleman v. McGuffey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1127.  Williams v. McGuffey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2023-1148.  Rush v. Black.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1067.  State v. Larr.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0069, 2023-Ohio-2128.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1082.  State v. Siple.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00092, 2023-Ohio-1980.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1110.  State v. Mallory.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112074, 2023-Ohio-1975.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0964.  Marysville Exempted Village Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Union App. No. 14-23-03, 2023-Ohio-2020 .

 Fischer, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II only. 

DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1001.  State v. Fips.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111900, 2023-Ohio-2295.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1227, 2022-1229, 2022-1237, and 2022-1238, State v. Dunlap.

 Fischer, J., would not hold the cause.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-1003.  State v. Terry.

Summit App. No. 30137, 2023-Ohio-2234.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1458, State v. Duncan.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I only.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0639.  State v. Diaz.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111794, 2023-Ohio-1045 .

 

2023-0653.  State v. Parke.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111868, 2023-Ohio-1144 .

 

2023-0668.  State v. Menefee.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111793, 2023-Ohio-1142 .

 

2023-0824.  State v. Morckel.

Columbiana App. No. 22 CO 0024, 2023-Ohio-1473 .

 

2023-0900.  M.C. v. H.M.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112372, 2023-Ohio-2391.  Appellant H.M.’s motion to consolidate and motion to declare appellee a vexatious litigator denied.  Appellee’s motion to sanction Willa Hemmons, motion to disqualify Hemmons, “motion to sanction Hemmons and appellant,” motion to sanction filed July 25, 2023, motion to strike July 25, 2023 reply brief, motion to strike July 26, 2023 reply brief, motion to dismiss, motion to sanction the attorney of record, motion to strike August 18, 2023 opposition to motion to dismiss, and motion to strike September 5, 2023 notice denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny the motions as moot.

 Stewart, J., would deny the motion to consolidate as moot.

 Brunner, J., would deny the motions to strike as moot.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant the motion to declare appellee a vexatious litigator and deny the motion to consolidate as moot.

Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant the motion to declare appellee a vexatious litigator.

 

 

2023-0973.  State v. Larabee.

Columbiana App. No. 22 CO 0007, 2023-Ohio-2060 .

 

2023-0985.  State v. Brado.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0039, 2023-Ohio-2545 .

 

2023-0992.  State v. Culler.

Columbiana App. No. 22 CO 0011, 2023-Ohio-2287 .

 

2023-0995.  Guilford v. Zaner.

Defiance App. No. 4-22-019.

 

2023-0998.  State v. Olah.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0010, 2023-Ohio-2112 .

 

2023-0999.  State v. Church.

Guernsey App. No. 23CA000001, 2023-Ohio-2107 .

 

2023-1000.  State v. Olah.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0031, 2023-Ohio-2113 .

 

2023-1007.  State v. Syed.

Summit App. No. 30414, 2023-Ohio-2154 .

 

2023-1008.  State v. Pine.

Ross App. No. 21CA3761, 2023-Ohio-2191 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart, J., dissent. 

 

2023-1009.  State v. Gaines.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1102, 2023-Ohio-2243 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1010.  In re Roudebush Trust.

Carroll App. No. 20 CA 0948, 2023-Ohio-2281 .

 

2023-1012.  State ex rel. Kovoor v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-TR-0101, 2023-Ohio-2256 .

 

2023-1013.  Jacobson v. Akron Children’s Hosp.

Summit App. No. 30188, 2023-Ohio-2225 .

 

2023-1017.  State v. Jolly.

Muskingum App. No. CT2023-0001, 2023-Ohio-2189 .

 

2023-1018.  In re M.T.

Hamilton App. No. C-220466, 2023-Ohio-2140 .

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-1022.  State v. Wright.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-275, 2023-Ohio-2134 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1023.  State v. Ford.

Summit App. No. 30167, 2023-Ohio-2220 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1026.  State v. Claren.

Wayne App. No. 21AP0041, 2023-Ohio-2219 .

 

2023-1027.  State ex rel. Lora Elias, D.D.S., Inc. v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Dist.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112085, 2023-Ohio-2182 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-1030.  Holman v. White Pond Villa Apartments.

Summit App. No. 30439, 2023-Ohio-2221 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., dissent. 

Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2023-1032.  State v. Giglio.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112001, 2023-Ohio-2178 .

 

2023-1039.  State v. Boyd.

Erie App. Nos. E-22-044 and E-22-045, 2023-Ohio-2618 .

 

2023-1086.  State v. Dodson.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-388, 2023-Ohio-701 .

 

 

2023-1098.  State v. Brenson.

Delaware App. No. 22 CA 07 0054, 2023-Ohio-1259 .

 

2023-1123.  Smith v. Gall.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112371, 2023-Ohio-2692 .

 

2023-1125.  State v. Yeager.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-008, 2023-Ohio-2541 .

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2023-0784.  Tentman v. Barbarette.

Hamilton App. No. C-220391.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1518, 2023-Ohio-2771, 214 N.E.3d 593.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 19, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/19/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3788.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0863.  Acuity, A Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3780.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0001, 2022-Ohio-1816.  Judgment reversed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1322.  State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus, Procedendo, and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of the answer, evidence, and briefs: Respondents shall file an answer to the complaint no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 20, 2023; relator shall file his evidence and merit brief no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, October 23, 2023; respondents shall file their evidence and merit brief no later than 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 2023; and relator may file a reply brief no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 26, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/18/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3779.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0053 and 2022-0054.  In re Application of Alamo Solar I, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3778.

Power Siting Board, Nos. 18-1578-EL-BGN and 18-1579-EL-BGN.  Orders affirmed.

Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in judgment only.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and concurs in the judgment, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0354.  Snodgrass v. O’Leary.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2022-1247 and 2022-1296.  On motion of amici curiae Margaretta Local School District et al. to participate in oral argument.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0654.  State v. Glover.

Hamilton App. No. C-220088, 2023-Ohio-1153.  On appellee’s motion to appoint the Office of Ohio Public Defender as counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellee.

 

2023-1155.  In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.

Certified Question of State Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Nos. 22-3750, 22-3751, 22-3753, 22-3841, and 22-3844.  On motion for

admission pro have vice of Ariela M. Midgal.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 17, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/17/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3773.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-1511.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Stobbs.

On relator’s motion to lift stay.  Respondent, Brent Clark Stobbs, Attorney Registration No. 0041262, last known business address in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s May 25, 2023 order.  Stay of suspension revoked, and respondent ordered to serve the entire 18-month suspension imposed on May 25, 2023.

 

2023-1095.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Dugan.

On certification of default.  Respondent’s objection to interim default suspension sustained.  Respondent granted leave to file an answer with the Board of Professional Conduct.  Matter remanded to the board for further proceedings under Gov.Bar R. V(12).  Proceedings before this court stayed until further order of this court.

Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny respondent’s objection.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 17, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/17/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3772.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1390.  State ex rel. Rarden v. Butler Cty. Common Pleas Court, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3742.

Butler App. No. CA2022-08-074.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1029.  Epling v. State.

Miscellaneous case.  Sua sponte, relators ordered to show cause within 14 days why this cause should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service as to respondents State Medical Board, Country Lane Gardens, and Mount Carmel Hospital within the time period since the complaint was filed.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0896.  State v. Johnson.

Montgomery App. No. 29659, 2023-Ohio-1686.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due October 12, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following cases to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for each case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in these cases until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-1288.  Jones Apparel Group/Nine West Holdings v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2020-53 and 2020-54.

 

2023-1296.  VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2019-1233.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 16, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/16/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3741.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF OCTOBER 16, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the October 16, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1429.  State v. Nicholas, 171 Ohio St.3d 278, 2022-Ohio-4276.

 

2021-0392.  State v. Brown, 171 Ohio St.3d 303, 2022-Ohio-4347.

 

2021-1519.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble, 171 Ohio St.3d 1218, 2023-Ohio-189.

 

2022-0294.  State v. Marshall, 171 Ohio St.3d 318, 2023-Ohio-999.

 

2022-0463.  Alston v. Bracy, 171 Ohio St.3d 313, 2023-Ohio-402.

 

2022-0661.  State ex rel. DeMora v. LaRose, 171 Ohio St.3d 242, 2022-Ohio-2173.

 

2022-0927.  State ex rel. Howson v. Delaware Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 171 Ohio St.3d 321, 2023-Ohio-1440.

 

2022-1098.  State ex rel. Simpson v. Melnick, 171 Ohio St.3d 315, 2023-Ohio-783.

 

2022-1101.  State ex rel. Casanova v. Lutz, 171 Ohio St.3d 319, 2023-Ohio-319.

 

2022-1205.  Christian v. Davis, 171 Ohio St.3d 329, 2023-Ohio-1445.

 

2022-1530.  In re Resignation of Stone, 171 Ohio St.3d 1215, 2023-Ohio-129.

 

2023-0006.  In re Alexander, 171 Ohio St.3d 1213, 2023-Ohio-11.

 

2023-0157.  In re Resignation of Bosecker, 171 Ohio St.3d 1222, 2023-Ohio-655.

 

2023-0209.  In re Rohrbaugh, 171 Ohio St.3d 1219, 2023-Ohio-432.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0933.  Lipin v. Bruns.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s emergency motion denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/12/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3708.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0573.  Hanneman Family Funeral Home & Crematorium v. Orians, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3687.

Allen App. No. 1-21-05, 2022-Ohio-984 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Stewart, JJ.

 

2023-0337.  In re Application of Johns, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3679.

On Report by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, No. 841.  Pending registration application of Jeffrey Allen Johns of Cincinnati, Ohio, disapproved and applicant permitted to reapply as a candidate for admission to the practice of law no earlier than January 2024.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0390.  In re Application of Lu, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3684.

On Report by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, No. 849.  Pending registration application of Peter Boya Lu of Kenwick, Washington, disapproved and applicant permitted to reapply as a candidate for admission to the practice of law no earlier than January 2024.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1516.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Davis.

On application for termination of probation by respondent, Wesley Robert Davis, Attorney Registration No. 0076727, last known business address in Brice, Ohio.  Application denied.

 

2023-0610.  State ex rel. Obetz v. Stinziano.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, this court’s September 6, 2023 scheduling order stayed pending a decision on the motion to intervene, motion for leave to file respondents’ merit brief, and motion for joinder of affected taxing districts.

 

2023-1031.  Epling v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion to amend case type, motion to appoint counsel, motion for relief, “motion to restore,” motion seeking compensation, and “motion to seek.”  Motions denied as moot.

 

2023-1155.  In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.

Certified Question of State Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Nos. 22-3750, 22-3751, 22-3753, 22-3841, and 22-3844.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of David C. Frederick, Minsuk Han, Travis G. Edwards, Kathleen W. Hickey, Daren G. Zhang, and Jeffrey B. Wall.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/11/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3697.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0179.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaaban, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3671.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-026.  Omar Fahmi Shaaban, Attorney Registration No. 0085901, last known business address in Toledo, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years with one year conditionally stayed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0253.  Grinnell v. Cool, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3672.

Ross App. No. 22CA34.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellee’s request to declare appellant a vexatious litigator denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0314.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Tyack, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3673.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-313.  Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

 

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0329.  State ex rel. Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Driscoll.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motion for a new trial.  Motion treated as a motion for reconsideration and denied.  Relator’s motion for attorney fees and costs denied.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to promptly remit $969.50 in attorney fees to counsel for respondent.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would not order relator to remit attorney fees to counsel for respondent.

 

2023-0398.  Armengau v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s second motion to supplement exhibits.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for consideration of alternative writ or remedy and motion to supplement exhibits denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-0661.  State ex rel. Hampton v. Pope.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Ryan Cheesebrew and Teddi Alford.  Motion granted.  Respondent Allen Pope’s motion to dismiss granted.  Relator’s motion for judicial notice denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Deters, J., concurs but would deny relator’s motion on the merits.

DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny the motion to dismiss as to respondent Ryan Cheesebrew and grant an alternative writ as to him.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny the motions to dismiss and grant an alternative writ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0747.  Warner v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On state of Ohio’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and request for sanctions, motion for leave to amend caption, and motion for default judgment denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs but would deny relator’s motion for leave to amend caption as moot.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant relator’s motion for leave to amend caption and deny as moot relator’s motion to strike and request for sanctions and motion for default judgment.

DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny the motion to dismiss, order respondent to file an answer, and grant relator’s motion for leave to amend caption.

Deters, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant relator’s motion to amend caption.

 

2023-0749.  Warner v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for leave to amend caption granted.  Relator’s motion for default judgment and motion to strike respondent’s motion to dismiss denied.  Cause dismissed.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs but would deny relator’s motion for default judgment and motion to strike as moot.

Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny relator’s motion to amend caption.

Stewart, J., concurs in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss relator’s declaratory-judgment and statutory-damages claims but dissents from the decision to grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the remainder of the mandamus action on the grounds that relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, and would issue an alternative writ directing the parties to brief that issue. 

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny relator’s motion to amend caption as moot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0885.  Roberts v. Kennedy.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and Governor Mike DeWine.  Motion granted.  Relator’s request for issuance of additional summons and request for issuance of additional subpoena denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Justice Patrick F. Fischer.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2023-0922.  Roberts v. Hollar.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s request for issuance of additional summons and request for issuance of additional subpoena denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0923.  Smith v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted as to record request Nos. 3, 4, and 6.  As to record request Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7, motion denied and alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant the motion in its entirety.

 

2023-0926.  State ex rel. Golden v. Tenth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0953.  McCoy v. Marcelain.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondent Licking County Court of Common Pleas Judge Thomas Marcelain.  Motion granted.  Motion to dismiss of

respondent Licking County Court of Common Pleas Judge W. David Branstool granted.  Respondents’ motions to strike denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur but would deny the motions to strike on the merits.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1114.  State v. Wiley.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110753, 2022-Ohio-2131.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that the cause is no longer held for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt, and the stay of the briefing schedule is lifted.  The clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, and the parties shall brief this case in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 

2022-1257.  State v. Degahson.

Clark App. No. 2021-CA-35, 2022-Ohio-2972.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that the cause is no longer held for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1458, State v. Duncan.  The briefing schedule remains stayed.

 

2022-1449.  State v. Miree.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110749, 2022-Ohio-3664.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that the cause is no longer held for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1458, State v. Duncan.  The briefing schedule remains stayed.

 

2022-1458.  State v. Duncan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110784, 2022-Ohio-3665.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that the cause is no longer held for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt, and the stay of the briefing schedule is lifted.  The clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, and the parties shall brief this case in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 

2022-1601 and 2022-1626.  State v. Wagner.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-101, 2022-Ohio-4051.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that the causes are no longer held for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt.  Sua sponte,

causes held for the decision in 2022-1458, State v. Duncan.  The briefing schedule remains stayed.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent and would dismiss the causes as having been improvidently accepted.

 

2023-0833.  State ex rel. E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Corrigan.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Motion of J. William Vigrass for leave to intervene as respondent granted.  Sua sponte, respondent Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter J. Corrigan ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file briefs within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ briefs.

 

2023-1135.  Miller v. Mission Essential Group, L.L.C.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-448 and 22AP-449, 2023-Ohio-3077.  On appellant’s motion for immediate stay of court of appeals’ judgment.  Motion granted.  The existing supersedeas bond shall continue.

 DeWine, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-1145.  State v. Boyle.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113045, 2023-Ohio-3161.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

Brunner, J., dissents.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0889.  State v. Hickman.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0114, 2023-Ohio-1793 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0954.  State v. McDonald.

Hamilton App. No. C-220328, 2023-Ohio-1987.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1088, State v. Guyton.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0868.  State v. Williams.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111739, 2023-Ohio-1748 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

Stewart, J., dissents.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 10, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/10/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-3676.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0121.  State v. Williams, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3647.

Lorain App. No. 20CA011703, 2021-Ohio-4469 .  Judgment reversed.

Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J.

 

2023-0113.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3645.

In Mandamus.  Limited writ granted.  Determination of statutory damages deferred until respondent has complied with limited writ.  Relator’s motion to strike denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2023-0151.  State v. Reyes, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3644.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0018, 2022-Ohio-4046.  Judgment reversed on the authority of State v. Schilling, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3027, __ N.E.3d __, and cause remanded to court of appeals for further consideration based on this court’s holding in Schilling.  Appellant’s motion to remand denied as moot.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0725.  State ex rel. Martre v. Toledo Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due October 6, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0726.  State ex rel. Martre v. Lima Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due October 5, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following cases to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondents in each case shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2023-0439.  State ex rel. Moro v. Freeman.

In Mandamus.

 

2023-0707.  State ex rel. West v. Adams Cty. Sheriff.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 10, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/10/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3675.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0821.  State v. Meadows.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111950, 2023-Ohio-1572 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} During my time on this court, I have noticed that cases in which criminal defendants ask us to review statements made by trial judges during the plea negotiation process are appearing with greater frequency.  It seems that in the past, only a few select judges would make what appeared to be threatening or coercive comments during off-the-record conversations with counsel in chambers.  Those comments would rarely make it into the official court record for fear of retribution from the trial judge.  If the comments were extreme enough, however, they might become part of “courthouse lore,” bandied about by practitioners when recalling war stories.

2                    {¶ 2} Now some trial judges seem bolder, saying in open court what they once would say only in private.  And I am left wondering whether it is the reluctance of the appellate courts, including our own, to address the allegations, made by criminal defendants, of impropriety by trial judges that has led to this new situation.  Indeed, just a few months ago, I dissented from this court’s decision not to exercise jurisdiction over a case presenting the same issue for review.  See State v. Mowery, 170 Ohio St.3d 1499, 2023-Ohio-2574, 213 N.E.3d 704, ¶ 1 (Donnelly, J.,

 

1                    dissenting).  Because this court once again declines to address the issue, I dissent once more from this court’s decision to not exercise jurisdiction.

2                    {¶ 3} Reginald Meadows was part of a high-speed chase following a traffic stop for a lane violation.  2023-Ohio-1572, ¶ 2.  The chase resulted in injuries to two other drivers and a nine-count indictment for Meadows.  Id. at ¶ 2–3.  The day before the scheduled jury trial, Meadows’s counsel informed the trial court that Meadows was considering resolving the case through a guilty plea, but that Meadows wanted clarification about the mandatory penalties he was facing.  At that point, the parties went on record, and the trial judge explained the sentence that Meadows could face if found guilty.  Id. at ¶ 4.

3                    {¶ 4} If the trial judge had stopped there, then there would be no issue.  But he didn’t.  Beyond simply telling Meadows the sentence he could face, the trial judge told Meadows, “[The] ‘jury’s not going to see it the same way you do.  They just won’t.’ ”  Id. at ¶ 5.  He also said that Meadows’s counsel “ ‘would have to throw a no hitter’ ” for Meadows to avoid “substantial” prison time.  Id.

4                    {¶ 5} Ultimately, Meadows chose to plead guilty to six counts in the indictment (the remaining counts were nolled and some specifications were dismissed).  Id. at ¶ 8.  But then, during his plea colloquy, Meadows expressed some reservations about moving forward.  Id. at ¶ 7.  So the trial judge’s commentary resumed, with the judge telling Meadows as part of the plea colloquy, “ ‘[T]here are no rabbits to be pulled out of a hat here. * * * And there are no miracles [to be had].’ ”  Id.  And if that weren’t enough, the judge concluded by telling Meadows:

 

 

This is a situation where you should have given up and nothing like this would have happened.  Nothing like this would have happened.  You would not have any of these mandatory charges.  You wouldn’t have had any of these charges that were mandatory charges, if you would [have] just given up.

 

(Emphasis added.)  Id.

1                    {¶ 6} When deciding whether to accept a guilty plea, Ohio law requires a trial judge to ensure that the plea is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.  Crim.R. 11(C)(2); State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996).  Unlike the federal courts, Ohio law permits trial judges to participate in plea negotiations.  Compare Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)

 

1                    (prohibiting federal judges from participating in plea negotiations) with State v. Byrd, 63 Ohio St.2d 288, 293, 407 N.E.2d 1384 (1980) (holding that a judge’s involvement in plea negotiations does not automatically render the plea unconstitutional).  But a judge’s involvement in the plea process may render a plea unconstitutional if “the judge’s active conduct could lead a defendant to believe he cannot get a fair trial because the judge thinks that a trial is a futile exercise.”  Byrd at 293.

2                    {¶ 7} Let’s be clear about what happened here.  When the trial judge made his remarks, Meadows had not entered a plea, the state had presented no evidence of Meadows’s guilt, nor had Meadows tried to mount a defense against the charges.  Even a first-year law student would recognize that Meadows still enjoyed the presumption of innocence at this point in the proceedings.  See R.C. 2901.05(A) (“Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution”).  Despite this, we have a trial judge telling a criminal defendant that a jury will not believe any defense that he tries to mount and that the defendant could have avoided this inevitability had he not committed these alleged acts of which he had not yet been proven guilty.  And all this occurs while Meadows is trying to decide whether to exercise his constitutional right to a jury trial.

3                    {¶ 8} According to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, even these comments are not enough to render a defendant’s plea constitutionally invalid.  To be sure, the appellate court appeared to frown on the trial judge’s comments, stating that the comments were “concerning” and that the trial judge’s participation in the plea process was not the “ ‘preferred practice,’ ” 2023-Ohio-1572 at ¶ 19.  But it nevertheless explained away the comments as the trial judge simply doing his job by laying out the worst-case scenario to ensure that Meadows made a knowing and intelligent decision about whether to plead guilty.  Id. at ¶ 21.

4                    {¶ 9} That analysis, though, glosses over what appears to have happened here and the content of what was said.  According to the portions of the transcript that were quoted by the Eighth District, the trial judge did not simply lay out the penalties that Meadows might face as a worst-case scenario.  He outright told Meadows that Meadows would fail if he exercised his right to a jury trial.  And, just as in Mowery, the court of appeals pulled its own proverbial rabbit out of a hat by going to great lengths to arrive at the best construction of the trial judge’s comments that was most favorable to the judge and least concerned with maintaining Meadows’s

 

1                    constitutional rights.  Accord State v. Mowery, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-22-06, 2023-Ohio-563, ¶ 9; Meadows, 2023-Ohio-1572, at ¶ 19.

2                    {¶ 10} If a trial judge telling a defendant that a jury is not going to believe him, that mounting a defense would require his counsel to pull rabbits out of hats and work miracles, and that the defendant could have avoided all this if he hadn’t committed the conduct that brought him before the court in the first place—conduct that, at this point, has been charged but not proven—isn’t enough to support a defendant’s claim that he believed proceeding to trial is futile, I don’t know what is.

3                    {¶ 11} Given the reluctance of this court and the courts of appeals to address the brazen language and actions of some trial judges during plea negotiations, it is little wonder that there is an ever-decreasing number of jury trials in this country.  See Shari Seidman Diamond & Jessica M. Salerno, Reasons for the Disappearing Jury Trial: Perspectives from Attorneys and Judges, 81 La.L.Rev. 119, 122 (2020) (reporting that around 3.6 percent of federal criminal cases were resolved through a jury trial, while that number was as low as 1.3 percent in state courts).  The state has more than enough in its arsenal—including mandatory-minimum sentences, the specter of consecutive sentences, and sentencing enhancement specifications—to encourage criminal defendants to take guilty pleas.  It hardly needs help from trial judges who, during plea negotiations and colloquies, actively discourage criminal defendants from exercising their constitutional rights.

4                    {¶ 12} Unless we choose to address this issue, some judges will be able to make with impunity comments like those made here.  And that behavior will continue to entrench itself as an accepted practice of trial courts in this state when resolving criminal cases, further contributing to the vanishing jury trial.

5                    {¶ 13} Because this court has again chosen not to address this issue, I dissent from its decision not to exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.

 

BRUNNER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 9, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/09/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3674.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1227.  State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to relator’s motion for reconsideration and clarification no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 10, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 10, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/10/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3670.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1054.  Beightler v. Hunsinger-Stuff.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1061.  Durham v. McGuffey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-1068.  Garrett v. McGuffey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0990.  State v. Jones.

Greene App. Nos. 2022-CA-47 and 2022-CA-48, 2023-Ohio-1512.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-1005.  State v. Lewis.

Delaware App. No. 21 CAA 03 0017, 2022-Ohio-1850.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1034.  State v. Chester.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0060, 2023-Ohio-2122.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents.

 

2023-1037.  State v. Williams.

Franklin App. No. 18AP-891, 2023-Ohio-1002.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent.

 

2023-1060.  State v. Humphrey.

Montgomery App. Nos. 29479 and 29480, 2023-Ohio-1834.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2023-1073.  State v. O.E.P.-T.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-500, 2023-Ohio-2035.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-1024.  State v. Echols.

Hamilton App. No. C-220133, 2023-Ohio-2206 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

Carol Ann Robb, J., of the Seventh District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0674.  State v. Wilson.

Licking App. No. 22 CA 00024, 2023-Ohio-419 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would appoint counsel.

 

2023-0906.  State v. Sears.

Ottawa App. No. OT-22-048, 2023-Ohio-1925 .

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0908.  Dougherty v. Abarta Oil & Gas Co., Inc.

Guernsey App. No. 22CA000019, 2023-Ohio-1279 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

 

2023-0909.  Ellison v. K 2 Motors, L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-529, 2023-Ohio-1871 .

 

2023-0913.  Pierce v. Workman.

Auglaize App. No. 2-22-21, 2023-Ohio-2022.  Appellee’s motion to designate appellant a vexatious litigator granted.  Appellant, Timothy Workman, found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Accordingly, Timothy Workman prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner, J., would deny the motion.

 

2023-0916.  Smith & Condeni, L.L.P. v. Condeni.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111903, 2023-Ohio-1480 .

 

2023-0928.  State v. Helms.

Summit App. No. 30455, 2023-Ohio1875.

 

2023-0929.  State v. Smith.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0041, 2023-Ohio-598 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would appoint counsel.

 

2023-0931.  A.H. v. T.H.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111784, 2023-Ohio1969.

 

2023-0940.  Austin v. Mid-Ohio Pipeline Servs., L.L.C.

Richland App. Nos. 2022 CA 0021, 2022 CA 0041, and 2022 CA 0060, 2023-Ohio-1958 .

 

2023-0942.  State v. McKnight.

Medina App. No. 22CA0027-M, 2023-Ohio-1933 .

 

2023-0943.  State v. Pitts.

Lucas App. Nos. L-22-1047 and L-22-1048, 2023-Ohio-2005 .

 

2023-0944.  Mullinix v. Mullinix.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-491, 2023-Ohio-1053 .

 

2023-0947.  Ryan v. Ryan.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-314.

 

2023-0948.  Thompson v. Thompson.

Lorain App. No. 23CA011982.

 

2023-0955.  Hudson v. Jones.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0066, 2023-Ohio-1447 .

 

2023-1004.  Varwig v. JA Doyle, L.L.C.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1035, 2023-Ohio-2251 .

 

2023-1014.  State v. Sharpe.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0021, 2023-Ohio-2570 .

 

2023-1015.  State v. Cromwell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111178, 2023-Ohio-2173 .

 

 

2023-1038.  King v. Budget Car Mart, L.L.C.

Summit App. No. 30293, 2023-Ohio-2756 .

 

2023-1042.  State v. Patterson.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0092, 2023-Ohio-2350.  Appellant’s motion for judicial notice denied.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2023-1047.  State v. Walker.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112153, 2023-Ohio-2304 .

 Stewart, J., dissents.

 

2023-1052.  State v. Nath.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112083, 2023-Ohio-2301 .

 

2023-1064.  Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-389.

 

2023-1092.  State v. Holler.

Wayne App. No. 22AP0016, 2023-Ohio-2528 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1518.  State ex. rel. Sands v. Lake Cty. Common Pleas Court.

Marion App. No. 9-22-36.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-2599, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied. 

 

2023-0423.  Brown Bey v. Reis.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-2771, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion to set dismissal aside.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0598.  State v. Rydarowicz.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0087.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-2731, __ N.E.3d __.  On appellant’s “entry response.”  Motion denied.

 DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

2023-0615.  Hall v. Silver.

Summit App. No. 30587.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1507, 2023-Ohio-2664, 213 N.E.3d 717.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion to dismiss denied.

 

2023-0632.  Taxiputinbay, L.L.C. v. Put-in-Bay.

Ottawa App. No. OT-22-020, 2023-Ohio-1237.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1507, 2023-Ohio-2664, 213 N.E.3d 710.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0719.  State v. Alexander.

Allen App. No. 1-22-11, 2023-Ohio-123.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1506, 2023-Ohio-2664, 213 N.E.3d 715.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0760.  Pottinger v. Ohio Dept. of Corr. & Rehab.

In Habeas Corpus.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1506, 2023-Ohio-2664, 213 N.E.3d 713.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 9, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/09/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3663.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioner Carrie Kubicki’s application to dismiss her individual claims only.  Application granted.  This cause remains pending on the claims of all remaining petitioners.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/08/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3669.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-1213.  State ex rel. Hildreth v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3667.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1227.  State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-3668.

In Prohibition.  Writ denied.  Relator’s motion for leave to file rebuttal evidence granted.  Relator’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction denied as moot.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/07/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3665.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-1180.  State ex rel. Miller v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3664.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.  Relators’ request for attorney fees denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/06/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3646.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1088.  State ex rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Bd.

In Mandamus.  On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution.  On respondents’ motion for order granting leave to file affidavit.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/05/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3616.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1469.  State ex rel. Cogan v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3567.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-9, 2022-Ohio-3748 .  Judgment affirmed.

Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1145.  State v. Boyle.

Cuyahoga App. No. 113045, 2023-Ohio-3161.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 20 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

2023-1207.  State v. Smith.

Summit App. No. 30022, 2023-Ohio-3135.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 19 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0367.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Jancura.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Diana Delmar Jancura, Attorney Registration No. 0069490, last known business address in Sheffield Lake, Ohio.  Application granted.  Diana Delmar Jancura reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 4, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/04/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3578.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1187.  State ex rel. Levitin v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3559.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-495, 2022-Ohio-2750.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion for oral argument denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1203.  State v. Toran, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3564.

Hamilton App. No. C-210431, 2022-Ohio-2796.  Judgment reversed and convictions reinstated.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, and Lewis, JJ., concur.

Gallagher, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

Sean C. Gallagher, J., of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

Ronald C. Lewis, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1019.  In re G.E.

Wayne App. Nos. 22AP0043 and 22AP0044, 2023-Ohio-2223.  On appellee’s motion to strike.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 20 days.

 

2023-1021.  In re Av. S.

Wayne App. Nos. 22AP0036 through 22AP0042, 2023-Ohio-2222.  On appellee’s motion to strike.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 20 days.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 3, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/03/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3571.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0787.  Thomas v. Logue, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3522.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-385, 2022-Ohio-1603.  Judgment affirmed and cause remanded to Court of Claims.

Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine and Deters, JJ.

 

2022-1052.  State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Common Pleas Court, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3534.

Hocking App. No. 20CA9.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., dissents with an opinion.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Emerson.

On motion for leave to proceed.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0756.  State ex rel. Sims v. Green.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, it is ordered that within 14 days, relator shall submit a request for issuance of an additional summons at an alternative address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service on respondent.

 

2023-0949.  Epling v. State.

Miscellaneous Case.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service as to respondent Country Garden Lanes.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0530.  State v. Huish.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-255, 2023-Ohio-365.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due July 6, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 10/02/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3557.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF OCTOBER 2, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the October 2, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1381.  State v. Garrett, 171 Ohio St.3d 139, 2022-Ohio-4218.

 

2020-0629.  Cleveland Botanical Garden v. Worthington Drewien, 171 Ohio St.3d 109, 2022-Ohio-3706.

 

2021-0944.  State v. Messenger, 171 Ohio St.3d 226, 2022-Ohio-4562.

 

2021-1352.  Elliot v. Durrani, 171 Ohio St.3d 213, 2022-Ohio-4190.

 

2022-0723.  Robinson v. McConahay, 171 Ohio St.3d 235, 2023-Ohio-498.

 

2022-1359.  State ex rel. Woods v. Lawrence Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 171 Ohio St.3d 238, 2023-Ohio-1241.

 

2023-0296.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bryant, 171 Ohio St.3d 1207, 2023-Ohio-853.

 

2023-0386.  In re Boyuk, 171 Ohio St.3d 1209, 2023-Ohio-903.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0709.  Craig v. Gilchrist.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-52 and 22AP-55, 2022-Ohio-4477.  On appellant’s motion for leave to file revised document.  Motion granted.  Appellee shall file a memorandum in response to the amended motion for reconsideration, if any, within ten days.

 

2023-1167.  B&N Coal, Inc. v. Blue Racer Midstream, L.L.C.

Noble App. No. 22 NO 0490, 2023-Ohio-2641.  On appellant’s motion to amend revised document.  Motion granted.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioner Mikayla Lee’s application to dismiss her individual claims only.  Application granted.  This cause remains pending on the claims of all remaining petitioners.

 

2023-1071.  State ex rel. Braddy v. Hoying.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-197, 2023-Ohio-2597.  On appellants’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 29, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/29/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3502.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for scheduling order.  Motion denied.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent and would grant petitioners’ request to set a schedule but would sua sponte order a schedule different from the one requested by petitioners in their motion.

Brunner, J., dissents because the law of the case includes the continuing jurisdiction of this court and because no maps challenged have yet been found to be constitutional and further, petitioners and some of the respondents have requested and agreed that the new maps should be filed with the court and reviewed for their constitutionality.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 29, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/29/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3498.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0907.  H.R. v. P.J.E.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112990.  Sua sponte, Joseph G. Stafford, counsel of record for appellant, ordered to show cause within 14 days why he should not be sanctioned under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(A) for instituting a frivolous appeal.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2018-1746.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton.

On petition for reinstatement by respondent, Timothy Solomon Horton, Attorney Registration No. 0065934, for further consideration upon the filing of respondent’s affidavit demonstrating compliance with court’s March 29, 2023 order.  Petition granted.  Timothy Solomon Horton reinstated to the practice of law.

 

2022-0716.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Arkow.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Seth Walter Arkow, Attorney Registration No. 0069103, last known business address in Canton, Ohio.  Application granted.  Seth Walter Arkow reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1063.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Robb.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/28/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-3486.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1227.  State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of the answer, evidence, and briefs: Respondents shall file an answer to the complaint no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, September 29, 2023; relator shall file his evidence and merit brief no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, October 2, 2023; respondents shall file their evidence and merit brief no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 4, 2023; and relator may file a reply brief no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 5, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/28/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3463.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1213.  State ex rel. Hildreth v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On motion to intervene as respondents of Danielle Stefaniszyn, Devin Palmer, Skate Buchanan, Charles Palmer, Renee Price, and Julie Cook.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, intervening respondents ordered to file their merit brief and evidence no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, October 2, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0771.  CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-464 and 22AP-514, 2023-Ohio-1583.  Appellant’s motion under S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(3) and motion for sanctions denied.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/28/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3462.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0321.  State v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3448.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110571, 2022-Ohio-378.  Judgment affirmed in the absence of four votes to reverse.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in the judgment, with an opinion joined by DeWine and Deters, JJ.

Fischer, J., would dismiss the cause as having been improvidently accepted.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

 

2023-0475.  Disciplinary Counsel v. McCloskey, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3447.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-038.  Hugh Peter McCloskey Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0072872, last known business address in Cincinnati, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension conditionally stayed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1227, 2022-1229, 2022-1237, and 2022-1238.  State v. Dunlap.

Geauga App. Nos. 2021-G-0034, 2022-Ohio-3006, and 2021-G-0037, 2022-Ohio-3007.  On motion of amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General, for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae shall share time allotted to appellant.

 

2023-0534.  State ex rel. Borges v. Ohio Elections Comm.

In Prohibition and Procedendo.  On jointly stipulated motion to stay.  Motion granted.  Cause stayed until November 13, 2023.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: the parties shall file any evidence they intend to present no later than November 13, 2023; relator shall file a brief within 10 days of the filing of the evidence; respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 

2023-0925.  Epling v. Family Preservation Unit Within Job & Family Servs.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service as to respondent Shelby Day within the time period since the complaint was filed.

 

2023-0965.  State v. Sanchez.

Stark App. No. 22CA00071, 2023-Ohio-2042.  On appellant’s motion for leave to amend previously filed memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion granted.  Appellee shall file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction, if any, within 30 days of the filing of the amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction.

 

2023-1036.  State ex rel. Wilkerson v. Adkins.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/27/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3444.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0264.  State v. McFarland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111390, 2022-Ohio-4638 .

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J. 

Stewart, J., not participating.

_________________

BRUNNER, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} Appellant, Sheila A. McFarland, was convicted in 2017 of two counts of aggravated murder along with related charges.  In 2018, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed her convictions but found an error in her sentence based on the trial court’s failure to merge allied offenses of similar import.  State v. McFarland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105570, 2018-Ohio-2067, ¶ 1.  The appellate court therefore remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing.  Id. at ¶ 67.  This court accepted jurisdiction over McFarland’s discretionary appeal to consider a sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue and ultimately affirmed the Eighth District’s judgment.  State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36, 2020-Ohio-3343, 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 21, 53.  Thus, McFarland returned to the trial court for resentencing.

2                    {¶ 2} In October 2021, while awaiting resentencing, McFarland filed a motion for leave to file a motion for new trial.  She claimed that since receiving psychiatric treatment in prison after her original sentencing, she had discovered that she was misdiagnosed while incarcerated in the county jail before and during her trial.  She argued that as a result of her misdiagnosis and the related mental-health treatment, she had not been given the appropriate medication for the mental illness from which she actually suffers and she had not been competent to stand trial.  She also

 

1                    argued that her low IQ and her history of childhood abuse had prevented her from being able to assist in her own defense.

2                    {¶ 3} The trial court does not appear to have addressed McFarland’s motion.  Instead, it proceeded to resentence her.  In its resentencing entry, the trial court stated that it was denying “as moot” all motions that it had not previously addressed, and that included McFarland’s motion for leave to file a motion for new trial.

3                    {¶ 4} The Eighth District affirmed the trial court’s denial of McFarland’s motion for leave to file a motion for new trial.  The appellate court stated that the motion needed to have been filed within 120 days of the jury’s verdict and that after that point McFarland had to show that she was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence that supported her motion.  The appellate court concluded that McFarland did not make this showing even though it did not cite anything in the record regarding the trial court even considering her motion.  The Eighth District held that the vast majority of the evidence that McFarland had presented—e.g., medical records and childhood school records—existed and could have been obtained before trial.

4                    {¶ 5} In reaching this conclusion, the appellate court did not meaningfully address the fact that McFarland did not know either before or during her trial that she had been misdiagnosed.  Repeatedly, the Eighth District acted more as a trial court than an appellate court when it found no evidence to support McFarland’s claim that she had not been competent to stand trial.  The appellate court’s acting more as a fact-finder than as a reviewing court was also problematic because the record lacked any expert testimony that could be challenged by the parties for its reliability.  The appellate court went so far as to state that McFarland’s mental-illness diagnosis following her 2017 trial did not establish that she had been misdiagnosed before her trial.  Finally, and perhaps most concernedly, the appellate court decided that a hearing was not warranted on McFarland’s motion for leave to file a motion for new trial, because her mental-health condition and cognitive deficits were well known at the time of trial.

5                    {¶ 6} McFarland now seeks review of one proposition of law: 

 

 

Where a delayed motion for new trial is supported by evidence that the defendant’s mental health was severely compromised before and during the time of trial, summary denial of the motion without inquiry concerning the delayed

discovery of that evidence violates the defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial.

 

1                    {¶ 7} McFarland asserts that a trial court errs and violates the defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial when it summarily denies without a hearing a motion for leave to file a motion for new trial that is based on evidence that the defendant’s mental health was severely compromised before and during trial.  She argues that the misdiagnosis she received while incarcerated in the county jail prior to trial caused her to receive the wrong medication, which in turn caused her to engage in irrational behavior and that behavior influenced her decision to reject a plea deal that would have resulted in a 5-year prison sentence instead of the 20-years-to-life prison sentence she received after trial.  McFarland argues that the trial court should have at least conducted a hearing on her motion to consider the evidence she proffered and whether she had timely discovered it.

2                    {¶ 8} This proposition of law warrants review.  First, the trial court’s denial of the motion for leave to file a motion for new trial as moot is notable and concerning.  A trial court’s statement that resentencing a defendant renders moot that defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for new trial seems little more than obfuscation.  A court-ordered resentencing has nothing to do with whether leave should be granted for filing a motion for new trial.  Second, the Eighth District, in the absence of any record showing that the trial court had considered the plethora of evidence offered by McFarland, moved into the role of fact-finder when it found that McFarland’s motion was untimely and not supported by newly discovered evidence—and when it made the judgment that the evidence McFarland presented in support of her motion was not in fact newly discovered.  The Eighth District’s basis for upholding the trial court’s denial of a hearing on McFarland’s motion was not sound and was based solely on its own conclusion that McFarland’s mental-health condition and cognitive deficits were well known at the time of trial.

3                    {¶ 9} McFarland argues that the discovery of the correct diagnosis for her mental-health condition and her receipt of appropriate medication for that condition occurred after her trial when she was imprisoned on the charges for which she had been convicted.  In determining whether this court should accept jurisdiction over McFarland’s appeal, it would be easy to let skepticism creep in and say that a rearview-mirror consideration by a conventional defendant is nothing more than remorse for not taking a plea deal that turned out to be better than the outcome

 

1                    at trial.  But McFarland is not a conventional defendant.  She raises troublesome questions about whether she was competent to consider the plea offer.  Was she impaired by the medication she was given at the time of trial, which she asserts was later medically determined not to be right for her?  Or did the medication negatively affect an underlying condition that was diagnosed by prison doctors but not by jail doctors?  Because the majority declines to accept jurisdiction over McFarland’s appeal, our state’s criminal-justice system will not answer these questions and determine whether McFarland’s legal and constitutional rights were impacted.

2                    {¶ 10} Some would suggest that McFarland’s situation is such a rare occurrence that it is not a matter of great general or public interest for this court to decide.  But research suggests otherwise.  Recent research suggests a correlation between brain health and criminal activity.  See, e.g., Ling, Umbach, & Raine, Biological Explanations of Criminal Behavior, 25 Psychology, Crime & Law 626 (2019).  And research suggests that substance abuse combined with mental illness is “an important risk factor in violence and re-offending.”  Pickard & Fazel, Substance Abuse as a Risk Factor for Violence in Mental Illness: Some Implications for Forensic Psychiatric Practice and Clinical Ethics, 26 Current Opinion in Psychiatry 349, 351 (2013).

3                    {¶ 11} And when the wrong medication is prescribed for an existing mental illness, a person’s perception of reality and the actions taken in response to that perceived reality have been shown to result in negative consequences.  According to a recent academic discussion,

 

 

[o]verdiagnosis and misdiagnosis can have serious consequences for individuals involved in the criminal justice system.

For example, if someone is incorrectly diagnosed with a mental health condition, they may be prescribed medication or treatment that is unnecessary or potentially harmful.  If under the wrong treatment plan it could impact an individual’s perception of reality and actions.  Alternatively, if someone with a mental health condition is not properly diagnosed, they may not receive the treatment they need, leading to further negative consequences.

 

(Citation omitted.)  Larsen, Mental Health and Crime: The Issue of Misdiagnosis and Overdiagnosis, https://sites.bu.edu/daniellerousseau/2023/02/25/mental-health-and-crime-the-issue-of-misdiagnosis-and-overdiagnosis/ (accessed August 28, 2023) [https://perma.cc/Q5LL-

2V79]Factors that contribute to overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of mental-health conditions in the criminal-justice system include “the lack of training and expertise among some professionals in the criminal justice system, such as police officers or judges, in recognizing and diagnosing mental health conditions.”  Id.  There is also “the stigma surrounding mental health, which can lead to biases and stereotypes that influence diagnoses.”  Id.  And “the pressure to quickly resolve cases in the criminal justice system can also lead to hasty diagnoses and inaccurate conclusions.”  Id.

1                    {¶ 12} Courts should acknowledge our limited understanding of how the brain works.  Notably, the United States government has initiated a coordinated effort among public and private institutions and agencies known as the Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative (the “BRAIN Initiative”).  The BRAIN Initiative is a collaboration between federal and nonfederal partners with a common goal of accelerating the development of innovative neurotechnologies in aim of producing a “revolutionary new dynamic picture of the brain that, for the first time, shows how individual cells and complex neural circuits interact in both time and space.”  (Emphasis added.)  See National Institutes of Health, Overview, https://braininitiative.nih.gov/about/overview (accessed August 28, 2023) [https://perma.cc/VXL7-TW7G].

2                    {¶ 13} The issues that are so often observed in people incarcerated—substance abuse, mental illness, and combinations of each—are matters of great general and public interest because they affect families, communities, crime rates, public health and safety, the use of taxpayers’ dollars, and the legal and constitutional rights of criminal defendants.  Review of McFarland’s proposition of law should be granted so we can address whether as a result of her mental illness and misdiagnosis, she was incompetent to stand trial.

3                    {¶ 14} As noted by the United States Supreme Court, “[i]t has long been accepted that a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial.”  Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975).  The questions still burn in McFarland’s case: Was she competent to stand trial?  Should she have been denied leave to file a motion for new trial based on her alleged incompetency to stand trial?  With the majority’s decision not to accept jurisdiction over McFarland’s appeal, we will never know, and people in the criminal-justice system who have

 

1                    been misdiagnosed or overdiagnosed will never know either.  The issues raised in McFarland’s proposition of law are a matter of great general and public importance.

2                    {¶ 15} Because the majority does not accept jurisdiction over McFarland’s appeal, and for the reasons I have stated, I respectfully dissent.

 

DONNELLY, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 25, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/25/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3433.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1213.  State ex rel. Hildreth v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file responses, if any, to the motion of Danielle Stefaniszyn, Devin Palmer, Skate Buchanan, Charles Palmer, Renee Price, and Julie Cook to intervene as respondents no later than 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 27, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/27/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3432.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0596.  Wildcat Drilling, L.L.C. v. Discovery Oil & Gas, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3398.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0070, 2022-Ohio-1125 .  Judgment reversed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

2022-1154.  State ex rel. Howard v. Watson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3399.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted in part and denied in part.  Relator awarded $3,000 in statutory damages.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0401.  Welch v. Burnside.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Emile Weaver’s motion for leave to intervene granted.  Respondent’s request for oral argument on any dispositive motion denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2023-0770.  State ex rel. Greer v. Delaware Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ. 

Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0777.  Ezeh v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Probate Div.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0779.  State ex rel. Dean v. Schooley.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0785.  State ex rel. Dean v. Schooley.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0816.  Roper v. Kurt.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0819.  State ex rel. Qualls v. Hess.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

2023-0826.  Ezeh v. Sanders.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs and would sua sponte declare relator to be a vexatious litigator.

 

2023-0830.  Riccardi v. Supreme Court of Ohio, Domestic Relations Div.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Carol Yee’s motion to intervene denied.  Sua sponte, Carol Yee’s motion to dismiss stricken.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0831.  Rummell v. Chambers-Smith.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Annette Chambers-Smith, Dr. Eddy, Amy McIntosh, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, and Dr. Granson.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Andera Miller.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0850.  State ex rel. Nixon v. Doherty.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0856.  Emerson v. Krieger.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0880.  Kamal v. Cook.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0888.  State ex rel. Diesel v. Miraldi.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0903.  State ex rel. Mayle v. Farmer.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0904.  State ex rel. Nixon v. Fankhauser.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0917.  Schmidt v. Fliehman.

In Prohibition.  On respondent Darke County Court of Common Pleas Judge Travis L. Fliehman’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Caliber Home Loans, Inc.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0921.  State ex rel. Murphy v. Shanahan.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., would deny the writ as moot.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

2023-0937.  Lipin v. Brogan.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1181.  Weatherford v. DeWine.

In Mandamus.  On request to reinstate appeal.  Request denied.

 

2023-0330.  State ex rel. Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Skelton.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motion for a new trial.  Motion treated as a motion for reconsideration and denied.

 

2023-0391.  Feathers v. Wright.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motion to vacate or set aside judgment of dismissal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0771.  CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-464 and 22AP-514, 2023-Ohio-1583.  On appellee’s motion to have appellant declared a vexatious litigator.  Motion granted.  Appellant, Leonard Nyamusevya, found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Accordingly, Leonard Nyamusevya prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0808.  State ex rel. Bates v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0834.  State ex rel. Mobley v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file

a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0839.  State v. Mays.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1228, 2023-Ohio-1908.  On appellant’s motion to stay sentence.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0855.  In re J.C.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2022 AP 11 0044.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1251, In re Z.C., and briefing schedule stayed.

 

2023-0879.  State ex rel. Gordon v. Clark.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would sua sponte dismiss the cause as to requested-record category Nos. 1, 4, and 5.

 

2023-0999.  State v. Church.

Guernsey App. No. 23CA000001, 2023-Ohio-2107.  On appellant’s amended motion for stay of sentencing.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-1006.  Franchetti v. Pozniak.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1251.  On appellant’s amended motion to stay.  Motion denied.

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0786.  State v. Gasper.

Hamilton App. No. C-220218, 2023-Ohio-1500 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

Deters, J., not participating. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0636.  State v. Scheeler.

Delaware App. No. 21CAA110064, 2023-Ohio-1130 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I, IV, and V.

 

2023-0754.  State v. Kramer-Kelly.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111233, 2023-Ohio-1031 .

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0846.  Ames v. Geauga Cty. Invest. Advisory Commt.

Geauga App. No. 2022-G-0035, 2023-Ohio-2252 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and IV.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 26, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/26/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3431.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0148.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3382.

Portage App. No. 2019-P-0125, 2022-Ohio-336.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Fischer and Deters, JJ.

 

2023-0468.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Daniell, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3383.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-041.  Ric Daniell, Attorney Registration No. 0032072, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years with 18 months stayed on conditions.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Brunner, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would impose the sanction initially recommended by relator: a fully stayed two-year suspension with probation and monitoring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinion, which was previously issued as an entry in response to an affidavit of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

23-AP-078.  In re Disqualification of Bloom, 2023-Ohio-3384 (decided Aug. 15, 2023).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Jennifer Strutt.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar. R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 25, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/25/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3414.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1214.  State ex rel. Ames v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus involving an expedited election matter.  Sua sponte, case converted into an original action in mandamus and ordered to proceed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.  Respondents shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days of the date of service of the summons and complaint.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/22/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-3397.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1180.  State ex rel. Miller v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file responses, if any, to the motion to intervene as party respondents of Richard Warner, Mark E. Meyer, Pamela E. Meyer, Lapama’a, L.L.C., Irwin Farms, Ltd., and Highland Realty Development no later than Monday, September 25, 2023, by 12:00 p.m.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/22/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-3397.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1180.  State ex rel. Miller v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file responses, if any, to the motion to intervene as party respondents of Richard Warner, Mark E. Meyer, Pamela E. Meyer, Lapama’a, L.L.C., Irwin Farms, Ltd., and Highland Realty Development no later than Monday, September 25, 2023, by 12:00 p.m.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/22/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3381.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1213.  State ex rel. Hildreth v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of answers, evidence, and briefs: respondents shall file an answer to the complaint no later than Monday, September 25, 2023, by 4:00 p.m.; relators shall file a merit brief no later than Thursday, September 28, 2023, by 12:00 p.m.; respondents shall file a merit brief no later than Monday, October 2, 2023, by 12:00 p.m.; and relators may file a reply brief no later than Wednesday, October 4, 2023, by 12:00 p.m.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 21, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/21/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3380.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-1118.  State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3377.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief dismissed.  Relator’s motion for leave to amend case caption granted.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1136.  State ex rel. Robinson v. Crawford Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3378.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., concur in judgment only and would deny the writ solely on the basis of R.C. 3501.38(E).

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/22/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3372.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Emerson.

On motion for leave to proceed.  Motion denied.

 

2023-1035.  State ex rel. Dowell v. Byrd.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to submit within 14 days a request for issuance of an additional summons at an alternative address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service on respondent.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0629.  State ex rel. Jerome Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Smarra.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/20/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3352.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-1097.  State ex rel. Lambert v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3351.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 26, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/26/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3328.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1031.  Epling v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-1083.  In re Blodharn.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, writ allowed.  Allowing the writ means only that a return is ordered.  See Reed v. Kinkela, 84 Ohio St.3d 1427, 702 N.E.2d 903 (1998); Hernandez v. Kelly, 107 Ohio St.3d 1430, 2005-Ohio-6400, 838 N.E.2d 670.  Respondent shall file a return of writ within 21 days of the date of service of the petition, and petitioner may file a response within 10 days after the return is filed.  Petitioner’s physical presence before the court is not required.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents and would sua sponte dismiss the cause. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-1112.  State ex rel. Louis v. Forshey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, writ allowed.  Allowing the writ means only that a return is ordered.  See Reed v. Kinkela, 84 Ohio St.3d 1427, 702 N.E.2d 903 (1998); Hernandez v. Kelly, 107 Ohio St.3d 1430, 2005-Ohio-6400, 838 N.E.2d 670.  Respondent shall file a return of writ within 21 days of the date of service of the petition, and petitioner may file a response within 10 days after the return is filed.  Petitioner’s physical presence before the court is not required.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0935.  State v. Clemmons.

Montgomery App. No. 29638, 2023-Ohio-1832.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0956.  State v. Burton.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1105, 2023-Ohio-1596.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents.  

 

2023-0960.  State v. McCleery.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0024, 2022-Ohio-263.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0962.  State v. Sturgill.

Ashland App. No. 22-COA-011, 2022-Ohio-4574.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0963.  State v. Anderson.

Monroe App. No. 22 MO 0001, 2023-Ohio-945.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0971.  State v. Burgos-Delgado.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111992, 2023-Ohio-1817.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2023-0972.  State v. Quinn.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1135, 2023-Ohio-1300.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0983.  State v. Arnold.

Hamilton App. No. C-220253, 2023-Ohio-1639.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0986.  State v. Haywood.

Columbiana App. No. 21 CO 0035, 2023-Ohio-1121.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0640.  State v. Obhof.

Ashtabula App. No. 2021-A-0021, 2023-Ohio-408 .

 

2023-0854.  Welton v. Barger.

Hancock App. No. 5-22-30, 2023-Ohio-1707 .

 

2023-0859.  State v. Tamas.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0070, 2023-Ohio-1710 .

 

2023-0861.  Schultz v. Schultz.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0049, 2023-Ohio-1712 .

 

2023-0863.  State v. Hollingshead.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0031, 2023-Ohio-1714 .

 

2023-0866.  State v. Colon.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112716.

 

2023-0867.  State v. Mendonca.

Brown App. No. CA2022-08-007, 2023-Ohio-1780 .

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0869.  Wilson v. Wilson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112105, 2023-Ohio-1752 .

 

2023-0870.  Moore v. Ohio Parole Bd.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-592.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0874.  State v. Lowe.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111596, 2023-Ohio-1747 .

 

2023-0876.  In re M.A.G.

Fairfield App. No. 2022 CA 0032, 2023-Ohio-1756

 

2023-0877.  State v. Philpotts.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110607, 2023-Ohio-1810 .

 

2023-0883.  State v. Shields.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-230222 and C-230223.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0897.  Boucher v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112079, 2023-Ohio-1818 .

 

2023-0898.  Stueber v. Ohio Turnpike & Infrastructure Comm.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111877, 2023-Ohio-1813 .

 Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

2023-0901.  In re D.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111418, 2023-Ohio-4086 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0910.  In re G.T.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-287, 22AP-289, 22AP-291, and 22AP-298.

 

2023-0912.  In re Guardianship of Whitmer.

Summit App. No. 30252, 2023-Ohio-1084.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss appeal granted.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., would deny the motion as moot.

 

2023-0914.  JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Loseke.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111983, 2023-Ohio-1893 .

 

2023-0915.  Pelham v. Mtge. Information Servs., Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112090.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0932.  In re O.E.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-049, 2023-Ohio-1946 .

 

2023-0941.  State v. Stafford.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111989, 2023-Ohio-2062 .

 

2023-0950.  State v. McClellan.

Summit App. No. 30304, 2023-Ohio-2152 .

 

2023-0952.  Wallace Equine Services, L.L.C. v. J. Arnold Property Mgt. Group, L.L.C.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0035, 2023-Ohio-1498 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0961.  State v. Barnette.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0076, 2023-Ohio-2377 .

 

2023-0966.  Curry v. Mansfield.

Richland App. No. 23CA08.  Appellant’s motion to overturn decision denied.

 

2023-0970.  State v. Messenheimer.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0037, 2023-Ohio-2376 .

 

 

2023-0981.  State v. Neal.

Hamilton App. No. C210166, 2022-Ohio-1290 .

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0984.  State v. Brentley.

Allen App. No. 1-22-61, 2023-Ohio-2530 .

 

2023-0988.  State v. Cruse.

Summit App. No. 30243, 2023-Ohio-2147 .

 

2023-0991.  State v. Gordon.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-07, 2023-Ohio-2314 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-0733.  State v. Jordan.

Scioto App. No. 20CA3936, 2022-Ohio-1480.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-2666, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2022-0734.  State v. Johnson.

Scioto App. No. 20CA3935, 2023-Ohio-1479.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-2666, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0522.  State v. Beasley.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-040, 2023-Ohio-670.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1503, 2023-Ohio-2627, 213 N.E.3d 707.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0573.  Silveous v. 5 Starr Salon & Spa, L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-456, 2023-Ohio-841.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1493, 2023-Ohio-2407, 212 N.E.3d 954.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0980.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Price.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2023-004.  William Evan Price II, Attorney Registration No. 0056134, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, stayed on the condition that he engage in no further misconduct.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., dissent and would remand the matter to the board.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 19, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/19/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3326.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-1088.  State ex rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3325.

In Mandamus.  Limited writ granted.  Respondents ordered to reconvene forthwith and adopt ballot language that accurately conveys that the proposed amendment limits the ability of the state, as defined by the amendment, to burden, penalize, or prohibit abortion.  Writ denied in all other respects.

Fischer, J., concurs.

Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Stewart, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

Deters, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/20/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3324.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0458.  In re Application of E. Ohio Gas Co., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3289.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 19-468-GA-ALT.  Orders affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Stewart, Brunner, and Epley, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in part and concurs in judgment only in part, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, J.

Chris Epley, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion to vacate briefing schedule.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion to vacate briefing schedule.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Sherilyn Pastor.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar. R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0584.  State ex rel. Mohr v. Colerain Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/18/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-3312.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1180.  State ex rel. Miller v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to relators’ complaint by Friday, September 22, 2023.  All remaining deadlines shall follow S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 19, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/19/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3311.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1250.  State ex rel. Fluty v. Raiff, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3285.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s requests for statutory damages, attorney fees, and court costs and relator’s motion for oral argument denied.  Relator’s motion to compel and motion to quash denied as moot.  Chandra Law Firm, L.L.C.’s motion to quash denied as moot.

Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Fischer and DeWine, JJ.

Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would award statutory damages.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/15/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-3290.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-1081.  State ex rel. Ottawa Hills Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3286.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/18/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3288.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0692.  State v. Berry.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111453, 2023-Ohio-605 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} This appeal offers an opportunity to clear up uncertainty about whether a change to the language of Crim.R. 11 prevents trial courts from accepting a defendant’s single guilty plea to multiple offenses without first ensuring that the defendant understands the maximum aggregate penalty for those offenses.  I dissent from this court’s decision not to exercise jurisdiction and provide some much-needed clarity.

2                    {¶ 2} Appellant, Lawrence Berry, faced multiple counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, and operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  The state offered to dismiss various counts in exchange for Berry’s guilty plea to one count each of the charged offenses.  The trial court explained the maximum terms of confinement that could be imposed for each separate count: 11 years in prison for aggravated vehicular homicide, 8 years in prison for aggravated vehicular assault, and 6 months in jail for operating a vehicle under the influence.  But before accepting his plea, the trial court did not inform Berry that the prison terms might run consecutively or that Berry faced a maximum total prison term of 19 years.  At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the court imposed consecutive prison terms totaling 17 years.  The Eighth District Court of Appeals rejected Berry’s argument

 

1                    that the trial court had failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and affirmed the sentencing decision.  2023-Ohio-605, ¶ 11.

2                    {¶ 3} A previous version of Crim.R.11(C)(2)(a) forbade a trial court from accepting a defendant’s guilty or no-contest plea without first determining that the defendant understood “ ‘the nature of the charge and of the maximum penalty involved.’ ”  (Emphasis added in Johnson.)  State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130, 133, 532 N.E.2d 1295 (1988), quoting former Crim.R. 11.  Because the rule referred to “the charge,” in the singular, this court reasoned that the reference to “the maximum penalty” required a trial court to ensure only that a defendant understood the penalty for each charge individually, not cumulatively.  Id.

3                    {¶ 4} Ten years after Johnson, Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) was amended and now forbids a trial court from accepting a defendant’s guilty or no-contest plea without first determining that the defendant understands “the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved.”  (Emphasis added.)  83 Ohio St.3d xciii, cix (effective July 1, 1998).  This court explained that the change from “charge” to “charges” means “that a single plea can now apply to multiple charges.”  State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156, 2018-Ohio-5132, 124 N.E.3d 766, ¶ 15.  However, because the controversy in Bishop involved a defendant’s plea to a single new offense and the trial court’s failure to inform the defendant of the potential additional prison term for violating community control imposed for a previous offense, this court did not determine the effect of the current Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) language on pleas to multiple offenses.

4                    {¶ 5} Appellate courts in Ohio have been left to guess as to whether this court might think that the change from “charge” to “charges” in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) is significant in cases like this one involving a trial court’s acceptance of a single plea to multiple “charges” without explaining “the maximum penalty” that could apply to that group of charges.  Those courts—including the court of appeals in this case—have resorted to citing dissenting opinions in Bishop to predict what the answer might be and to point out that we did not explicitly overturn JohnsonSee 2023-Ohio-605 at ¶ 13-14, quoting Bishop at ¶ 47 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) and ¶ 73-74 (Fischer, J., dissenting); State v. Whitman, 2021-Ohio-4510, 182 N.E.3d 506, ¶ 27-28 (6th Dist.); State v. Willard, 2021-Ohio-2552, 175 N.E.3d 989, ¶ 65 (11th Dist.).

5                    {¶ 6} Ohio’s appellate courts would benefit from this court’s clear guidance on the meaning of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and should not have to resort to reading the tea leaves that we left behind in Bishop.  Because I would accept Berry’s jurisdictional appeal, I dissent.

 

STEWART and BRUNNER, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/18/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3287.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the September 18, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2021-0172.  State v. Blanton, 171 Ohio St.3d 19, 2022-Ohio-3985.

 

2021-0327.  State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. LaRose, 171 Ohio St.3d 107, 2023-Ohio-1165.

 

2021-0483.  State v. Belville, 171 Ohio St.3d 5, 2022-Ohio-3879.

 

2021-0864.  Maple Hts. v. Netflix, Inc., 171 Ohio St.3d 53, 2022-Ohio-4174.

 

2021-0961.  State ex rel. Waste Mgt. of Ohio, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 171 Ohio St.3d 68, 2022-Ohio-4581.

 

2021-1018.  In re T.A., 171 Ohio St.3d 44, 2022-Ohio-4173.

 

2021-1168.  Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 171 Ohio St.3d 84, 2022-Ohio-4713.

 

2022-0025.  Schlegel v. Sweeney, 171 Ohio St.3d 1, 2022-Ohio-3841.

 

2022-0058.  Diller v. Diller, 171 Ohio St.3d 99, 2023-Ohio-1508.

 

22-AP-153.  In re Disqualification of Cottrill, 171 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2022-Ohio-4800.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/15/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3282.]

 

 

 

MOTIONS AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1118.  Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to relator’s motion for leave to amend only the caption of the petition pursuant to Civ.R. 61 no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, September 18, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/15/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3270.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Chukwuani.

On motion for leave to file affidavit of disqualification against Judge David E. Stucki.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0515.  State v. Tancak.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011725, 2022-Ohio-880.  On appellant’s motion to correct court-appointed-counsel fees.  Motion denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

1996-1433.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Rea.

On application and supplemental application for termination of probation by respondent, Rebecca Rea, Attorney Registration No. 0037283, last known address in Herndon, Virginia.  Respondent has complied with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D) and with this court’s order dated June 23, 2021, reinstating respondent to the practice of law and ordering her to serve a two-year period of monitored probation.  Probation of Rebecca Rea terminated.

 

2023-1156.  In re Riley.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Tyrone Riley, Attorney Registration No. 0010605, last known business address in Toledo, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0780.  Grinnell v. Cool.

Ross App. No. 22CA34.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-1044.  In re Application of White.

On filing by Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of a suggestion of death of respondent.  Matter dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 14, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/14/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3240.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

 The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

23-AP-082.  In re Disqualification of Allen, 2023-Ohio-3238 (decided July 26, 2023).

 

23-AP-103.  In re Disqualification of Flottman, 2023-Ohio-3239 (decided Aug. 1, 2023).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Anderson T. Bailey and Leon F. DeJulius Jr.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0886.  Hogan v. Flannery.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion for entry of default.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

 

2023-1046.  Williams v. Parikh.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to submit within 14 days a request for issuance of an additional summons at an alternative address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service on respondent Paul Lauffman.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-1036.  State ex rel. Wilkerson v. Adkins.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Relator’s motion to waive all costs taxable to relator denied as moot because costs have not been assessed to relator.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/13/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3231.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0156.  State v. Carter.

Logan App. No. 8-22-12, 2022-Ohio-4559.  On [victim’s] motion for name redaction.  Motion granted.  The clerk of the court shall redact the victim’s name from all case documents, and the parties shall not disclose the victim’s identity during oral argument.

 

2023-0411.  Tera, L.L.C. v. Rice Drilling D, L.L.C.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0047, 2023-Ohio-427.  On appellants’ motion for leave to file revised appellants’ merit brief.  Motion granted.  Appellants’ revised merit brief deemed filed as of August 29, 2023.  Appellee’s merit brief and the merit briefs of amici curiae in support of appellee were filed on September 1, 2023.  Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.04, appellants’ reply brief remains due for filing within 20 days of the filing of appellee’s brief.

 

2023-1088.  State ex rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Bd.

In Mandamus.  On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XVI, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for permission to appear pro hac vice of Emma Olson Sharkey, William B. Stafford, and Samuel Ward-Packard.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0279.  State ex rel. Doe v. Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/08/2023 Case Announcements #5, 2023-Ohio-3195.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1419 and 2023-0126.  Kyser v. Summit Cty. Children Servs.

Summit App. No. 30080, 2022-Ohio-3467.  On appellee’s request to stay oral argument.  Request denied.

 Matthew Byrne, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/08/2023 Case Announcements #4, 2023-Ohio-3194.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-1106.  State ex rel. Mulinix v. Gill.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent Tenth District Court of Appeals’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s request that this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent Tenth District Court of Appeals to vacate the portion of the August 29, 2023 journal requiring relator to post a cash or supersedeas bond on or before Friday, September 8, at 4:30 p.m. denied.  Relator’s remaining requests for relief remain pending before this court and will be decided at a later time.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/11/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3192.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1511.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Stobbs.

On relator’s motion to revoke stay of suspension.  Respondent, Brent Clark Stobbs, ordered to show cause by filing a written response with the clerk of this court within ten days why he should not be held in contempt, why the stay of his suspension should not be revoked, and why he should not be ordered to serve the full 18-month suspension for failure to comply with this court’s May 25, 2023 order.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2023-0936.  State ex rel. Huwig v. Ohio Dept. of Health.

In Mandamus.  On joint motion to refer case to mediation and stay filing deadlines.  Motion granted.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/11/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3192.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1511.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Stobbs.

On relator’s motion to revoke stay of suspension.  Respondent, Brent Clark Stobbs, ordered to show cause by filing a written response with the clerk of this court within ten days why he should not be held in contempt, why the stay of his suspension should not be revoked, and why he should not be ordered to serve the full 18-month suspension for failure to comply with this court’s May 25, 2023 order.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

2023-0936.  State ex rel. Huwig v. Ohio Dept. of Health.

In Mandamus.  On joint motion to refer case to mediation and stay filing deadlines.  Motion granted.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/08/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-3188.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1141.  State ex rel. Campbell v. Cordova.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response to the complaint no later than Friday, September 15, 2023.  If respondents file a responsive motion pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04, relator’s response, if any, shall be filed within seven days after the filing of the motion.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/08/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3180.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0836.  State v. Ritchey.

Geauga App. No. 2022-G-0025, 2023-Ohio-1625 .

Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/08/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3179.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

23-AP-043.  In re Disqualification of Schroeder, 2023-Ohio-3170 (decided Jul. 7, 2023).

 

23-AP-061.  In re Disqualification of Schroeder, 2023-Ohio-3171 (decided Jul. 7, 2023).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Hutchison.

On request for leave to continue or institute a legal proceeding.  Request denied.

 

2023-0354.  Snodgrass v. O’Leary.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2022-1247 and 2022-1296.  Sua sponte, cause to be scheduled for oral argument before the court pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.07(A)(1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0902.  State ex rel. Platt v. Univ. of Cincinnati.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

  

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/12/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3169.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0379.  Brown v. Young.

In Mandamus and Habeas Corpus.  On motion to dismiss of respondent Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge David C. Young.  Motion granted.  Motion of respondent Tenth District Court of Appeals Judges to strike amended complaint granted.  Relator’s motion to strike motion to dismiss, motion to dismiss respondents’ motion to dismiss, motion to strike memo opposing respondent Judge David C. Young’s motion to strike, motion for default judgment, request to strike respondent Assistant Attorney General Michael Walton’s motion to dismiss, and request to strike filings of Andrew McCartney denied as moot.  Motions to dismiss of respondents Karina Conley, Julia Ross, and Tenth District Court of Appeals Judges denied as moot.  Motions of respondents Judge David C. Young, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney G. Gary Tyack, Franklin County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Nickole Iula, Governor Mike DeWine, and Assistant Attorneys General Michael A. Walton and Phillip T. Kelly to strike or dismiss the amended complaint denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs but would grant the motion to dismiss of respondents Tenth District Court of Appeals Judges and would deny relator’s motions on the merits.

 Brunner, J., concurs but would grant the motions to dismiss of respondents Karina Conley, Julia Ross, and Tenth District Court of Appeals Judges and would deny on the merits relator’s motion to strike motion to dismiss, motion to dismiss

respondents’ motion to dismiss, and motion to strike memo opposing respondent Judge David C. Young’s motion to strike.

 

2023-0930.  Jones v. McGuffey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0892.  State v. Stroud.

Hamilton App. No. C-220270, 2023-Ohio-1395.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0894.  State v. Curtis.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0071, 2023-Ohio-953.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0896.  State v. Johnson.

Montgomery App. No. 29659, 2023-Ohio-1686.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0911.  State v. Tolbert.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110249, 2022-Ohio-197.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0848.  State v. Loveless.

Clermont App. No. CA2022-10-064.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1290 , State v. Beatty.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0635.  State v. Wilson.

Montgomery App. No. 29349, 2023-Ohio-27 .

 

2023-0658.  State v. Palmer.

Hamilton App. No. C-220146, 2023-Ohio-1554 .

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0712.  State v. Harris.

Lorain App. Nos. 22CA011887 and 22CA011890, 2023-Ohio-1426.  Appellant’s motion to hold in abeyance and motion for leave to revise memorandum in support of jurisdiction denied.

 DeWine, J., would deny both motions as moot.

 Brunner, J., would deny the motion to hold in abeyance as moot.

 

2023-0811.  State v. Burns.

Licking App. No. 2022 CA 00078, 2023-Ohio-1579 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0812.  State v. Mason.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0086, 2023-Ohio-1200 .

 

2023-0813.  King v. Buildtech Ltd. Constr. Dev.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1088, 2023-Ohio-1092 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0814.  State v. El-Amin.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1158, 2023-Ohio-1597 .

 

 

 

 

2023-0815.  State v. Krill.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111613, 2023-Ohio-2483 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. II and III.

 

2023-0822.  State v. Oliver.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-449, 2023-Ohio-1550 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0823.  State v. Giarelli.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111525, 2023-Ohio-1134 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0825.  State v. Sanders.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111807, 2023-Ohio-1565 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0828.  Ingram v. Glavin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111931, 2023-Ohio-1290 .

 

2023-0832.  State v. McElroy.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011846, 2023-Ohio-1609 .

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0840.  Crenshaw v. Hemmons.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112838.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss, motion to sanction, and corrected motion to consolidate with case No. 2023-0858 denied.

 Donnelly, J., would deny the motion to dismiss as moot.

Brunner, J., would deny the motion to dismiss and the motion to consolidate as moot.

 

2023-0843.  State v. Ward.

Preble App. No. CA2022-12-021, 2023-Ohio-1606 .

 

2023-0844.  State v. Brooks.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0055, 2023-Ohio-1631 .

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0849.  State v. Arroyo-Garcia.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-890, 2016-Ohio-7006 .

 

2023-0853.  State v. Davis.

Summit App. No. 30231, 2023-Ohio-1657 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I, II, IV, and V. 

 

2023-0858.  Crenshaw v. E. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112839.  Appellee’s motion to consolidate, motion to disqualify Willa Hemmons, and motions for sanctions denied.

 Fischer, J., would deny the motion to disqualify as moot.

Brunner, J., would deny the motion to consolidate and the motion to disqualify as moot.

 

2023-0873.  State v. Ligon.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112034, 2023-Ohio-1751 .

 

2023-0881.  State v. Floyd.

Trumbull App. No. 2020-T-0003.

 

2023-0882.  State v. Floyd.

Trumbull App. No. 2013-T-0097, 2014-Ohio-1676 .

 

2023-0895.  La Riccia v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111976, 2023-Ohio-1816.  Appellant’s motion for preliminary injunction denied.

 

2023-0905.  State v. Hill.

Stark App. No. 2020CA00019, 2020-Ohio-4050 .

 

2023-0918.  State v. Gregory.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1106, 2023-Ohio-331 .

 

2023-0920.  State v. Walker.

Lake App. Nos. 2022-L-077 and 2022-L-078, 2023-Ohio-1949 .

 

2023-0924.  State v. Little.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011896, 2023-Ohio-2093 .

 

2023-0934.  State v. King.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00138, 2023-Ohio-1961 .

 

2023-0939.  State v. Hill.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-576, 2023-Ohio-1954 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1041.  State ex rel. Dodson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-448, 2022-Ohio-2552.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-2263, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration/rehearing of the July 6, 2023 judgment.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1352.  Roberts v. Cannizzaro.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1485, 2023-Ohio-2348, 212 N.E.3d 937.  On first, second, third, and fourth motions to reconsider.  Motions denied.

 

2023-0506.  State v. Davison.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0047, 2023-Ohio-599.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1480, 2023-Ohio-2236, 211 N.E.3d 1211.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0585.  Robinson v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.

Miscellaneous case.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1487, 2023-Ohio-2348, 212 N.E.3d 931.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0609.  State v. Gregory.

Lucas App. Nos. L-21-1106 and L-21-1107, 2023-Ohio-331.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1494, 2023-Ohio-2407, 212 N.E.3d 950.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/07/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3168.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1419 and 2023-0126.  Kyser v. Summit Cty. Children Servs.

Summit App. No. 30080, 2022-Ohio-3467.  Sua sponte, appellant ordered to file a response, if any, to appellee’s request to stay oral argument no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 8, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/07/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3141.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1091.  State ex rel. Cleveland Assn. of Rescue Emps. v. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3112.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111230, 2022-Ohio-3043.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.  Appellant’s request for oral argument denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would affirm the court of appeals’ award of attorney fees.

 

2023-0027.  State ex rel. Duncan v. Driscoll, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3113.

Clark App. No. 2022-CA-71, 2022-Ohio-4625 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0051.  State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3114.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0044, 2022-Ohio-4466 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0336.  State ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3115.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-106, 2023-Ohio-416 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1122.  In re Guardianship of Pond.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAF 12 0081, 2023-Ohio-2492.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 18 through 28 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0619.  State ex rel. Weathersby v. Mihalik.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due September 1, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0713.  State v. Logan.

Stark App. No. 2022 CA 00062, 2022-Ohio-4383.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due August 31, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0755.  State v. Worley.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111648, 2023-Ohio-530.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due August 31, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0865.  State ex rel. Chatman v. Multi-Cty. Corr. Ctr.

Marion App. No. 9-22-49.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due August 28, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to the following case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relators shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2023-0584.  State ex rel. Mohr v. Colerain Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/06/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3100.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0750.  AJZ’s Hauling, L.L.C. v. TruNorth Warranty Programs of N. Am., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3097.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109632, 2021-Ohio-1190.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1523.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3096.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied as moot.  Relator’s request for statutory damages denied.  Relator’s motion to place this court on notice denied as moot.

Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2022-1632.  State ex rel. Smith v. Triggs, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3098.

Hamilton App. No. C-220498.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0469.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Romer, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3099.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-035.  Shawn Alexander Romer, Attorney Registration No. 0084251, last known business address in Independence, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no credit for the time served under his interim felony suspension.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0099.  State ex rel. Brimfield Twp. v. Ohio Aud.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0262.  Emerson v. Auto Warehousing Co.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Gray Media Group, Inc., Auto Warehousing Company, Mercy St. Charles Hospital, Premier Bank and Manager, and FCA US, L.L.C.  Motions granted.  Relator’s objection filed July 17, 2023, denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0326.  State ex. rel. Massillon Administration Bldg. v. Elum.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00153, 2023-Ohio-1829.  On appellee’s motion to dismiss appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant’s motion for oral argument denied.  Appellee’s motion to supplement motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0361.  Emerson v. Northend Properties JS.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s objection filed July 17, 2023.  Objection denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2023-0365.  Emerson v. Local 421.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Toledo Police, Local 421, and Monroe Department of Public Services.  Motions granted.  Respondent Monroe Department of Public Services’ request to declare relator a vexatious litigator granted.  Relator, Joseph Emerson, found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Accordingly, Joseph Emerson prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.  Relator’s objection filed July 17, 2023, denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0482.  State ex rel. Jackson v. Foley.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for peremptory writ denied as moot.  Relator’s motion for leave to amend complaint denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs but would deny the motion for peremptory writ on the merits. 

 

2023-0513.  In re Application of Kingwood Solar I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board No. 21-117-EL-BGN.  On appellee/cross-appellant Ohio Power Siting Board’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, 2023-0693, In re Application of Kingwood Solar I, L.L.C., dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  See Senior Citizens Coalition v. Pub. Util. Comm., 40 Ohio St.3d 329, 533 N.E.2d 353 (1988).  Appellant/cross-appellee’s motion to consolidate appeals denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2023-0534.  State ex rel. Borges v. Ohio Elections Comm.

In Prohibition and Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted as to Count 1 of the complaint.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to Count 2 of the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted as to Count 2 of the complaint.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of

the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0618.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Ohio State Penitentiary.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motions to strike respondent’s motion to dismiss denied.  Cause dismissed.

 DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs and would sua sponte declare relator to be a vexatious litigator.

Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner, J., concur in part and dissent in part and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2023-0678.  State ex rel. Scott v. Rastatter.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0686.  Bloodworth v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2023-0693.  In re Application of Kingwood Solar I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 21-117-EL-BGN.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  See Senior Citizens Coalition v. Pub. Util. Comm., 40 Ohio St.3d 329, 533 N.E.2d 353 (1988).

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0700.  Pearson v. Purcell.

In Prohibition.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Terrance Bazeley and Magistrate Jacqueline Purcell and Judge Joshua Berkowitz.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent David Kerr.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0702.  State ex rel. Nixon v. Doherty.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0728.  State ex rel. Nixon v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., concurs but would grant the motion on mootness grounds.

 

2023-0729.  State ex rel. Nixon v. Scahill.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0732.  Mays v. State.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion for default judgment denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0737.  Lloyd v. Tepe.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2023-0744.  Heinz v. State.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0746.  Brigner v. Lang.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0748.  State ex rel. Brown v. O’Farrell.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0767.  State ex rel. Allah-U-Akbar v. Bracy.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0792.  Finnell v. Mock.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s request for leave to supplement record.  Request denied.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0796.  State ex rel. Nixon v. Pittman.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs and would sua sponte declare relator to be a vexatious litigator.

 

 

2023-0806.  State ex rel. Nixon v. Pokorny.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs and would sua sponte declare relator to be a vexatious litigator.

Brunner, J., would sua sponte dismiss the cause as moot.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0617.  State ex rel. Adkins v. Cantrell.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to take judicial notice.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1167.  State v. Crawford.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110986, 2022-Ohio-2673.  On appellant’s motion for a stay of the proceedings filed pro se.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1518.  State ex rel. Sands v. Lake Cty. Common Pleas Court.

Marion App. No. 9-22-36.  On appellant’s motion requesting status of habeas corpus action pending before this court.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0008.  In re Complaint of Burress-El v. Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.

Public Utilities Comm. No. 21-298-GA-CSS.  On appellant’s amended, second amended, and third amended averments of jurisdiction.  Amended averments denied.

 Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0190.  State ex rel. Wells v. Lakota Local Schools Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied as moot.  Relator’s motion for leave to file amended complaint instanter denied as moot.  Under Civ.R. 15(A), relator was not required to seek leave to file an amended complaint.  Relator’s amended complaint deemed filed on June 16, 2023.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to the amended complaint within 21 days.

 

2023-0572.  State v. Jones.

Hamilton App. No. C-220007, 2023-Ohio-844.  On appellee’s amended motion for stay.  Motion denied.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss denied.

 

 

2023-0610.  State ex rel. Obetz v. Stinziano.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 

2023-0624.  Poland v. Ohio Parole Bd.

Richland App. No. 22 CA 0065, 2023-Ohio-694.  On appellant’s motion for court to find that this case contains issues capable of repetition yet evading review.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0629.  State ex rel. Jerome Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Smarra.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2023-0699.  State ex rel. Ames v. Three Rivers Local School Dist. Records Comm.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would sua sponte dismiss the cause as to requested-record category Nos. 2 and 4.

 

 

2023-0725.  State ex rel. Martre v. Toledo Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 

2023-0726.  State ex rel. Martre v. Lima Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 

2023-0804.  State v. McConnell.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0025, 2023-Ohio-654.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that no conflict exists.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0810.  State v. Hall.

Sandusky App. No. S-22-016.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0603, State v. Daniel, and briefing schedule stayed.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0839.  State v. Mays.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1228, 2023-Ohio-1908.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the conflict question as stated in State v. Mays, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-1228, 2023-Ohio-1908, ¶ 72: “Can the requirement in R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) that a ‘guilty verdict shall state either the degree of the offense of which the offender is found guilty, or that such additional [aggravating] element or elements are present’ be satisfied by a verdict form that cites the statutory sections, permitting the defendant to be

convicted of the higher-level offense?”  (Brackets sic.)  The conflict case is State v. Gregory, 3d Dist. Hardin No. 6-12-02, 2013-Ohio-853.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0515.  State v. McConnell.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0025, 2023-Ohio-654 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0724.  Avalon Test Equip. Leasing, Inc. v.  Emerald Design & Constr., L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112186, 2023-Ohio-1375 .

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0766.  State v. Kilgore.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011826, 2023-Ohio-1786 .

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.  

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/05/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3095.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0550.  State v. Reddick.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0039, 2023-Ohio-765 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

                        {¶ 1} Most criminal disputes in the United States justice system are not resolved through trial by jury but through plea agreements negotiated by counsel and presented to trial court judges for approval.  In 2022, in the federal criminal-justice system, 91.4 percent of criminal defendants either pled guilty (89.5 percent) or were found guilty (1.9 percent).  Pew Research Center, Fewer Than 1% of Federal Criminal Defendants Were Acquitted in 2022 (June 14, 2023), available at https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-than-1-of-defendants-in-federal-criminal-cases-were-acquitted-in-2022/#:~:text=The%20overwhelming%20majority%20of%20 defendants,Office%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Courts (accessed Aug. 21, 2023) [https://perma.cc/QK5S-CLNC].  To complete the statistics, 8.2 percent of cases were dismissed and .4 percent of cases resulted in acquittal.  Id.  In Ohio, roughly 2.5 percent of criminal cases go to trial, a percentage close to the federal rate of 2.3 percent (i.e., 1.9 percent plus .4 percent).  See Futty, Trials a Rarity in Ohio, U.S., Columbus Dispatch (Jan. 12, 2014), available at https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/crime/2014/01/13/trials-rarity-in-ohio-u/24100696007/ (accessed June 23, 2023) [https://perma.cc/C8T9-KCLH]; Trevas, Trial Rates in Ohio Continue Decline, Statistical Report Reveals, Court News Ohio (Sept. 30, 2014), https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2014/OCS_093014.asp#:~:text=While%20the%20civil%20trial%20rate,percent%20for%20traffic%20case%20trials (accessed June 23, 2023) [https://perma.cc/RJ3Z-GNJY].

                        {¶ 2} After her newborn baby was found dead, Breyona Reddick was charged with aggravated murder, among other offenses.1  Sentences for aggravated murder include death, R.C. 2929.03(C)(2)(a)(i), which does not appear to have been charged, and life without the possibility of parole, R.C. 2929.03(A)(1)(a).  With the sentencing consequences that flow from a conviction on such serious charges, prosecutors have enormous leverage to induce guilty pleas.  After initially pleading not guilty and attempting to challenge the state’s evidence that the baby was alive at birth, Reddick eventually decided to enter a negotiated plea agreement.  The discussions and inducements that led to that decision and any promises made in exchange for her admission of guilt, as in the vast majority of plea negotiations, likely occurred off the record.  Whatever specific provisions were eventually included in the written plea agreement have not been made available to us.

                        {¶ 3} Reddick did not plead guilty to aggravated murder or even murder, both of which involve purposeful action.  She pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter, which has no independent mens rea: not purposefully, not knowingly, not recklessly, not even negligently.  R.C. 2903.04(A) states, “No person shall cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy as a proximate result of the offender’s committing or attempting to commit a felony.”  The mens rea imputed to Reddick is that of the felony that undergirds the plea to involuntary manslaughterSee, e.g., State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163, 2010-Ohio-1017, 926 N.E.2d 1239,  ¶ 43.  But Reddick did not plead guilty to an underlying felony.  No underlying felony is even mentioned in the plea.  That issue wasn’t raised, but I nonetheless find it intriguing because it highlights a problem with many pleas in Ohio—they aren’t necessarily based on the facts of the case.  See Johnson, Lying at Plea Bargaining, 38 Ga.St.U.L.Rev. 673 (2022); Turner, Transparency in Plea Bargaining, 96 Notre Dame L.Rev. 973 (2021); Donnelly, End Factually Baseless Plea Bargains, 42:3 Litigation 6, 7 (2016).

 

 

1.  Because we have no record in this case, the facts in this opinion are taken from the briefs and the court of appeals opinion, State v. Reddick, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2022-P-0039, 2023-Ohio-765. 

 

                        {¶ 4} Reddick was sentenced to an indefinite term of imprisonment of 10 to 15 years. In her memorandum in support of jurisdiction, Reddick makes a troubling accusation about what took place before imposition of this sentence:  she accuses the state of breaching its agreement with her to not recommend a sentence.  This issue is vitally important for all Ohioans, and especially future criminal defendants, because of the number of criminal cases that end in plea agreements.  Moreover, we know that innocent people have accepted pleas; entire books have been written on the subject.  See Rakoff, Why the Innocent Plead Guilty and the Guilty Go Free: and Other Paradoxes of Our Broken Legal System (2021); Kassin, Duped: Why Innocent People Confess—and Why We Believe Their Confessions (2022). And we know that to be constitutional, pleas must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.  State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-2765, 164 N.E.3d 286, ¶ 10.  Ensuring that pleas are made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, however, is not easy. was no meeting of the minds. But we are left with the strong impression that everyone in the courtroom knew that there was no chance that the trial court would impose probation; everyone, that is, except Reddick.

                        {¶ 7} If the prosecutor had said, “Your honor, even though we agree that this plea allows you the discretion to impose a sentence of probation, make no mistake, we will be asking for a prison term, but we leave the term up to you,” I would not be writing this dissent.  But that is not what occurred, according to the parties. At the plea hearing, the prosecutor stated,  “[T]he penalty is anywhere from zero time in prison all the way up to 11 years.” The prosecutor also said in open court, “I will not be asking for a prison term.  I will not be stating four years, six years, three years, whatever. * * * I have some things I want to say, to place into the record, but they will not be an amount of time or anything like that.”  We don’t know how well that statement reflects the agreement that the prosecutor and defense counsel reached.  We certainly don’t know what Reddick understood the prosecutor to have agreed to say or not say.  At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor walked right up to the line and, according to Reddick, crossed it; but how can we really know without a full argument on this important issue?   

                        {¶ 8} How can Reddick knowingly plead guilty when she doesn’t know, within reason, what the practical consequences will be, i.e., what sentence she is likely to receive?  How can she voluntarily plead guilty when she is staring at the club of a potential life sentence if she rejects the government’s offer to plead to an altogether different crime from the one she was initially charged with?  How can she intelligently plead guilty when she doesn’t know whether the prosecutor will adhere to that agreement and whether the judge will act as a neutral and enforce that agreement?  In this case, it is unclear to me whether Reddick’s plea was knowing, voluntary, or intelligent, let alone all three.

                        {¶ 9} Prosecutors wield the most power in the criminal-justice system through their inherent charging discretion.  That is just reality.  The neutrals in our criminal justice system—the judges—must therefore be especially mindful and protective when, as here, the state is not held to its burden of proof.  Ordinarily in criminal cases, the system is designed to shine a light on the truth, but the plea-bargaining process is obscure at best and downright dark at worst.  Our criminal justice system had been aptly described as “a system of pressure and pleas, not truth and trials.”  Hessick, Punishment Without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining is a Bad Deal, 5 (2022).

                        {¶ 10} Here, the prosecutor convinced a grand jury that Reddick had purposely killed her baby but then accepted a plea of involuntary manslaughter, which assumes a nonpurposeful act.  Why?  Why would the state allow Reddick to plead to a crime that included a possible sentence as lenient as probation? Did the prosecutor know that the judge would never impose such a sentence?  Did defense counsel?  Did Reddick? Would the state’s position have been different if the case had been assigned to a different judge?  If so, how can we countenance just a random (or more pointedly, unfair) system?

                        {¶ 11} The bottom line is that we don’t know the factual basis of Reddick’s plea.  We don’t know what the state agreed to say or not say at the sentencing hearing.  We could easily know these things—and knowing them would make the criminal-justice system more transparent, more fair, and less random.  We should strive for all three so that defendants can enter pleas that are actually knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

                        {¶ 12} I would accept jurisdiction to determine the nature of the agreement between Reddick and the prosecutor, whether they had a meeting of the minds, and whether the prosecutor’s comments at the sentencing hearing breached that agreement.  I dissent.

 

{¶ 5} We could solve much of that problem relatively simply: by adopting the standards used in the federal system.  Federal plea bargains must include the factual basis for the plea. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3).  Judges in Ohio could inquire, on the record, about the factual basis for the plea and any representations that were made by the parties.  Judges could specifically ask the state at plea hearings whether they have told the defense what sentence they intend to advocate for at the subsequent sentencing hearing.  Is such an important issue something that should be kept from a defendant entering a plea?  Judges could refuse to sanction the sometimes nebulous agreements that arise because our system has no objective criteria to guide trial court judges in the exercise of their discretion to accept or reject plea agreements.  They could address the quintessential contractual question: was there a meeting of the minds?  See Donnelly, Truth or Consequences: Making the Case for Transparency and Reform in the Plea Negotiation Process, 17 Ohio St.J.Crim.L. 423 (2020).

{¶ 6} I have concerns about whether there was a meeting of the minds in this case. Reddick’s plea was induced, in part, by the state’s agreement not to seek a particular sentence, and the state noted that Reddick was not subject to a mandatory prison sentence. Reddick argues that calling for any prison term violates that agreement, even if the state did not mention a particular number of years.  The state argues that it agreed only to not seek a particular sentence, meaning a specific number of years. At this juncture, it is difficult to determine which of them is right.  It is not hard to imagine that they did not agree to the same thing and, therefore, that there

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/05/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3094.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the September 4, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1574.  Clawson v. Hts. Chiropractic Physicians, L.L.C., 170 Ohio St.3d 451, 2022-Ohio-4154.

 

2021-0136.  State v. Carlock, 170 Ohio St.3d 479, 2022-Ohio-4673.

 

2021-0578.  NASCAR Holdings, Inc. v. McClain, 170 Ohio St.3d 433, 2022-Ohio-4131.

 

2021-1518.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Carr, 170 Ohio St.3d 401, 2022-Ohio-3633.

 

2022-0080.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Toledo, 170 Ohio St.3d 427, 2022-Ohio-3889.

 

2022-0402.  State ex rel. Lindsay v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 170 Ohio St.3d 480, 2023-Ohio-689.

 

2022-0534.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chambers, 170 Ohio St.3d 1307, 2022-Ohio-3839.

 

2022-0715.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferfolia, 170 Ohio St.3d 468, 2022-Ohio-4220.

 

2022-0843.  State ex rel. Norman v. Collins, 170 Ohio St.3d 484, 2023-Ohio-975.

 

2023-0346.  In re McClain, 170 Ohio St.3d 1309, 2023-Ohio-787.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1253.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Nowicki, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3079.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-002.  Griff Makini Nowicki, Attorney Registration No. 0071849, last known business address in Riverside, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year, conditionally stayed.

DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Fischer and Brunner, JJ.

 

2022-1288.  State ex rel. Harris v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3081.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-60, 2022-Ohio-3149 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

2022-1450.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3080.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s request for statutory damages denied.  Relator’s complaint for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction dismissed.  Relator’s motion to withdraw his March 7, 2023 motion for an order pursuant to S.Ct.Prac, R. 4.01(A) and motion to amend the evidence granted.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0411.  Tera, L.L.C. v. Rice Drilling D, L.L.C.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0047, 2023-Ohio-427.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Joseph C. Schroeder.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0993.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brooks.

On certification of default.  Phyllis Elaine Brooks, Attorney Registration No. 0015199, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 09/01/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3087.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-1106.  State ex rel. Mulinix v. Gill.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response to the complaint no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2023.  If respondents file a responsive motion pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04, relator’s response, if any, shall be filed no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 6, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 29, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/29/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3026.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1217.  PCM, Inc. v. Harris, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2974.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2020-477.  Decision affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2022-0340.  State ex rel. Kidd v. Indus. Comm, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2975.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-364, 2022-Ohio-450.  Judgment reversed and writ denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fisher, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Stewart, JJ.

 

2022-0988.  State ex rel. Internatl. Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 1536, AFL-CIO v. Sakacs, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2976.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-103, 2022-Ohio-2201.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinion, which was previously issued as an entry in response to an affidavit of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

23-AP-046.  In re Disqualification of Gallagher, 2023-Ohio-2977 (decided Jun. 16, 2023).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0293.  Berkheimer v. REKM, L.L.C.

Butler App. No. CA2022-03-026, 2023-Ohio-116.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Hugh S. Balsam.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0827.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Horton.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike respondents’ motion to dismiss for falsification of certificate of service.  Motion denied.  Relator may file a response to the motion to dismiss within ten days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0297.  State ex rel. L.M. v. Goldberg.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112412, 2023-Ohio-537.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondents shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2023-0279.  State ex rel. Doe v. Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.

 

__________________

 

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to the following case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2023-0185.  State ex rel. Brinkman v. Cincinnati S. Ry. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus.

 

_________________

 

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-1056.  Total Renal Care, Inc. v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2019-848 .

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/28/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2990.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0411.  Tera, L.L.C. v. Rice Drilling D, L.L.C.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0047, 2023-Ohio-427 .  On amended motion for admission pro hac vice of Ragan Naresh and second amended motion for admission pro hac vice of Kenneth A. Young.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0298.  State ex rel. J.M. v. Celebrezze.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112400, 2023-Ohio-536 .  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0785.  State ex rel. Dean v. Schooley.

In Mandamus.  On relator Julie Dean’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  This cause remains pending on the claims of relator Sam Dean.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 29, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/29/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2972.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0886.  Hogan v. Flannery.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte caused dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0637.  Barga v. St. Paris Village Council.

Champaign App. No. 2022 CA 14, 2023-Ohio-1067 .  Appeal and cross-appeal accepted.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., would not accept the cross-appeal.

 

2023-0809.  Caldwell v. Whirlpool Corp.

Marion App. No. 9-22-61, 2023-Ohio-1530 .

 Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0403.  State v. Bell.

Medina App. No. 21CA0052-M, 2023-Ohio-277 .

 

2023-0443.  State v. Gardner.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111506, 2023-Ohio-307 .  Appellant’s motion for leave to file a revised document granted.

 DeWine and Stewart, JJ., would deny the motion as moot.

 Fischer, J., would deny the motion on the merits.

 

2023-0526.  State v. White.

Franklin App. No. 17AP-538.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-0548.  State v. Brown.

Montgomery App. No. 29553, 2023-Ohio-645 .

 

2023-0709.  Craig v. Gilchrist.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-52 and 22AP-55, 2022-Ohio-4477 .

 

2023-0731.  Facemyer v. Patch.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0138.

 

2023-0734.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110942, 2023-Ohio-445 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0735.  Budoi v. Budoi.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112119.

 

2023-0736.  Mason v. Emerald Environmental Servs., Inc.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1185, 2023-Ohio-1418 .

 

2023-0738.  State v. Sevilla.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-764, 2023-Ohio-1726 .

 

2023-0742.  HSBC Bank USA v. Brinson.

Summit App. No. 30250, 2023-Ohio-1462 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II. 

 

 

 

 

2023-0745.  State v. Tegarty.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111855, 2023-Ohio-1369 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-0753.  State v. Head.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111562, 2023-Ohio-1364 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0759.  Sowry v. Todd.

Miami App. No. 2022-CA-22, 2023-Ohio-1162 .

 

2023-0769.  State v. Speis.

Clermont App. No. CA2022-07-032, 2023-Ohio-1422 .

 

2023-0773.  State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Sheriff.

Hocking App. No. 22CA9, 2023-Ohio-1446 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0776.  State v. Bullitt.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112168, 2023-Ohio-1899 .

 

2023-0782.  Brew v. Brew.

Hamilton App. No. C-220140, 2023-Ohio-1457 .

 

2023-0790.  Saunders v. Greater Dayton Regional Transit Auth.

Montgomery App. No. 29573, 2023-Ohio-1514 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0794.  State v. Duncan.

Clark App. No. 2022-CA-82, 2023-Ohio-1684 .

 

2023-0799.  Rock City Church v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-372, 2023-Ohio-1339 .

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0801.  State v. Kocevar.

Montgomery App. No. 29483, 2023-Ohio-1513 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-0802.  State v. Shelley.

Auglaize App. Nos. 2-22-17 and 2-22-18, 2023-Ohio-1528 .

 

2023-0841.  State v. Ward.

Preble App. No. CA2022-11-020, 2023-Ohio-1605 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0845.  State v. Garcia.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111795, 2023-Ohio-1219 .

 

2023-0847.  State v. Stewart.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112017, 2023-Ohio-1673 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0851.  State v. Rogers.

Erie App. Nos. E-21-027 and E-21-031, 2022-Ohio-4126 .

 

2023-0860.  State v. Kohler.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAA 10 0068, 2023-Ohio-1772 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0864.  State v. Khalfani.

Summit App. No. 30330, 2023-Ohio-1963 .

 

2023-0875.  State v. Kendrick.

Hamilton App. No. C-220459, 2023-Ohio-1763 .

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0893.  State v. Boware.

Summit App. No. 30375, 2023-Ohio-1874 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2023-0444.  State v. Teagarden.

Licking App. No. 22CA0105, 2023-Ohio-597 .  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1478, 2023-Ohio-2262, 211 N.E.3d 1206.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0492.  Armatas v. Plain Twp.

Stark App. No. 2022 CA 00039, 2023-Ohio-204 .  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1480, 2023-Ohio-2236, 211 N.E.3d 1217.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0601.  In re A.W.

Summit App. No. 30486, 2023-Ohio-1268 .  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2023-Ohio-1979, 211 N.E.3d 126.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

August 30, 2023

[Cite as 08/30/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-3043.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

2023-1079. Dickson v. Chardon Mun. Court.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

August 30, 2023

[Cite as 08/30/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3042.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

2022-0784. Harris v. Hilderbrand, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3005.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0013, 2022-Ohio-1555. Judgment reversed and cause remanded to the trial court.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

2022-0802. State ex rel. Youngstown Civ. Serv. Comm. v. Sweeney, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3006.

In Prohibition. Writ denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only.

2022-1037. State v. Hurt, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3013.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110732, 2022-Ohio-2039. Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Deters, J.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

August 31, 2023

[Cite as 08/31/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-3049.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

2022-0782. State v. Schilling, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3027.

Hamilton App. No. C-210363, 2022-Ohio-1773. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Miller, JJ., concur.

Mark C. Miller, J., of the Third District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

2022-1044. State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3028.

In Mandamus. Writ granted in part and denied in part. Relator’s motion to strike respondent’s affidavit denied. Relator’s complaint for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

DISCIPLINARY CASES

2023-0626. Disciplinary Counsel v. Poole.

Sua sponte, Robert Lawrence Poole, Attorney Registration No. 0065547, last known business address in Florence, Kentucky, found in contempt for failure to surrender his certificate of admission and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before July 27, 2023.

08-31-2023 2

2023-0974. Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews.

On certification of default. Amanda Ann-Carmen Andrews, Attorney Registration No. 0088814, last know business address in Port Clinton, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2023-0185. State ex rel. Brinkman v. Cincinnati S. Ry. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus. On relator’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/24/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2968.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0984.  State v. Brentley.

Allen App. No. 1-22-61, 2023-Ohio-2530.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 25, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/25/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2966.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0708.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Smith.

On certification of default.  On respondent’s response to order to show cause.  Respondent granted leave to file an answer with the Board of Professional Conduct.  Matter remanded to the board for further proceedings under Gov.Bar R. (V)12.  Proceedings of this court stayed until further order of this court.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., would also impose an interim default suspension.

 Stewart, J., not participating.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0871.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Bitenbinder.

On relator’s motion to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt and motion to restrict public access to its motion to show cause and exhibits A through E.  Motions granted.  Respondent found in contempt pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(D)(2).  Respondent shall comply with the subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 23, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/23/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2950.]

 

 

 

MOTIONS AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0298 and 2022-0303.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On remand from the United States Supreme Court.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file within 20 days simultaneous briefs on the impact of Huffman v. Neiman, U.S. Supreme Court case No. 22-362 (June 30, 2023), and what further proceedings this court should hold.  The parties shall file simultaneous reply briefs, if any, within ten days after the filing of the merit briefs.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2022-1419 and 2023-0126.  Kyser v. Summit Cty. Children Servs.

Summit App. No. 30080, 2022-Ohio-3467 .  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file within 14 days simultaneous, supplemental briefs that address whether the Summit County Children Services decision upholding the substantiated report disposition constituted a final, appealable order within the meaning of R.C. 2506.01.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 Matthew Byrne, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 23, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/23/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2938.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0800.  State ex rel. Chatman v. Crawford Cty. Family & Children First Council.

Marion App. No. 9-22-37.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due August 14, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/22/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2934.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2009-1918.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer.

On petition for reinstatement by respondent, Blaine Lawrence Gottehrer, Attorney Registration No. 0027147, for further consideration upon the filing of respondent’s notice of taking and passing the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam.  Petition granted.  Blaine Lawrence Gottehrer reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 21, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/21/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2908.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF AUGUST 21, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the August 21, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2021-1280.  State ex rel. Standifer v. Cleveland, 170 Ohio St.3d 367, 2022-Ohio-3711.

 

2021-1421.  State v. Walker, 170 Ohio St.3d 394, 2023-Ohio-652.

 

2022-0083.  State ex rel. Gregory v. Toledo, 170 Ohio St.3d 395, 2023-Ohio-651.

 

2022-0099.  State v. Ali, 170 Ohio St.3d 400, 2023-Ohio-690.

 

2022-0441.  State ex rel. Lusane v. Kent Police Dept., 170 Ohio St.3d 382, 2023-Ohio-480.

 

2022-0574.  Furr v. Ruehlman, 170 Ohio St.3d 386, 2023-Ohio-481.

 

2022-0696.  State ex rel. Myles v. Goering, 170 Ohio St.3d 389, 2023-Ohio-483.

 

2022-1157.  State ex rel. Bolar v. McCarthy, 170 Ohio St.3d 392, 2023-Ohio-500.

 

2022-1249.  In re Resignation of D’Atri, 170 Ohio St.3d 1298, 2022-Ohio-4110.

 

2022-1270.  State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose, 170 Ohio St.3d 374, 2022-Ohio-3852.

 

2022-1350.  In re Andrews, 170 Ohio St.3d 1296, 2022-Ohio-3951.

 

2023-0284.  In re Buttars, 170 Ohio St.3d 1301, 2023-Ohio-581.

 

2023-0290.  In re Walker, 170 Ohio St.3d 1304, 2023-Ohio-590.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0216.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kathman.

On application for termination of probation by respondent, Edward Timothy Kathman, Attorney Registration No. 005544, last known business address in Norwood, Ohio.  Respondent has complied with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D) and with this court’s order dated March 30, 2022, reinstating respondent to the practice of law and ordering him to serve a one-year period of monitored probation.  Probation of Edward Timothy Kathman terminated.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-0226.  United States Monarchy v. Graham.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 16, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/16/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2861.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0665.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. Nos. 23AP-205, 23AP-205, and 23AP-214.  On appellant’s demands to compel default judgment and court-ordered stay of sentencing and immediate release from detention/imprisonment.  Demands denied as moot.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0424.  State ex rel. Ware v. Bryant.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due August 11, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0529.  State ex rel. Weathersby v. Mihalik.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due August 11, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties in the following case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  The case will be

dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2023-0245.  State ex rel. Marlow v. Hamersville.

In Mandamus.

_________________

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0707.  State ex rel. West v. Adams Cty. Sheriff.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion requesting mediation.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/15/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2837.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0946.  Giroux v. Commt. Representing the Petitioners with Respect to the Initiative Petition Proposing an Amendment to the Ohio Constitution Entitled the Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of William B. Stafford.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/11/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2787.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0946.  Giroux v. Commt. Representing the Petitioners with Respect to the Initiative Petition Proposing an Amendment to the Ohio Constitution Entitled the Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2786.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution.  Challenge denied.  Relators’ motion for leave to file rebuttal evidence granted.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/11/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2782.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0723.  C.H. v. J.H.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112824.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0768.  Johnson v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112859.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/15/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2771.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0423.  Brown-Bey v. Reis.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Mark Petrucci, Jeffery M. Brown, and Edwin Skeens.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motions to strike documents filed April 26, 27, and 28 and May 5 and 22, 2023, denied as moot.  Respondent Allen Reis’s motion to strike relator’s complaint and/or the return of service as to Reis denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Allen Reis.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, DeWine, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs but would deny relator’s May 22 motion on the merits.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., concur but would deny the motions to strike on the merits.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0789.  State v. Seals.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0045, 2023-Ohio-1261 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

2023-0803.  State v. Perez.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111296, 2023-Ohio-83 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0820.  State v. Carbaugh.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0050, 2023-Ohio-1269 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0824.  State v. Morckel.

Columbiana App. No. 22 CO 0024, 2023-Ohio-1473 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0340.  State v. Twiley.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0007, 2022-Ohio-4751 .

 

2023-0528.  State v. Cox.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 111636, 111640, and 111651, 2023-Ohio-377 .

 

2023-0543.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110742, 2023-Ohio-380 .  Appeal and cross-appeal denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., would accept the cross-appeal.

 Stewart, J., would accept the appeal.

 

2023-0680.  Farris v. Mill Creek Metro. Park Dist.

Mahoning App. No. 22MA00008, 2023-Ohio-1214 .

 

2023-0681.  Wright State Univ. v. Wright State Univ. Chapter of the Am. Assn. of Univ. Professors.

Greene App. No. 2022-CA-54, 2023-Ohio-1238 .

 

2023-0685.  Johnson v. Toledo Bd. of Edn.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1094, 2023-Ohio-1306 .

 

2023-0688.  State v. Barron.

Warren App. No. CA2022-09-059, 2023-Ohio-1249 .

 

2023-0694.  Burks v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn.

Montgomery App. No. 29583, 2023-Ohio-1227 .

 

2023-0695.  State ex rel. Ames v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Geauga App. No. 2022-G-0021, 2023-Ohio-1247 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0696.  State v. Hughkeith.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111647, 2023-Ohio-1217 .

 Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. V and VI and hold the cause for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt.

 

2023-0697.  State v. Lauck.

Hancock App. No. 5-22-07, 2023-Ohio-1433 .

 

2023-0698.  In re E.G.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0058, 2023-Ohio-1277 .

 

2023-0701.  State v. Tornstrom.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0025, 2023-Ohio-763 .

 

2023-0703.  State v. Rice.

Hamilton App. No. C-150191, 2015-Ohio-5481 .

 

2023-0715.  Frank v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Ctr.

Hamilton App. No. C-220242, 2023-Ohio-1255 .

 

2023-0718.  State v. Sisson.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0024, 2023-Ohio-1273 .

 

2023-0721.  Holly v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111214, 2022-Ohio-3236 .

 

2023-0730.  Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C. v. Johnson.

Clermont App. No. CA2022-09-049, 2023-Ohio-1319 .

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0752.  Halpern v. Smith.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111896, 2023-Ohio-1370 .

 

2023-0775.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111991, 2023-Ohio-1482 .

 

2023-0781.  State v. Bender.

Union App. No. 14-22-23, 2023-Ohio-1531 .

 

2023-0784.  Tentman v. Barbarette.

Hamilton App. No. C-220391.

 

2023-0807.  State v. Hutsenpiller.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0087, 2023-Ohio-1540 .

 

2023-0817.  State v. McCloud.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011873.

 

2023-0818.  State v. Barker.

Hamilton App. No. C-230173.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating. 

 

2023-0835.  State v. Flenner.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0003, 2022-Ohio-2831 .

 

2023-0837.  State v. Flenner.

Trumbull App. No. 2017-T-0054, 2018-Ohio-1027 .

 

2023-0842.  Scott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-387, 2023-Ohio-1647 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2023-0415.  Wasmver Dev. Corp. v. Link.

Knox App. No. 23CA000003.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1442, 2023-Ohio-1830 , 210 N.E.3d 549.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

2023-0476.  State v. Tubbs.

Miami App. No. 2015-CA-14, 2016-Ohio-842 .  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2023-Ohio-1979, 211 N.E.3d 131.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0491.  State v. Brand.

Butler App. No. CA2021-08-093, 2023-Ohio-557 .  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2023-Ohio-1979, 211 N.E.3d 134.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 10, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/10/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2766.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Harris.

On motions for leave to institute legal proceedings.  Motions denied.

 

2023-0354.  Snodgrass v. O’Leary.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2022-1247 and 2022-1296.  On joint motion of appellee Nexus Gas Transmission, L.L.C., and amicus curiae Margaretta Local School District for oral argument.  Motion stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.07(A)(2).

 

2023-0793.  In re Application of Harvey Solar I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 21-164-EL-BGN.  On Harvey Solar I, L.L.C.’s motion for leave to intervene as appellee.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 9, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/09/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2750.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1112.  State v. Jones.

Erie App. No. E-19-065, 2021-Ohio-2621 .  On appellant’s motion for leave to file corrections or additions to previously filed documents.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0493.  State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-294, 2023-Ohio-633 .  On amicus curiae Ohio Association for Justice’s motion for leave to file corrected brief.  Motion granted.

 

2023-0647.  Emerson v. Facebook.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to submit within 14 days a written request for ordinary-mail service pursuant to Civ.R. 4.6(D) or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service on respondent Shaquille O’Neal.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0765.  State ex rel. Dinger v. Hearth.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/07/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-2733.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0687.  State ex rel. LaChapelle v. Harkey, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2723.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/08/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2731.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0862.  Townsend v. Gaul.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112510, 2023-Ohio-1485 .  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0949.  Epling v. State.

Miscellaneous case.  Sua sponte, relators ordered to submit within 14 days a request for issuance of an additional summons at an alternative address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service on respondent Mount Carmel Hospital.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0598.  State v. Rydarowicz.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0087, 2023-Ohio-916 .  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due August 4, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0659.  State v. Kovach.

Geauga App. No. 2022-G-0027, 2023-Ohio-1085 .  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due July 20, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss jurisdictional appeal denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0727.  State ex rel. J.H. v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112825, 2023-Ohio-1902 .  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due July 31, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0959.  State ex rel. Culgan v. Jefferson Cty. Clerk of Courts.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/07/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2716.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0946.  Giroux v. Commt. Representing the Petitioners with Respect to the Initiative Petition Proposing an Amendment to the Ohio Constitution Entitled the Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response to relators’ motion pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.06(B) for leave to file rebuttal evidence on Tuesday, August 8, 2023, by 9:00 a.m.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/07/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2707.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF AUGUST 7, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the August 7, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2017-1416.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Horton, 170 Ohio St.3d 1281, 2020-Ohio-407.

 

2019-0299.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Grego, 170 Ohio St.3d 1283, 2020-Ohio-4426.

 

2020-0068.  In re Ivsan, 170 Ohio St.3d 1279, 2020-Ohio-120.

 

2020-0415.  State v. Bond, 170 Ohio St.3d 316, 2022-Ohio-4150.

 

2020-0700.  State v. P.J.F., 170 Ohio St.3d 332, 2022-Ohio-4152.

 

2020-0726.  State v. Leegrand, 170 Ohio St.3d 304, 2022-Ohio-3623.

 

2021-0203.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Forsthoefel, 170 Ohio St.3d 292, 2022-Ohio-3580.

 

2021-1254.  State v. Bortree, 170 Ohio St.3d 310, 2022-Ohio-3890.

 

2021-1479.  State ex rel. Walmart, Inc. v. Hixson, 170 Ohio St.3d 338, 2022-Ohio-4187.

 

2022-0409.  State ex rel. Andrews v. Lake Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 170 Ohio St.3d 354, 2022-Ohio-4189.

 

22-AP-123.  In re Disqualification of Robinson, 170 Ohio St.3d 1283, 2022-Ohio-4490.

 

23-AP-009.  In re Disqualification of Bickerton, 170 Ohio St.3d 1286, 2023-Ohio-1104.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0856.  Emerson v. Kreiger.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, respondent Gail Kreiger’s motion to dismiss filed on August 1, 2023, stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(A)(1).

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 3, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/03/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2685.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0244.  State ex rel. Fair Housing Opportunities of Northwest Ohio v. Ohio Fair Plan, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2667.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-351, 2022-Ohio-385 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., concurs in judgment only.

 

2022-0733 and 2022-0734.  State v. Jordan, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2666.

Scioto App. No. 20CA3936, 2022-Ohio-1480 .  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only.

 DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J.

 

2023-0135.  State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2668.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0046, 2023-Ohio-263 .  Writ denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0386.  In re Boyuk.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt.  Motion granted.

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-1511.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Stobbs.

Sua sponte, Brent Clark Stobbs, Attorney Registration No. 0041262, last known business address in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his attorney-registration card and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before June 26, 2023.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/02/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2680.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0226.  United States Monarchy v. Graham.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, stay lifted and relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this cause should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service on respondents.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/01/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2664.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0760.  Pottinger v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0778.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Bracy.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion to expedite consideration of the petition.  Motion denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., concur but would deny the motion on the merits. 

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

 

2023-0787.  Harrell v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0710.  State v. Taylor.

Knox App. No. 21CA000023, 2022-Ohio-3754 .  On amended motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0713.  State v. Logan.

Stark App. No. 2022 CA 00062, 2022-Ohio-4383 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0719.  State v. Alexander.

Allen App. No. 1-22-11, 2023-Ohio-123 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0750.  State v. Chinn.

Montgomery App. No. 11835.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0755.  State v. Worley.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111648, 2023-Ohio-530 .  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0654.  State v. Glover.

Hamilton App. No. C-220088, 2023-Ohio-1153 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Deters, JJ., would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-1033, State v. Gwynne.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0258.  State v. Hill.

Stark App. No. 2017CA00183, 2018-Ohio-3901 .

 

2023-0615.  Hall v. Silver.

Summit App. No. 30587.

 

2023-0620.  Home Preferred Home Care, Ltd. v. Arnold.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00122, 2023-Ohio-1059

 

2023-0625.  Jones v. Jones.

Geauga App. No. 2022-G-0032, 2023-Ohio-989 .

 

2023-0632.  Taxiputinbay, L.L.C. v. Put-in-Bay.

Ottawa App. No. OT-22-020, 2023-Ohio-1237 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0638.  Drummond v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-100, 2023-Ohio-283 .

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-0641.  Shaver v. Peters.

Erie App. No. E-22-0028.

 

2023-0642.  Kinzel v. Ebner.

Erie App. No. E-21-036, 2023-Ohio-164 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0645.  State v. Brenson.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAA 07 0054, 2023-Ohio-1259 .  Appellant’s motion for relief denied.

 Stewart, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

 

2023-0652.  State v. Ross.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011729, 2023-Ohio-1185 .

 

2023-0657.  Venture Real Estate Group, L.L.C. v. Bush.

Montgomery App. No. 29728.

 

2023-0660.  State v. Brockmeier.

Butler App. No. CA-2023-01 -010.

 

2023-0664.  State v. Miller.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111785, 2023-Ohio-1141 .

 

 

2023-0665.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. Nos. 23AP-204, 23AP-205, and 23AP-214.

 

2023-0679.  State v. Lipkins.

Stark App. Nos. 2022 CA 00053 and 2022 CA 00054.

 

2023-0682.  State v. Fisk.

Montgomery App. No. 28798, 2023-Ohio-1228 .

 

2023-0683.  State v. Bond.

Montgomery App. No. 29516, 2023-Ohio-1226 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-0706.  State v. Lusane.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0040, 2023-Ohio-766 .

 

2023-0717.  State v. Baker.

Summit App. No. 30263, 2023-Ohio-1266 .

 

2023-0761.  State v. Curry.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111948, 2023-Ohio-1571 .

 

2023-0774.  State v. Wright.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-246.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1217.  State ex rel. Cartwright v. Ohio Adult Parole Bd.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-62, 2022-Ohio-2934 .  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1717, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1220.  State ex rel. Allenbaugh v. Sezon.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0002, 2022-Ohio-1718 .  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1754, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0316.  Anderson v. Regel.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1434, 2023-Ohio-1769, 210 N.E.3d 528.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0327.  Armatas v. Aultman Hosp.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00133, 2022-Ohio-4577 .  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1429, 2023-Ohio-1665, 209 N.E.3d 717.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0344.  Campbell v. Campbell.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-11.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1429, 2023-Ohio-1665, 209 N.E.3d 718.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0358.  Plishka v. Skurla.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111122, 2022-Ohio-4744 .  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1430, 2023-Ohio-1665, 209 N.E.3d 720.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would grant the motion as to proposition of law No. I.

Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 31, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/31/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-2663.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0693.  In re Application of Kingwood Solar I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 21-117-EL-BGN.  On appellee’s motion to suspend briefing schedule.  Motion granted.  Briefing schedule suspended pending this court’s decision on appellee’s motion to dismiss.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/01/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2662.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0014.  Highland Tavern, L.L.C. v. DeWine, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2577.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-176, 2023-Ohio-4067 .  Judgment vacated and cause remanded to the trial court.

Baldwin, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and Byrne and Stewart, JJ., concur in judgment only.

Deters, J., concurs in paragraphs 32 through 34 of the opinion announcing the judgment of the court and otherwise concurs in judgment only.

Craig R. Baldwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

Matthew R. Byrne, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

2022-0515.  State v. Tancak, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2578.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011725, 2022-Ohio-880 .  Case dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart and Deters, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Fischer and Deters, JJ.

Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 31, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/31/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2627.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0522.  State v. Beasley.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-040, 2023-Ohio-670 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} The core of every criminal trial is the same: the state presents to a neutral jury its theory of guilt, which it believes proves a defendant committed the offenses with which he is charged.  This process is consistent, no matter the alleged offenses or the circumstances of the particular case.  Similarly, every plea of “not guilty” is a criminal defendant’s denial of the state’s theory on factual grounds, legal grounds, or both.  When presenting its theory, the state’s burden is to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, using evidence “that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon * * * in the most important of the person’s own affairs.”  R.C. 2901.05(E).  The evidence sometimes includes the testimony of expert witnesses.  See generally Evid.R. 702.  In his request that this court exercise its jurisdiction and accept his appeal, appellant, William Beasley, asks us to consider how far an expert may go when providing opinion testimony about the ultimate issue before a finder of fact.  Because I believe that this question warrants this court’s attention, I dissent from the court’s decision not to exercise jurisdiction.

2                    {¶ 2} The state charged Beasley with murder under R.C. 2903.02(B), with the predicate offense of endangering children under R.C. 2919.22(B)(1), for the death of his one-month-old son.  At the time of the infant’s death, he had sustained multiple injuries, including “head bleeds”

 

1                    and multiple broken bones.  2023-Ohio-670, ¶ 15.  During the investigation into the infant’s death, Beasley acknowledged that he might have been a “ ‘a little rough’ ” when he handled or picked up the infant.  Id. at ¶ 31-32.  But Beasley insisted that any injuries were accidental—that he never intended to harm the child—and that he did not realize he might have hurt the child.  Id.

2                    {¶ 3} Beasley’s trial was a true battle of the experts.  The state presented several medical practitioners who testified to the nature and extent of the infant’s injuries.  These experts further testified to the cause of those injuries, stating repeatedly that the injuries resulted from  “ ‘nonaccidental trauma,’ ” id. at ¶ 16, 21, “ ‘child abuse,’ ” id. at ¶ 20, 28-29, or “ ‘abusive  trauma,’ ” id. at ¶ 20.  Beasley presented alternative explanations for the injuries, offering the testimony of three medical experts, each of whom provided opinions that did not attribute the injuries to another person’s actions.  In short, the jury was asked to decide which explanation for the infant’s fatal injuries it believed.  And that is the source of the legal question here.

3                    {¶ 4} An individual endangers a child, thereby violating R.C. 2919.22(B)(1), when he “[a]buses [a] child” under 18 years old.  In testifying that the infant’s injuries resulted from child abuse, the state’s expert witnesses touched on an element of the offense of which the jury was to decide Beasley’s guilt.

4                    {¶ 5} Under the Ohio Rules of Evidence, “[e]xpert testimony is admissible if it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.”  State v. Bidinost, 71 Ohio St.3d 449, 454, 644 N.E.2d 318 (1994), citing State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108, 118, 545 N.E.2d 1220 (1985); see Evid.R. 702.  The rules also allow experts to provide opinion testimony that embraces the ultimate issue facing the trier of fact.  Evid.R. 704.  But even when Rule 704 permits an expert’s opinions to touch on the ultimate issue, it does not exempt that testimony from the other evidence rules.  Id. (requiring that opinion evidence on the ultimate fact be “otherwise admissible” under the rules); Schaffter v. Ward, 17 Ohio St.3d 79, 81, 477 N.E.2d 1116 (1985).  Thus, expert testimony on an ultimate issue should still be ruled inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that it will confuse the issues, create unfair prejudice, or mislead the jury.  See Evid.R. 403(A).

5                    {¶ 6} When a criminal defendant invokes his right to a jury trial, it becomes the jury’s task to determine whether the defendant is “guilty of all the elements of the crime[s] with which he is charged.”  United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 511, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995).  Expert testimony opining on the ultimate issue can help the jury carry out its

 

1                    constitutional role.  In doing so, expert testimony aligns with its purpose under the Rules of Evidence—helping a layperson understand matters beyond her knowledge or experience.  See Evid.R. 702(A); see also Staff Note to Evid.R. 704 (“the effect of the rule is not to admit all opinion on the ultimate issue, but to assure that helpful opinion on the ultimate issue is not automatically excluded”).

2                    {¶ 7} But opinion evidence, garbed in the trappings of expertise and specialized knowledge, can just as easily risk telling the trier of fact what result he should reach.  This is especially true when, as here, the expert testimony closely tracks and even mimics the statutory language defining the charged offense.  In such cases, the expert testimony risks giving the jury a legal conclusion about whether a defendant’s alleged conduct satisfies one of the charged offense’s elements rather than simply helping the jury carry out its constitutional task of determining guilt.  See State v. Reeds, 197 N.J. 280, 295-296, 962 A.2d 1087 (2009).

3                    {¶ 8} Expert testimony can also have an outsized influence in cases like Beasley’s, which deal with difficult subject matters.  At the center of this case is a dead child and a father who—while maintaining his innocence—has been charged with causing that child’s death.  These cases ask juries to sift through the natural emotion arising from such sad facts to determine—objectively—a defendant’s guilt or innocence.  When a jury is faced with deciding the ultimate issue., “an expert will often represent the only seemingly objective source, offering [the jury] a much sought-after hook on which to hang its hat.”  People v. Beckley, 434 Mich. 691, 722, 456 N.W.2d 391 (1990) (lead opinion).

4                    {¶ 9} Given these considerations, it follows that expert testimony might not influence a jury in a manner permitted under the Rules of Evidence.  A group of laypeople hears a witness—who has no vested interest in the case and who is cloaked in the mantle of science or other expertise—opine about the facts of a case and how those facts relate to the question of guilt the jurors are to answer.  Despite the objectivity that the expert offers a jury, the reality is that the expert was not present when the crime of which the defendant is accused was allegedly committed.  Nor is it the expert’s job, under the Rules of Evidence or the Constitution, to decide whether the defendant is guilty—that task is entrusted to the jury.  But when the expert’s testimony describes a defendant’s alleged acts or a victim’s injuries in ways mimicking or using the statutory language setting forth an element of a charged offense, the expert risks invading the jury’s constitutionally established domain.

 

1                    {¶ 10} Considering the prevalence of expert testimony, I believe we have a responsibility to clarify the extent expert testimony may opine on the ultimate issue before a trier of fact, especially when that testimony uses the statutory language setting out the elements of a charged crime.  Beasley’s request that this court accept his appeal places this issue before us.  This question touches on the constitutional protections for criminal defendants, and the answer could have wide-reaching effects on criminal trials in our state.  Because a majority of the court believes otherwise, I respectfully dissent from the decision not to accept Beasley’s appeal.

 

STEWART and BRUNNER, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 31, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/31/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2626.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0885.  Roberts v. Kennedy.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to submit within 14 days a request for issuance of an additional summons at an alternative address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service on respondent Mike DeWine.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 08/02/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2600.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0304.  Stingray Pressure Pumping, L.L.C. v. Harris, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2598.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2015-1465 and 2015-1823.  Decision affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only.

 Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2022-1518.  State ex rel. Sands v. Lake Cty. Common Pleas Court, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2599.

Marion App. No. 9-22-36.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1479.  Estate of Dates v. Hamilton Cty. Courthouse.

In Quo Warranto.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Hamilton County Courthouse, Court of Common Pleas Judge Leslie Ghiz, Judge Terry Nestor, and Magistrate Anita Berding, Clerk of Courts Pavan V. Parikh, Court Administrator Patrick X. Dressing, Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey, and Sheriff’s Deputy Rick Snow and Lawrence C. Baron; Carpenter, Lipps & Leland, L.L.P.; and HSBC Bank USA, N.A.  Motions granted.  Relator’s “notice/order of writ of error” denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to all remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0102.  Emerson v. FBI Interstate.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s objection to case dismissal.  Objection denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0139.  Emerson v. United States Dist. Court.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Interstate Building Maintenance and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent United States District Court.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0333.  State ex rel. Jenkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0557.  State ex rel. Dinger v. State.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0563.  State v. McCladdie.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondent state of Ohio.  Motion granted.  Relator’s amended motion to change venue and motion to stay denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to all remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed. 

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0566.  State ex rel. Barksdale v. Cuyahoga Cty.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion to enter supplemental pleading denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0583.  State ex rel. Stith v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0591.  State v. Horsley.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0597.  Tschudy v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2023-0599.  State ex rel. Fuller v. Chambers-Smith.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2023-0623.  State ex rel. Beall v. Solle.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0643.  Baksi v. Cupach.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0757.  State ex rel. Parcell v. Puskarich.

In Procedendo.  On relators’ motion to restrict public access to all exhibits attached to the complaint.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0758.  State ex rel. Parcell v. Harrison Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div.

In Procedendo.  On relators’ motion to restrict public access to all exhibits attached to the complaint.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

1997-2020.  State v. Chinn.

Montgomery App. No. 16206.  On appellee’s motion to set execution date.  Motion granted.  Sentence ordered to be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the deputy warden on Thursday, March 18, 2027, in accordance with the statutes so provided.

 

1998-1891.  State v. Jones.

Hamilton App. No. C970043.  On appellee’s motion to vacate execution date.  Motion granted.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

2020-0486.  Habibi v. Univ. of Toledo.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-583, 2020-Ohio-766 .  On appellant’s motion to reopen.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0398.  Armengau v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion for leave to file amended petition/complaint granted.  Respondent may file a response, if any, to the amended complaint within 21 days.

Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent and would grant the motion to dismiss and deny as moot the motion for leave. 

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-0428.  Karmasu v. DiMarco.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s emergency notice in re jurisdiction, address change, and other relief.  Notice denied.  Petitioner’s request for clarification of May 9, 2023 decision denied.

 

2023-0484.  State ex rel. Hutchinson v. Sehlmeyer.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.  Motion granted.  Respondent may file a response, if any, to the amended complaint within 21 days.

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0619.  State ex rel. Weathersby v. Mihalik.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  The parties shall brief the issue whether the timing of respondent’s response to relator’s public-records request was reasonable.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0631.  Phoenix Lighting Group, L.L.C. v. Genlyte Thomas Group, L.L.C.

Summit App. No. 30303, 2023-Ohio-1079 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 29, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/29/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2629.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0946.  Giroux v. Commt. Representing the Petitioners with Respect to the Initiative Petition Proposing an Amendment to the Ohio Constitution Entitled the Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution.  This case shall proceed as provided for in S.Ct.Prac.R. 14.01, and the clerk of the court shall serve a summons and copy of the challenge on all respondents listed on the challenge.

 Relators’ emergency motion to expedite scheduling and respondents’ responses granted.  The following schedule is set for the filing of briefs and evidence: respondents shall file their answers on Monday, July 31, 2023, by 4:00 p.m.; relators shall file their evidence and brief on Tuesday, August 1, 2023, by 4:00 pm.; respondents shall file their evidence and briefs on Friday, August 4, 2023, by 4:00 p.m.; and relators shall file their reply brief on Monday, August 7, 2023, by 4:00 p.m.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  No motions to dismiss or motions for judgment on the pleadings shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any such motions.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/28/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2628.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0946.  Giroux v. Commt. Representing the Petitioners with Respect to the Initiative Petition Proposing an Amendment to the Ohio Constitution Entitled the Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to relators’ emergency motion to expedite scheduling no later than 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, July 29, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/27/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2574.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0487.  State v. Mowery.

Henry App. No. 7-22-06, 2023-Ohio-563 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

                        {¶ 1} This appeal provides a much-needed opportunity to revive the robust standard of review that should be applied when trial judges interject themselves into plea negotiations in criminal cases.  I dissent from this court’s decision not to exercise jurisdiction. {¶ 3} A trial judge’s sentencing power “presents a great potential for coerced guilty pleas and can easily compromise the impartial position a trial judge should assume.”  State v. Byrd, 63 Ohio St.2d 288, 293, 407 N.E.2d 1384 (1980).  Misuse of the sentencing power, or even the appearance of such misuse, is unacceptable for any purpose—including the purpose of clearing a lagging case from the docket.  United States v. Stockwell, 472 F.2d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir.1973) (“courts must not use the sentencing power as a carrot and stick to clear congested calendars”).

                        {¶ 4} Whether or not a trial judge intends to coerce a defendant into pleading guilty, the threat of a longer sentence absent a plea is inherently coercive.  See United States v. Braxton, 784 F.3d 240, 245 (4th Cir.2015); United States v. Markin, 263 F.3d 491, 498 (6th Cir.2001); United States v. Cano-Varela, 497 F.3d 1122, 1133 (10th Cir.2007); United States v. Allen, 305 Fed.Appx. 654, 656 (11th Cir.2008).  A judge’s mere “participation in the actual [plea] bargaining process presents a high potential for coercion.”  Byrd at 292.  “Coercion is avoided when a judge does not initiate a discussion of the sentence, and when a judge does not speculate on the sentencing consequences of future procedural contingencies.”  State v. Azeen, 163 Ohio St.3d 447, 2021-Ohio-1735, 170 N.E.3d 864, ¶ 27, fn. 3, quoting People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich. 276, 284, 505 N.W.2d 208 (1993).  Coercion is not avoided when trial judges “state or imply alternative sentencing possibilities on the basis of future procedural choices, such as an exercise of the defendant’s right to trial by jury or by the court.”  Cobbs at 283.

                        {¶ 5} The trial judge who accepted Mowery’s guilty plea did not merely answer questions during the parties’ plea negotiations, nor did he merely play a minor participatory role while observing the parties’ negotiations.  The trial judge’s statements give the strong impression that he was soliciting Mowery’s guilty plea and threatening to impose a longer prison term if Mowery were to exercise his right to trial by jury and receive a guilty verdict.  Additionally, the judge’s threat appears to have been motivated by a desire to dispose of the case as quickly as possible.

                        {¶ 6} Despite the problems with Mowery’s plea process that are apparent in Mowery’s filings with this court, the Third District Court of Appeals declared that “the statements made by the trial court during the pretrial, while possibly inartful, were not coercive.”  2023-Ohio-563 at ¶ 9.  The appellate court additionally held that Mowery’s plea could not have been coerced, because Mowery indicated during his Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy that “he had not been threatened into agreeing to the plea.”  2023-Ohio-563 at ¶ 9.

                        {¶ 7} To begin with, a blatant threat of a longer sentence cannot be cured by having the defendant say, “I was not threatened,” any more than a venomous snakebite can be cured by having the victim say, “I was not bitten.”  A rote call-and-response recitation of Crim.R. 11 is nothing more than a charade in such a context.  See United States v. Braxton, 784 F.3d 240, 245 (4th Cir.2015) (“a defendant's mere statement that his plea was voluntary, made in response to questioning by the very judge whose apparent preferences raised the specter of coercion in the first place, cannot dispel that concern [that the plea was involuntary]”).

                        {¶ 8} Similarly, the fact that the trial court’s statements appear to be coercive is not cured by simply reframing the statements with softer words like “inartful.”  When a trial judge interjects himself into a criminal defendant’s plea-negotiations process, the judge’s participation “must be carefully scrutinized to determine if the judge’s intervention affected the voluntariness of the defendant’s guilty plea.”  Byrd, 63 Ohio St.2d at 293, 407 N.E. 2d 1384.  If the judge’s statements could possibly lead a defendant to believe that he would not be treated fairly if he were to exercise his right to a jury trial, “the plea should be held to be involuntary and void under the Fifth Amendment and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”  Id. at 293-294.

                        {¶ 9} The problems with Mowery’s plea process strike me as a clear symptom of the intense pressure that our criminal-justice system puts on defendants to enter pleas instead of daring to burden the system by exercising their basic constitutional rights.  The pressure to plead is so great that trial judges seem to feel increasingly comfortable with superintending such pressure in open court and punishing defendants who do not submit.  It only further emboldens trial courts to coerce pleas and to impose trial taxes when courts of appeals minimize such conduct by describing it as “inartful,” or “intemperate,” and when this court does the same.  See, e.g., State v. Rahab, 150 Ohio St.3d 152, 2017-Ohio-1401, 80 N.E.3d 431, ¶ 26-27 (dismissing as “intemperate” the trial court’s statements, when imposing a longer prison term after the defendant rejected a plea offer of a much shorter prison term and chose to go to trial: “[G]uess what, you lost your gambling.  You did this.  * * * You wanted to go to trial.  All right, big winner you are”).

                        {¶ 10} It is certainly unacceptable that plea coercion might evade meaningful appellate review through the secrecy of backroom plea deals at the trial level, but it is also unacceptable that potential coercion may evade meaningful review via euphemisms and denialism at the appellate level.  We should take this opportunity to reinvigorate the inquiry into the validity of

                        criminal defendants’ pleas when trial courts initiate or participate in the plea-negotiations process.  Because I would accept Mowery’s jurisdictional appeal, I dissent.

 

{¶ 2} The trial judge who accepted the guilty plea of appellant, Nathan Mowery, was one of a series of judges who had been assigned to the case.  At a pretrial hearing that took place over one year after Mowery’s indictment, the judge expressed frustration at how long the case had dragged on, saying, “[T]his case would be completely over with by now if I was handling this from start to finish.”  2023-Ohio-563, ¶ 5.  The trial judge told Mowery at the pretrial hearing that it was the last day that he would accept a plea on the single, second-degree felony count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.  The judge informed Mowery that if Mowery were to exercise his right to a jury trial and lose, he would immediately impose a lengthy prison term based on his personal views of the nature of the charge.  The judge stated in open court: “ ‘Some people may think because some states have legitimized marijuana that this isn’t a big deal, it’s a big deal to me and anybody that is convicted will get eight to twelve, and * * * the jury will be sitting there when I impose the sentence.’ ”  Id.  Mowery entered a guilty plea later that day.  The trial court ultimately imposed a prison term of six to nine years.

 

BRUNNER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/27/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2573.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0055.  In re Application of Firelands Wind, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2555.

Power Siting Board, No. 18-1607-EL-BGN.  Order affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1495.  State ex rel. Maron v. Corrigan, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2556.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112130, 2022-Ohio-4406 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 26, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/26/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2566.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1496 and 2021-0532.  State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535.

Logan App. No. 8-20-01, 2020-Ohio-5048 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J.

 

2022-0543.  State ex rel. Ware v. Parikh, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2536.

Hamilton App. No. C-190563.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant awarded $700 in statutory damages.   

Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and concurs in judgment only in part, with an opinion.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1069.  State v. Taylor.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-396, 2022-Ohio-2877 .  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellant.

 

2022-1182.  State v. Brown.

Hamilton App. No. C-210355, 2022-Ohio-2752 .  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellant.

 

2022-1251.  In re Z.C.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0014, 2022-Ohio-3199 .  On motion of amicus curiae N.H. for leave to present oral argument.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae N.H. shall share time allotted to appellant.

 

2023-0764.  State ex rel. Am. Oversight v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Benjamin A. Sparks.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0474.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. James.

Sua sponte, Krishna James, Attorney Registration No. 0089891, last known business address in Youngstown, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before June 21, 2023.  

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

 The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0887.  State ex rel. Clayton Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Harrison Cty. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 25, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/25/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2554.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1469.  State ex rel. Balunek v. Marchbanks, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2517.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.  Relator’s request for attorney fees denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0262.  Olmsted Twp. v. Ritchie, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2516.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110107 and 110108, 2022-Ohio-124 .  Judgment reversed and trial-court order reinstated.

Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/24/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2518.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JULY 24, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the July 24, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1141.  In re Searl, 170 Ohio St.3d 1263, 2020-Ohio-4564.

 

2020-1187.  State v. Campbell, 170 Oho St.3d 278, 2022-Ohio-3626.

 

2020-1281.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Downing, 170 Ohio St.3d 1265, 2020-Ohio-5297.

 

2020-1335.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Atkins, 170 Ohio St.3d 1274, 2022-Ohio-1651.

 

2020-1515.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chambers, 170 Ohio St.3d 1271, 2021-Ohio-2729.

 

2021-0007.  State ex rel. Bowman v. Indus. Comm., 170 Ohio St.3d 270, 2022-Ohio-233.

 

2021-0260.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Armstrong, 170 Ohio St.3d 1268, 2021-Ohio-1219.

 

2021-0765.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Pertee, 170 Ohio St.3d 1274, 2022-Ohio-2406.

 

2022-1215.  In re Resignation of Simmons, 170 Ohio St.3d 1275, 2022-Ohio-3834.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0228.  State ex rel. Hillman v. Klatt.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motion to take judicial notice.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031 .  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Michael A. Kotula.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0809.  Caldwell v. Whirlpool Corp.

Marion App. No. 9-22-61, 2023-Ohio-1530 .  Appellee’s memorandum in response to jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 17 of the memorandum in response to jurisdiction stricken.

 

2023-0871.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Bitenbinder.

On relator’s motion for issuance of show-cause order.  Respondent, Olga Bitenbinder, ordered to show cause by filing with the clerk of this court within ten days a written response explaining why she should not be held in contempt.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0592.  Burch v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAE 04 0029, 2023-Ohio-912 .  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 21, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/21/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2499.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0797.  In re Resignation of Ancona.

On application for retirement or resignation of Perry Leslie Ancona, Attorney Registration No. 0021137, last known business address in Madeira, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/20/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2495.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0656.  Page v. Geauga Cty. Probate & Juvenile Court, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2491.

In Procedendo and Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Geauga County Probate and Juvenile Court, Judge Timothy J. Grendell, and Judge Debra L. Boros.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Richard Sherrick.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/20/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2478.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0004.  Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

Hamilton App. No. C-220504, 2022-Ohio-4540 .  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Skye Perryman, Madeline H. Gitomer, and Molly Meegan.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031 .  On motions for admission pro hac vice of James P. Ruggeri, Joshua D. Weinberg, Joshua P. Mayer, and Lawrence A. Levy.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0621.  State v. Hale.

Licking App. No. 2022 CA 00043, 2023-Ohio-1057 .  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

2023-0687.  State ex rel. LaChapelle v. Harkey.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss and/or for judgment on the pleadings.  Motion denied as moot.  Relator’s motion for leave to file amended complaint denied as moot.  Under Civ.R. 15(A), relator was not required to seek leave to file an amended complaint.  Relator’s amended complaint was filed on

June 30, 2023.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file a response, if any, to the amended complaint within seven days.

 

2023-0830.  Riccardi v. Supreme Court of Ohio.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, brief of nonparty Carol Yee in opposition to writ of prohibition stricken as Carol Yee is not a party to this cause and has not sought intervention in accordance with Civ.R. 24.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/18/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2453.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0649.  In re Letter of Notification Application of Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.

Power Siting Board, Nos. 22-1145-EL-BLN and 22-1145-GA-BLN.  On Columbia Gas of Ohio’s motion for leave to intervene as appellee.  Motion granted.

 

2023-0751.  State v. Myers.

Warren App. No. CA2023-01-013.  On appellant’s motion to continue appointment of counsel.  Motion granted.

 

2023-0838.  State v. Myers.

Warren App. No. CA2023-01-013.  On appellant’s motion to continue appointment of counsel.  Motion granted.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court. The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-1446.  Ramos v. Canton.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00076, 2022-Ohio-3642.  On joint motion for referral to mediation.  Motion granted.

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. Appellants/cross-appellees shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07. As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, this court may dismiss this case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.

 2023-0733.  Adams v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2015-1090, 2016-1061, 2017-1867, 2018-1143, 2019-1632, and 2020-1347.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 17, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/17/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2449.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0890.  Lackey v. Werner.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file a response, if any, to relator’s emergency motion for stay no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 18, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/18/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2407.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0689.  Tate v. Ghiz.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0650.  State v. White.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110452, 2022-Ohio-2130.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Donnelly and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0651.  State v. Graham.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0060, 2023-Ohio-1453.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0674.  State v. Wilson.

Licking App. No. 22 CA 00024, 2023-Ohio-419.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0677.  State v. Wood.

Perry App. No. 22-CA-00002, 2022-Ohio-3536.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0691.  State v. Austin.

Hardin App. No. 6-22-15.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0272.  State v. Rogers.

Erie App. Nos. E-21-027 and E-21-031, 2022-Ohio-4126.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. IV.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0552.  Rossi v. Atrium Med. Ctr.

Warren App. No. CA2022-05-027, 2023-Ohio-984.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0407 and 2022-0424, Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0559.  Harmon v. Cincinnati.

Hamilton App. No. C-220236, 2023-Ohio-788 .

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0565.  State v. Dotson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111880, 2023-Ohio-821.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0572.  State v. Jones.

Hamilton App. No. C-220007, 2023-Ohio-844 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0580.  Hicks v. Union Twp.

Clermont App. No. CA2022-10-057, 2023-Ohio-874 .

 Fischer, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0592.  Burch v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAE 04 0029, 2023-Ohio-912 .

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II only.

 

2023-0604.  State v. Taylor.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111694, 2023-Ohio-928.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0622.  State v. Riggins.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111773, 2023-Ohio-1043.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0684.  State v. Freshwater.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-071, 2023-Ohio-1248.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0558.  Sanders v. Renaissance Restoration, Ltd.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112318.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0560.  State v. McClure.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0048, 2023-Ohio-827 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0561.  State v. McClure.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0049, 2023-Ohio-828 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0564.  Van De Hey v. Ashtabula Cty. Aud.

Ashtabula App. No. 2021-A-0038, 2023-Ohio-346 .

 

2023-0573.  Silveous v. 5 Starr Salon & Spa, L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-456, 2023-Ohio-841 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and III. 

 

2023-0574.  State v. Penland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111531, 2023-Ohio-806 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

 

2023-0575.  Phillips v. Fetherolf.

Union App. No. 14-23-07.

 

2023-0576.  State v. Wilson.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0042, 2023-Ohio-830 .

 

2023-0578.  Horn v. Cherian.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111821, 2023-Ohio-931 .

 

2023-0586.  Cincinnati v. Fourth Natl. Realty, L.L.C.

Hamilton App. No. C-220209, 2023-Ohio-1012 .

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2023-0589.  State v. Tebelman.

Putnam App. No. 12-22-04, 2023-Ohio-882 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. II and III.

 

2023-0590.  Dudar v. Citizen Bank, N.A.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1157.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0594.  State v. Anderson.

Monroe App. No. 22 MO 0001, 2023-Ohio-1695.  Pro se motion to strike attorney Michael A. Partlow’s notice of appeal and memorandum in support of jurisdiction and to reinstate appellant’s filed notice of appeal and memorandum in support of jurisdiction pro se denied.

 DeWine, J., would grant the request to strike and would allow Partlow to ask for leave to file a delayed appeal.

Donnelly and Deters, JJ., would deny the motion as moot.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., would grant the motion.

 

2023-0600.  Helms v. Diefendorf.

Summit App. No. 30064, 2023-Ohio-911 .

 

2023-0606.  State v. Gates.

Hamilton App. No. C-230069.

 

2023-0609.  State v. Gregory.

Lucas App. Nos. L-21-1106 and L-21-1107, 2023-Ohio-331 .

 

2023-0616.  State v. O’Neil.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0030.

 

2023-0628.  State v. Moore.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0013, 2023-Ohio-1000 .

 

2023-0655.  State v. Gibson.

Hamilton App. No. C-220176, 2023-Ohio-1154 .

 Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

 

2023-0705.  State v. Meyer.

Ashland App. No. 22-COA-035, 2023-Ohio-1254 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2023-0134.  State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-91, 2022-Ohio-4534.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1636, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0241.  Miller v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111526.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1419, 2023-Ohio-1507, 208 N.E.3d 852.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0319.  State v. Casey.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0029, 2022-Ohio-2199.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2023-Ohio-1507, 208 N.E.3d 855.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0368.  State v. Christian.

Auglaize App. No. 2-21-14.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2023-Oho-1635, 209 N.E.3d 709.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0378.  State v. Hillman.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-741.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2023-Ohio-1507, 208 N.E.3d 856.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0404.  Cunning v. Windsor House, Inc.

Trumbull App. Nos. 2022-TR-0021 and 2022-TR-0050.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1430, 2023-Ohio-1665, 209 N.E.3d 721.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/12/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2363.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Guess.

On motion for leave to appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2012-0502.  State v. Potts.

Trumbull App. No. 2011-T-0054, 2012-Ohio-741.  On notice of the April 13, 2023 judgment entry of the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court to seal all official records pertaining to State v. Potts, Trumbull C.P. No. 1993-CR-00360.  The official records related to State v. Potts filed in this court shall be sealed.

 

2021-0226.  United States Monarchy v. Graham.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file within 14 days a notice that indicates whether the proceedings in federal court are still ongoing or the proceedings have been completed and the stay in this case may be lifted.

 

2023-0771.  CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-464 and 22AP-514, 2023-Ohio-1583.  On appellant’s motion for leave to file instanter second amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0805.  State ex rel. McCain v. Huffman.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to submit within 14 days a request for issuance of an additional summons at an alternative address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service on respondent Governor Mike DeWine.

 

2023-0831.  Rummell v. Chambers-Smith.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to submit within 14 days a request for issuance of an additional summons at an alternative address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service on respondent Andrea Miller.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0955.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Reed.

Sua sponte, Ryan Shane Reed, Attorney Registration No. 0084670, last known business address in Urbana, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before June 1, 2023.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0562.  Kamal v. Cook.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for the case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0764.  State ex. rel. American Oversight v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for referral to mediation.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/13/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2379.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0707.  State v. Stalder, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2359.

Fairfield App. No. 21-CA-26, 2022-Ohio-1386.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

 

2023-0026.  State ex rel. Missimer v. Forshey, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2355.

Noble App. No. 22 NO 0495, 2022-Ohio-4759 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0070.  State ex rel. Russell v. Yost, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2356.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-603, 2022-Ohio-4778 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re M.A.D.

On motion for leave to file motion to remove vexatious-litigator sanction, instanter.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/13/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2406.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0852.  Wade v. Adult Parole Auth.

In Prohibition and Habeas Corpus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/11/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2360.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0628.  Mill Creek Metro. Park Dist. Bd. of Commrs. v. Less, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2332.

Mahoning App. Nos. 20MA0074 and 20MA0082, 2022-Ohio-1289.  Judgment vacated and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1411.  State ex rel. Woods v. Heekin, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2334.

Hamilton App. No. C-220434.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-1473.  State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2333.

Hamilton App. No. C-220479.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0862.  Townsend v. Gaul.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112510, 2023-Ohio-1485.  On appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  This case originated in the court of appeals and therefore should proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.01.  The clerk shall issue an order for the transmission of the record from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/12/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2348.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0322.  Krewina v. United Specialty Ins. Co., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2343.

Hamilton App. No. C-210163, 2021-Ohio-4425.  Judgment reversed and trial court’s judgment reinstated.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

2022-1432.  State ex rel. Harris v. Bruns, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2344.

Montgomery App. No. 29278, 2022-Ohio-3661.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion for oral argument denied.  Appellees’ motion for leave to respond to appellant’s reply brief denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs in judgment only and would reach the merits and conclude that appellant has not shown a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0177.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Estadt, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2347.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-014.  John Robert Estadt, Attorney Registration No. 0016397, last known business address in St. Clairsville, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for six months.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1352.  Roberts v. Cannizzaro.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s civil motion to sue and “motion fictitious evidence of immunity practiced” denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0043.  Dean v. Thompson.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.  Motion denied.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss first amended complaint granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0173.  State ex rel. Walcutt v. Gormley.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss amended complaint.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0191.  Payne v. Martino.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

2023-0364.  Baksi v. Biden.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0391.  State ex rel. Feathers v. Wright.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0478.  State v. McCladdie.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0490.  Baksi v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0494.  State v. McCladdie.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for leave to amend motion to change venue.  Motion denied as moot.  Relator’s amended motion to change venue and amended motion to stay denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0499.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Witt.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and request for sanctions denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0527.  Bethel v. Sperlazza.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0529.  State ex rel. Weathersby v. Mihalik.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Motion granted as to respondent’s request for a writ and denied as to respondent’s request for statutory damages.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted as to respondent’s request for statutory damages.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

Fischer, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would grant the motion in full. 

 

2023-0542.  Wood v. Tracir Fin. Servs., Inc.

In Procedendo.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0549.  Taylor v. Johnson.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0554.  Baker v. McLaughlin.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0556.  State ex rel. Harwell v. Wiseman.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2023-0585.  Robinson v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0593.  Fudge v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0632.  State v. Bond.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110520, 2022-Ohio-1246.  On appellant’s motion for leave to withdraw assignments of error.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining proposition of law.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0138.  State ex rel. Ware v. Beggs.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for default judgment.  Application denied.  Relator’s motion for default judgment denied.  Respondent’s motion to set matter for briefing granted.  Alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2023-0244.  State ex rel. Black v. E. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2023-0270.  State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-554, 2023-Ohio-364.  On appellees’ emergency motion for an order to refrain from destruction of evidence at issue in appeal.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2023-0308.  State ex rel. Lakewood v. Strickland.

In Prohibition.  On motion of Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and Local 1043, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO to intervene as respondents.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss denied.  Sua sponte, respondent and intervening respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent and intervening respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  The parties are ordered to address in their merit briefs the issue whether the common pleas court’s jurisdiction to enforce an arbitration provision under R.C. 2711.03(A) applies to an arbitration provision contained in a collective-bargaining agreement under R.C. 4117.09(B)(1).

 

2023-0387.  State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2023-0424.  State ex rel. Ware v. Bryant.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for default judgment.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall

file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2023-0501.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Deters.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion to strike and request for sanctions denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted. The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would grant respondent’s motion.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0658.  State v. Palmer.

Hamilton App. No. C-220146, 2023-Ohio-1554.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0480.  State v. Maldonado.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110655, 2023-Ohio-522.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.

 Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 

2023-0514.  In re R.G.M.

Muskingum App. Nos. CT2022-0046 and CT2022-0047, 2023-Ohio-685 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0603.  State v. Davis.

Summit App. Nos. 30202, 30212, and 30213, 2023-Ohio-910.  Appellant’s motion to stay proceedings in this court and for limited remand to the court of appeals denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 10, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/10/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2336.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JULY 10, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the July 10, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1326.  Beachwood City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Warrensville Hts. City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 170 Ohio St.3d 246, 2022-Ohio-3071.

 

2022-0940.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Moody, 170 Ohio St.3d 1248, 2023-Ohio-131.

 

2022-1346.  McKitrick v. LaRose, 170 Ohio St.3d 269, 2023-Ohio-136.

 

2022-1531.  In re Resignation of Corcoran, 170 Ohio St.3d 1250, 2023-Ohio-130.

 

2023-0141.  In re Vick, 170 Ohio St.3d 1260, 2023-Ohio-298.

 

23-AP-002.  In re Disqualification of Winkler, 170 Ohio St.3d 1253, 2023-Ohio-698.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/07/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2318.]

 

 

 

MOTIONS AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0852.  Wade v. Adult Parole Auth.

In Prohibition and Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to file a response to respondents’ motion to dismiss no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 11, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/07/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2316.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0262.  Emerson v. Auto Warehousing Co.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service within the time period since the complaint was filed as to respondents E&K contractors/Bob Ewing and TV 11 Toledo/Brian Lorenzen.

 

2023-0361.  Emerson v. Northend Properties JS.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service within the time period since the complaint was filed as to respondents Caldwell Banker Haynes Real Estate/Owner and Northend Properties JS.

 

2023-0365.  Emerson v. Local 421.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service within the time period since the complaint was filed as to respondents Local 636 and Local 671.

 

2023-0647.  Emerson v. Facebook.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service within the time period since the complaint was filed as to respondent Austin FBI.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/06/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2280.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1041.  State ex rel. Dodson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2263.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-448, 2022-Ohio-2552.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motions to strike denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1178.  State ex rel. Casey v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2264.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0003, 2022-Ohio-2843.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellants’ motion to strike granted in part and denied in part and request for oral argument denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1337.  State ex rel. Atakpu v. Shuler, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2266.

Marion App. No. 9-21-33.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0004.  Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

Hamilton App. No. C-220504, 2022-Ohio-4540.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Samar Amidi, Suzan Charlton, and Kathryn Irwin Bronstein.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Arthur J. McColgan, Theodore Debonis, and Charles Scibetta.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1125.  State ex rel. Patituce & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Lucas Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0201.  State ex rel. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-119, 2022-Ohio-4774.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0577.  State ex rel. Hobbs v. Yurick.

Warren App. No. CA2023-02-019.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Appellant’s motion opposing court’s entry denying motion to stay case in abeyance denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 4, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/04/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2276.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0852.  Wade v. Adult Parole Auth.

In Prohibition and Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response to the complaint no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, July 7, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/05/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2267.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0567.  State ex rel. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2213.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-246, 2022-Ohio-1093.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1020.  In re C.C., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2216.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110651, 2022-Ohio-2264.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

DeWine, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 3, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/03/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2262.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0444.  State v. Teagarden.

Licking App. No. 22CA0105, 2023-Ohio-597 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 07/05/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2236.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0399.  State v. Long-Williams.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.  Petitioner’s amended motion for leave denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0627.  Townsend v. Foley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0666.  State ex rel. Nixon v. Forshey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0669.  White v. Foley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

2023-0671.  Ricks v. Mackey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0673.  State ex rel. McGee v. Forshey.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0675.  State ex rel. Scott v. Shoop.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTIONS AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0579.  State v. McBride.

Hamilton App. No. C-200443, 2023-Ohio-16.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion fails for want of four votes.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would grant the motion.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0598.  State v. Rydarowicz.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0087, 2023-Ohio-916.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0635.  State v. Wilson.

Montgomery App. No. 29349, 2023-Ohio-27.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0640.  State v. Obhof.

Ashtabula App. No. 2021-A-0021, 2023-Ohio-408.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0533.  State v. Rice.

Wood App. No. WD-22-022, 2023-Ohio-743.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

Brunner, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I only.

 

2023-0537.  State v. Barker.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111597, 2023-Ohio-453.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. VIII.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0539.  State v. Macklin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111117, 2022-Ohio-4400 .

Fischer, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., would hold the case for the decisions in 2022-1053, State v. Williams, and 2022-1069, State v. Taylor.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0570.  State v. Bell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111899, 2023-Ohio-822.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0621.  State v. Hale.

Licking App. No. 2022 CA 00043, 2023-Ohio-1057 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0093.  State v. Johnson.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00116, 2022-Ohio-4344 .

 

2023-0192.  State v. Ramilla.

Greene App. No. 2022-CA-35, 2022-Ohio-4318 .

 

2023-0302.  State v. Boyd.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0131, 2023-Ohio-271 .

 

2023-0486.  Lehman v. Starner.

Washington App. No. 23CA1.

 

2023-0489.  State v. Ludwick.

Highland App. No. 22CA9, 2023-Ohio-1446 .

 

2023-0492.  Armatas v. Plain Twp.

Stark App. No. 2022 CA 00039, 2023-Ohio-204 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0496.  Smith v. Javitch Block, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111532, 2023-Ohio-607 .

 

2023-0505.  State v. Allen.

Huron App. No. H-23-003.

 

2023-0506.  State v. Davison.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0047, 2023-Ohio-599 .

 

2023-0507.  State v. Cutlip.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0032, 2023-Ohio-914 .

 

2023-0510.  State v. Mayle.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0034, 2023-Ohio-684 .

 

2023-0511.  State v. Smith.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0041, 2023-Ohio-598 .

 

2023-0516.  Monroe v. Troy Strawberry Festival, Inc.

Miami App. No. 2022-CA-23, 2023-Ohio-650 .

 

2023-0517.  State v. Fry.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111545, 2023-Ohio-609 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0523.  State v. Dalton.

Belmont App. No. 22 BE 0028, 2023-Ohio-892 .

 

2023-0524.  State v. Brado.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0039, 2023-Ohio-1119 .

 

2023-0531.  State ex rel. Betton v. Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Erie App. Nos. E-22-001 and E-22-002, 2023-Ohio-740 .

 

2023-0532.  Grim v. Cleveland Clinic Found.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111516, 2023-Ohio-713 .

 

2023-0535.  State v. Tubbs.

Miami App. No. 2012-CA-20, 2013-Ohio-4391 .

 

2023-0538.  State v. Mitchell.

Hamilton App. No. C-210623, 2023-Ohio-724 .

 Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0540.  Cleveland Internatl. Fund Med. Mart v. Optima 777, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111616, 2023-Ohio-715 .

 Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

2023-0544.  State v. Hayes.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0021, 2023-Ohio-1008 .

 

2023-0545.  RSS WFCM2019-C50-OH WG2, L.L.C. v. Welcome Group 2, L.L.C.

Montgomery App. No. 29655.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II. 

 

2023-0546.  State v. Dahlberg.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0063, 2023-Ohio-987 .

 

2023-0553.  State v. Brown.

Preble App. No. CA2022-02-003, 2023-Ohio-258 .

 

 

2023-0567.  State v. Leigh.

Montgomery App. No. 28821, 2023-Ohio-91 .

 

2023-0568.  In re M.D.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220052 through C-220056, 2023-Ohio-845 .

 Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0571.  State v. Prather.

Hamilton App. No. C-210585, 2023-Ohio-784 .

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0587.  Shteiwi v. Shteiwi.

Butler App. No. CA2021-11-143, 2023-Ohio-873 .

 

2023-0607.  State v. Stanford.

Hamilton App. No. C-220138, 2023-Ohio-1011 .

 Brunner, J., dissents.

Deters, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0613.  State v. Brownlee.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-075, 2023-Ohio-1090 .

 

2023-0624.  Poland v. Ohio Parole Bd.

Richland App. No. 22 CA 0065, 2023-Ohio-694 .

 

2023-0633.  State v. Bradshaw.

Hamilton App. No. C-930654.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0634.  State v. Mills.

Erie App. No. E-22-026, 2023-Ohio-1094 .

 

2023-0644.  State v. Stewart.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-531, 2023-Ohio-1150 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2023-0667.  State v. Bridgewater.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-417, 2023-Ohio-1211 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-0617.  State ex rel. Adkins v. Cantrell.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1323, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0228.  State ex rel. Hillman v. Klatt.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Reported at 170 Ohio St.3d 1408, 2023-Ohio-1444, 208 N.E.3d 832.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion in opposition to respondent’s request that this court dismiss this case denied.  Relator’s request for judicial notice denied.

 Deters, J., would deny relator’s motion in opposition and request as moot. 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 30, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/30/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2205.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0612.  In re Resignation of Keating.

On application for retirement or resignation of Bradley Dennis Keating, Attorney Registration No. 0076341, last known business address in Gahanna, Ohio.  Application accepted with disciplinary action pending.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2023-0614.  In re Resignation of Pilla.

On application for retirement or resignation of Mary Lee Pilla, Attorney Registration No. 0022299, last known address in Novelty, Ohio.  Application accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 

2023-0720.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Cowatch.

On Final Report by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, No. UPL 23-03.  Respondents Tracy Cowatch, Robert Kruppa, William Kruppa, the Victor Kruppa Trust, and Robert Kruppa d.b.a. Advanced Rental Mgt., L.L.P., enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.  Civil penalty in the amount of $1,500.00 imposed, jointly and severally, on respondents and ordered to be paid within 30 days.  If respondents fail to pay the fine within 30 days, the matter will be referred to the attorney general for collection and this court may find respondents in contempt.  Respondents will be liable for all collection costs pursuant to R.C. 131.02 if the debt is certified to the attorney general for collection.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 30, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/30/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2194.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1463.  State ex rel. M.D. v. Kelsey, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2165.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110720, 2021-Ohio-4171.  On appellant’s motion for order to enforce the court’s writ of procedendo or, in the alternative, to declare appellee M.A.D. a vexatious litigator.  Motion to enforce writ of procedendo denied.  Request to declare appellee M.A.D. a vexatious litigator granted.  M.A.D. found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B) and prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.  M.A.D. shall give notice of this decision to the Eighth District Court of Appeals in any matter currently pending or in any appeal or other action M.A.D. institutes in that court.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny appellant’s request to declare appellee M.A.D. a vexatious litigator.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinion, which was previously issued as an entry in response to an affidavit of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

23-AP-043.  In re Disqualification of Schroeder, 2023-Ohio-2166 (decided May 1, 2023).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 29, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/29/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2160.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0709.  Craig v. Gilchrist.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-52 and 22AP-55, 2022-Ohio-4477.  On appellant G.T.’s amended motion for leave to file revised document.  Motion granted.  Appellee shall file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction, if any, within 30 days of the date of the filing of the second amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0273.  State ex rel. D.N. v. Reisinger.

Champaign App. No. 2023-CA-3.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0662.  State ex rel. Gregory v. Cook.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/28/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2137.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0618.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Ohio State Penitentiary.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Civ.R. 5.  Motion denied.  Relator may file a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss within ten days.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/27/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2123.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0464.  In re Application of Ohio Power Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 08-1094-EL-SSO, 08-1095-EL-ATA, 08-1096-EL-AAM, and 08-1097-EL-UNC.  On motion of Ohio Power Company to intervene as appellee.  Motion granted.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0626.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Poole.

On certified order of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, No. 2022-SC-0486-KB.  Robert Lawrence Poole, Attorney Registration No. 0065547, last known business address in Florence, Kentucky, permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 26, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/26/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2087.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JUNE 26, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the June 26, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1457.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Burgess, 170 Ohio St.3d 1246, 2023-Ohio-65.

 

2021-0757.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Repp, 170 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2022-Ohio-4239.

 

2021-0801.  State v. Sanford, 170 Ohio St.3d 204, 2022-Ohio-3107.

 

2021-0889.  State ex rel. Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Govts. v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 170 Ohio St.3d 195, 2022-Ohio-3058.

 

2021-1062.  State ex rel. Bowling v. DeWine, 170 Ohio St.3d 244, 2022-Ohio-4122.

 

2021-1517.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoover, 170 Ohio St.3d 1240, 2022-Ohio-4026.

 

2022-0170.  State ex rel. Ames v. Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, 170 Ohio St.3d 239, 2022-Ohio-3990.

 

2022-1008.  State ex rel. Halstead v. Jackson, 170 Ohio St.3d 214, 2022-Ohio-3205.

 

2022-1141.  State ex rel. Conrath v. LaRose, 170 Ohio St.3d 222, 2022-Ohio-3594.

 

2022-1256.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Adams, 170 Ohio St.3d 1237, 2022-Ohio-3897.

 

22-AP-122.  In re Disqualification of Kelsey, 170 Ohio St.3d 1235, 2022-Ohio-4489.

 

22-AP-140.  In re Disqualification of Ondrey, 170 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2022-Ohio-4714.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 23, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/23/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2077.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1037.  State v. Hurt.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110732, 2022-Ohio-2039.  On motion of amici curiae Cuyahoga County Public Defender and Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for leave to participate in oral argument and to share oral-argument time with appellant.  Motion granted.  Amici curiae Cuyahoga County Public Defender and Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers shall share the time allotted to appellant.

 

2022-1203.  State v. Toran.

Hamilton App. No. C-210431, 2022-Ohio-2796.  On motion of amicus curiae Cuyahoga County Public Defender for leave to participate in oral argument and to share oral-argument time with appellee.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Cuyahoga County Public Defender shall share the time allotted to appellee.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 23, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/23/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2069.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Bryce L. Friedman.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0771.  CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-464 and 22AP-514, 2023-Ohio-1583.  Appellant’s amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”) and 3.09 (“the text of all documents shall be double-spaced”).  Sua sponte, pages 6 through 19 of the amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1535.  State ex rel. Noland-Moore v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 21, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/21/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2059.]

 

 

 

MOTIONS AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0758.  State ex rel. Parcell v. Harrison Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div.

In Prohibition.  On relators’ emergency motion restraining Harrison County Juvenile Court from proceeding on a permanent custody trial pending resolution of relators’ writ and/or motion to stay juvenile-court proceeding.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 21, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/21/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2059.]

 

 

 

MOTIONS AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0758.  State ex rel. Parcell v. Harrison Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div.

In Prohibition.  On relators’ emergency motion restraining Harrison County Juvenile Court from proceeding on a permanent custody trial pending resolution of relators’ writ and/or motion to stay juvenile-court proceeding.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/22/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-2051.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1209.  Eastside Athletics, Inc. v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2019-852.  On joint motion to remand.  Motion granted.  Cause remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.

 

2023-0782.  Brew v. Brew.

Hamilton App. No. C-220140, 2023-Ohio-1457.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, the sixteenth through eighteenth pages of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction are stricken.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-0836.  State ex rel. DeMarco v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-227, 2021-Ohio-1937.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0497.  State ex rel. Alford v. Montgomery Cty. CSEA.

Montgomery App. No. 29661, 2023-Ohio-1163.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due June 12, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

2023-0704.  State ex rel. Omni Energy Group, L.L.C. v. Lynch.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/20/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-2036.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0513.  In re Application of Kingwood Solar I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 21-117-EL-BGN.  On appellee/cross-appellant Ohio Power Siting Board’s motion to suspend briefing schedule.  Motion granted.  Briefing schedule stayed pending this court’s decision on the Ohio Power Siting Board’s motion to dismiss.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 16, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/16/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1994.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0630.  State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1992.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

  Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., concur.

  Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

  Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

  Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Stewart, JJ.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 16, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/16/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1991.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0283.  State v. Harless.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-415, 2022-Ohio-4475.  On appellant’s motion for reconsideration.  Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A), any motion for reconsideration is due within ten days after the court’s judgment entry is filed.  Sua sponte, motion for reconsideration filed on June 14, 2023, stricken as untimely in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.02(B) and 18.02(A).

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2014-1736 and 2017-0798.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Hurley.

On applications for termination of probation by respondent, Rosel Charles Hurley III, Attorney Registration No. 0083288, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio.  Respondent has complied with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D) and with this court’s orders dated April 19, 2021, reinstating respondent to the practice of law and ordering him to serve a two-year period of monitored probation.  Probation of Rosel Charles Hurley III terminated.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/20/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1979.]

 

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0596.  Jones v. May.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0521.  State v. Pettiford.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0037, 2023-Ohio-236.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0526.  State v. White.

Franklin App. No. 17AP-538, 2017-Ohio-8750.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., dissent.

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0528.  State v. Cox.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 111636, 111640, and 111651, 2023-Ohio-377.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents.

 

2023-0548.  State v. Brown.

Montgomery App. No. 29553, 2023-Ohio-645.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0659.  State v. Kovach.

Geauga App. No. 2022-G-0027, 2023-Ohio-1085.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.  Appellant’s motion to expedite the decision on the motion for leave to file delayed appeal denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., concur but would grant the motion to expedite the decision on the motion for leave to file delayed appeal.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent and would deny the motion for leave to file delayed appeal.

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0393.  State v. Dudas.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111875, 2023-Ohio-535 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0457.  State v. Dotson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111719, 2023-Ohio-533.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, J., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0086.  State v. Jemison.

Warren App. No. CA2022-03-009, 2022-Ohio-3597 .

 

2023-0430.  State v. Shamansky.

Wyandot App. No. 16-22-05, 2023-Ohio-405 .

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2023-0436.  Cook v. Richard T. Kiko Agency, Inc.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0024, 2023-Ohio-552 .

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0437.  Ruben v. Ruben.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-491.

 

2023-0438.  Cleveland v. Martin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111495, 2023-Ohio-448 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent.

 

2023-0441.  Weiler v. TechniPower, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111729, 2023-Ohio-465 .

 

2023-0448.  Hellmuth v. Meehan.

Butler App. No. CA2023-02-015.

 

2023-0450.  State v. Payton.

Muskingum App. Nos. CT2022-0038 and CT2022-0039, 2023-Ohio-504 .

 

2023-0451.  In re Contempt of S.R.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111701, 2023-Ohio-531 .

 

2023-0454.  State v. Rivkind.

Portage App. No. 2023-P-0004, 2023-Ohio-514 .

 

2023-0456.  Huron v. McCune.

Erie App. No. E-22-027, 2023-Ohio-575 .

 

2023-0458.  Coon v. OhioHealth Corp.

Marion App. No. 9-22-041.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent.

 

2023-0463.  State v. Kyles.

Butler App. Nos. CA2021-11-141 and CA2021-11-142, 2023-Ohio-489 .

 

2023-0466.  State v. Jarrett.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111659, 2023-Ohio-811 .

 

2023-0467.  State v. Jefferson.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0081, 2022-Ohio-3448 .

 Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III.

 

2023-0476.  State v. Tubbs.

Miami App. No. 2015-CA-14, 2016-Ohio-842 .

 

2023-0485.  Tipton v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-123.

 

2023-0491.  State v. Brand.

Butler App. No. CA2021-08-093, 2023-Ohio-557 .

 

2023-0518.  State v. Foster.

Scioto App. No. 21CA3967, 2023-Ohio-746 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

 

2023-0525.  State v. Parker.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110563, 2023-Ohio-802 .

 

2023-0541.  Baronzzi v. Gamble.

Columbiana App. No. 2021 CO 32, 2023-Ohio-894 .

 

2023-0551.  State v. McDougald.

Scioto App. No. 21-CA-3961, 2022-Ohio-3191 .

 

2023-0555.  State v. Jewett.

Scioto App. No. 22CA4004, 2023-Ohio-969 .

 

2023-0569.  State v. Adams.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111637, 2023-Ohio-809 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2023-0581.  State v. Bell.

Hamilton App. No. C-210494, 2023-Ohio-1010 .

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0595.  State v. Bridges.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111833, 2023-Ohio-1048.  Appellant’s motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment and “motion for stay not for delay or to prejudice any party” denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny the motions as moot.

 

2023-0601.  In re A.W.

Summit App. No. 30486, 2023-Ohio-1268 .  Appellant’s motion for stay denied.

 

2023-0602.  Cincinnati v. Triton Servs., Inc.

Hamilton App. No. C-210475, 2022-Ohio-3832 .

 

2023-0605.  State v. Hill.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108250, 2020-Ohio-102 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1030.  State ex rel. Jones v. Hamilton Cty.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1494, 2023-Ohio-1242, 207 N.E.3d 822.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-1598.  Lipin v. Wisehart.

Preble App. No. CA2022-09-017.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1501, 2023-Ohio-1326, 207 N.E.3d 834.  On amended motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1603.  Lipin v. Wisehart.

Preble App. No. CA2022-11-018.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1501, 2023-Ohio-1326, 207 N.E.3d 845.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0063.  State v. Benedict.

Crawford App. No. 3-21-08, 2022-Ohio-3600.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1489, 2023-Ohio-1149, 206 N.E.3d 745.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2023-0079.  Lipin v. Wisehart.

Preble App. No. CA2022-12-022.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1501, 2023-Ohio-1326, 207 N.E.3d 846.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0097.  Robinson v. Lorain Cty. Printing & Publishing Co.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011711, 2023-Ohio-3.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1490, 2023-Ohio-1149, 206 N.E.3d 740.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellants’ complaint against Chief Justice Kennedy, public-records request, and motion for default judgment denied.

 

2023-0213.  State v. Grad.

Medina App. No. 22CA0011-M, 2022-Ohio-4221.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1491, 2023-Ohio-1149, 206 N.E.3d 744.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion granted as to proposition of law Nos. I and II.  The case shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., would grant the motion as to all propositions of law.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 14, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/14/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1967.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0758.  State ex rel. Parcell v. Harrison Cty. Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Div.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file a response, if any, to relators’ emergency motion restraining Harrison County Juvenile Court from proceeding on a permanent custody trial pending resolution of relators’ writ and/or motion to stay juvenile court proceeding no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 16, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/15/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1966.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0407.  State ex rel. Wells v. Miday.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/13/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1943.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0672.  State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd.

In Mandamus.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of David R. Fox, Emma Olson Sharkey, Jyoti Jasrasaria, and Samuel Ward-Packard.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0733.  Adams v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2015-1090, 2016-1061, 2017-1867, 2018-1143, 2019-1632, and 2020-1347.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/12/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1930.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0672.  State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. Ohio Ballot Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1928.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted in part and denied in part.

  Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur.

  Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

  Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/12/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1919.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JUNE 12, 2023

 

  The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the June 12, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1215.  State v. Philpotts, 170 Ohio St.3d 189, 2022-Ohio-4362.

 

2020-0652.  State v. Drain, 170 Ohio St.3d 107, 2022-Ohio-3697.

 

2021-0822 and 2021-0857.  In re K.K., 170 Ohio St.3d 149, 2022-Ohio-3888.

 

2021-0831.  Goudy v. Tuscarawas Cty. Pub. Defender, 170 Ohio St.3d 173, 2022-Ohio-4121.

 

2021-0967.  State v. Martin, 170 Ohio St.3d 181, 2022-Ohio-4175.

 

2022-0065.  State ex rel. Shine v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 170 Ohio St.3d 98, 2022-Ohio-3624.

 

2022-0085.  State v. L.A.B., 170 Ohio St.3d 193, 2022-Ohio-4484.

 

2022-0186.  State ex rel. Foster v. Foley, 170 Ohio St.3d 86, 2022-Ohio-3168.

 

2022-0196.  State ex rel. Johnson v. Foley, 170 Ohio St.3d 102, 2022-Ohio-3634.

 

2022-0278.  State ex rel. Scott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 170 Ohio St.3d 103, 2022-Ohio-3635.

 

2022-0279.  State ex rel. Robinson v. Fender, 170 Ohio St.3d 147, 2022-Ohio-3701.

 

2022-0307.  State ex rel. Pointer v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 170 Ohio St.3d 96, 2022-Ohio-3261.

 

2022-0367.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Jancura, 170 Ohio St.3d 89, 2022-Ohio-3189.

 

22-AP-068.  In re Disqualification of O’Grady, 170 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2022-Ohio-2854.

 

22-AP-079.  In re Disqualification of Gallagher, 170 Ohio St.3d 1207, 2022-Ohio-3055.

 

22-AP-080.  In re Disqualification of Serrott, 170 Ohio St.3d 1209, 2022-Ohio-3203.

 

22-AP-082.  In re Disqualification of Brown, 170 Ohio St.3d 1204, 2022-Ohio-3057.

 

22-AP-085.  In re Disqualification of Nist, 170 Ohio St.3d 1216, 2022-Ohio-3482.

 

22-AP-086.  In re Disqualification of Ondrey, 170 Ohio St.3d 1213, 2022-Ohio-3204.

 

22-AP-092.  In re Disqualification of Selmon, 170 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2022-Ohio-3999.

 

22-AP-095.  In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 170 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2022-Ohio-4000.

 

22-AP-102.  In re Disqualification of Keller, 170 Ohio St.3d 1218, 2022-Ohio-3881.

 

22-AP-130.  In re Disqualification of Miller, 170 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2022-Ohio-4674.

 

22-AP-139.  In re Disqualification of Howard, 170 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2022-Ohio-4675.

 

22-AP-148.  In re Disqualification of Allen, 170 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2022-Ohio-4715.

 

In re Cases Held for the Decision in Elliot v. Durrani, 170 Ohio St.3d 188, 2022-Ohio-4378.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0301.  State ex rel. Rapier v. Stark Cty. Clerk’s Office.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due June 1, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0442.  State ex rel. Portaro Group, Inc. v. Parma Mun. Court.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112134, 2023-Ohio-937.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due May 30, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 9, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/09/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1910.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0836.  State ex rel. DeMarco v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-227, 2021-Ohio-1937.  On February 22, 2023, this court granted appellant’s motion to reopen case to allow the parties to finalize a settlement and file an application for dismissal.  Sua sponte, appellant ordered to show cause within ten days why this cause should not be dismissed and closed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/08/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1885.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0601.  In re A.W.

Summit App. No. 30486, 2023-Ohio-1268.  Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.03(A)(2), any memorandum in response is due within 20 days after the memorandum in support of jurisdiction is filed.  Sua sponte, memorandum in response to jurisdiction of appellee Summit County Children Services filed on June 7, 2023, stricken as untimely in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.02(B) and 7.03(A)(2).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/08/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1884.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0047.  Marchbanks v. Ice House Ventures, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1866.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-24, 2021-Ohio-4195.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0383.  State ex rel. Dean v. Kennedy.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relators’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0406.  State ex rel. Dean v. Schooley.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/06/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1865.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1479.  Carlean Dates Estate v. Hamilton Cty. Courthouse.

In Quo Warranto.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service in accordance with Civ.R. 4(E) as to respondents Jason Whitacre and Law Offices of Richard Bardach, L.L.C.

 

2023-0009.  Smith v. Ohio State Univ.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-125, 2022-Ohio-4101.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Josh Arisohn.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0268.  State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt.

Summit App. No. 29622, 2023-Ohio-202.  On appellee’s motion to strike.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a merit brief within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to the following case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a merit brief is not filed within 60 days.

 

2022-1535.  State ex rel. Noland-Moore v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/05/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1845.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0482.  State ex rel. Jackson v. Foley.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike.  Motion denied.  Relator may file a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss within ten days of the court’s entry.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-1243.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fleming.

Sua sponte, Esmeralda Fleming, Attorney Registration No. 0066287, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before April 28, 2023.

 

2023-0170.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson.

Sua sponte, James Edward Watson, Attorney Registration No. 0039585, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before April 27, 2023.

 

2023-0386.  In re Boyuk.

Sua sponte, Walter Charles Boyuk, Attorney Registration No. 0009810, last known business address in Hilliard, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before April 21, 2023.

 

 

 

 

2023-0395.  In re Kingsbury.

Sua sponte, Dorothea Jane Kingsbury, Attorney Registration No. 0009993, last known business address in Mayfield Village, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before April 24, 2023.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1400.  State ex rel. Evans v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-1401.  State ex rel. Evans v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0237.  State ex rel. McVicker v. Delaware City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/06/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1830.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0508.  Frazier v. Cross.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

2023-0536.  Lask v. Watson.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1381.  State v. Garrett.

Franklin C.P. No. 18CR168.  On application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.06.  Application denied.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would grant the application as to proposition of law No. III.

 Stewart and Duhart, JJ., dissent.

Myron C. Duhart, J., of the Sixth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

 

 

2023-0449.  State v. Harrell.

Summit App. Nos. 30104 through 30109, 2022-Ohio-3217.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0452.  State v. Veyon.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0062.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent.

 

2023-0453.  State v. Veyon.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0063.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

 

2023-0530.  State v. Huish.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-255, 2023-Ohio-365.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Brunner and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0372.  Kennedy v. W. Res. Senior Care.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0055, 2023-Ohio-264.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I, III, and IV.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0407 and 2022-0424, Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

DeWine, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and III only.

Brunner, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I only.

 

2023-0376.  Jones v. Kent City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0094, 2023-Ohio-265 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

2023-0411.  Tera, L.L.C. v. Rice Drilling D, L.L.C.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0047, 2023-Ohio-427.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Stewart, JJ., would also accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II only.

Donnelly, J. dissents.

 

2023-0434.  State v. Allen.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111576, 2023-Ohio-527.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0039.  State v. Jarmon.

Butler App. No. CA2021-08-091, 2022-Ohio-2327 .

 

2023-0246.  Kent v. Lusane.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0011, 2022-Ohio-4057 .

 

2023-0381.  Inskeep v. Columbus Zoological Park Assn.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAE 05 0039, 2023-Ohio-288 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II. 

 

2023-0382.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-234, 2023-Ohio-435.  Appellant’s request to produce and file transcripts of proceedings, petition for order to produce and convey case records, and petition for leave to file an errata and an addition to memorandum in support of jurisdiction denied.

 

2023-0385.  State v. Winegarner.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111201, 2023-Ohio-319 .

 

2023-0389.  State v. Baird.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111428, 2023-Ohio-303 .

 

2023-0396.  State v. Rose.

Ashtabula App. No. 2021-A-0015, 2022-Ohio-3197.  Appellant’s motion for acceptance of partially handwritten documents granted.

 

2023-0405.  Russell v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-518, 2023-Ohio-497 .

 

2023-0408.  State v. Hill.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111554, 2023-Ohio-373 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0409.  Reister v. Gardner.

Butler App. No. CA2021-10-127, 2022-Ohio-4272 .

 

2023-0410.  Premier Dealer Servs., Inc. v. Olson.

Hamilton App. No. C-230026.

Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0415.  Wasmver Dev. Corp. v. Link.

Knox App. No. 23CA000003.

 

2023-0417.  Hathaway Brown School v. Cummings.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111566, 2023-Ohio-374 .

 

2023-0418.  State v. Hoskin.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 111119, 111120, and 111121, 2022-Ohio-3917 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0420.  State v. Howard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111213, 2022-Ohio-2959 .

 

2023-0432.  Lankford v. Weller.

Pickaway App. No. 21CA19, 2023-Ohio-430 .

 

2023-0433.  In re Bil.I.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-127, 22AP-138, and 22AP-137, 2023-Ohio-434 .

 Brunner and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0435.  State v. Green.

Ross App. No. 21CA3760, 2023-Ohio-501 .

 

2023-0440.  State v. Madrigal.

Lucas App. Nos. L-22-1014 and L-22-1071, 2023-Ohio-488 .

 

2023-0445.  State v. Scott.

Hamilton App. No. C-230047.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0446.  State v. Harris.

Hamilton App. No. C-220251, 2023-Ohio-506 .

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0477.  State v. Bangera.

Geauga App. No. 2015-G-0021, 2016-Ohio-4596 .

 

2023-0479.  State v. Marcum.

Montgomery App. No. 29300, 2022-Ohio-3576 .

 

2023-0503.  In re Estate of Stotz v. Stotz.

Sandusky App. No. S-22-014, 2023-Ohio-663 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III.

 

2023-0509.  Billman v. Meintel.

Pickaway App. No. 22CA10, 2023-Ohio-922 .

 

2023-0512.  State v. Gregory.

Lucas App. Nos. L-21-1106 and L-21-1107, 2023-Ohio-331 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-0294.  State v. Marshall.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109633, 2022-Ohio-2666.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-999, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

2022-0545.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Bowen.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0025.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1105, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion to accelerate ruling on motion for reconsideration denied.

 DeWine and Brunner, JJ., would deny the motion to accelerate as moot.

 

2023-0044.  State v. Cunningham.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0048, 2021-Ohio-4052.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1474, 2023-Ohio-921, 205 N.E.3d 560.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0045.  State v. Cunningham.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0047, 2021-Ohio-4051.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1474, 2023-Ohio-921, 205 N.E.3d 560.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0054.  Pierre Invests., Inc. v. CLS Capital Group, Inc.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1229, 2022-Ohio-4311.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2023-Ohio-921, 205 N.E.3d 561.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0072.  Alessio v. United Airlines, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111449, 2022-Ohio-4510.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1490, 2023-Ohio-1149, 206 N.E.3d 745.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/01/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1828.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0388.  State ex rel. DeBlase v. Giroux, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1823.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by DeWine and Deters, JJ.

Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/02/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1825.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Alla C. Galati.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0630.  State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Jyoti Jasrasaria, Samuel Ward-Packard, David R. Fox, and Emma Olson Sharkey.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 06/01/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1809.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0102.  Emerson v. FBI Interstate.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within seven days why this cause should not be dismissed in light of the May 24, 2023 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, in Emerson v. United States Dist. Court, case No. 3:23-cv-393.

 

2023-0139.  Emerson v. United States Dist. Court.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within seven days why this cause should not be dismissed as to respondent United States District Court in light of the May 24, 2023 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, in Emerson v. United States Dist. Court, case No. 3:23-cv-561.

The stay in this case is lifted, and the case shall proceed before this court.  Relator shall file a response, if any, to respondent Interstate Building Maintenance Corp.’s motion to dismiss within ten days.

 

2023-0262.  Emerson v. Auto Warehousing Co.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within seven days why this cause should not be dismissed as to respondent FBI in light of the May 24, 2023 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, in Emerson v. Auto Warehousing Co., case No. 3:23-cv-541.

The stay in this case is lifted, and the case shall proceed before this court.  Relator shall file a response, if any, to the motions to dismiss of respondents Auto

Warehousing Company, Mercy St. Charles Hospital, and Premier Bank and Manager within ten days.

 

2023-0398.  Armengau v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. Bur. of Sentence Computation.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to strike relator’s memorandum in opposition to motion to dismiss and relator’s motion for leave to file amended petition/complaint.  Motion denied.  Respondent may file a response, if any, to relator’s motion for leave to file amended petition/complaint within ten days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0256.  State v. Jefferson.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0081, 2022-Ohio-3448.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due May 25, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.  Appellant’s motion to strike appellee’s motion to dismiss denied as moot.

 

2023-0283.  State v. Harless.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-415, 2022-Ohio-4475.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due May 25, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0483.  Bates v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility.

In Mandamus.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0676.  State ex. rel. Sunny Farms Landfill, L.L.C. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Health.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 30, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/30/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1774.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MAY 29, 2023

 

  The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, have been published in the May 29, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0721.  State v. Wilson, 170 Ohio St.3d 12, 2022-Ohio-3202.

 

2020-1126.  State v. Burns, 170 Ohio St.3d 57, 2022-Ohio-4606.

 

2020-1189 and 2020-1250.  State v. Brooks, 170 Ohio St.3d 1, 2022-Ohio-2478.

 

2020-1503.  State v. Towns, 170 Ohio St.3d 50, 2022-Ohio-3632.

 

2021-1004.  Estate of Fleenor v. Ottawa Cty., 170 Ohio St.3d 38, 2022-Ohio-3581.

 

2021-1153.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 170 Ohio St.3d 77, 2022-Ohio-4663.

 

2021-1299.  State v. Ramsden, 170 Ohio St.3d 56, 2022-Ohio-4483.

 

2021-1355.  State v. Thompson, 170 Ohio St.3d 76, 2022-Ohio-4610.

 

2021-1529.  EMOI Servs., L.L.C. v. Owners Ins. Co., 170 Ohio St.3d 78, 2022-Ohio-4649.

 

2022-0107.  In re N.D., 170 Ohio St.3d 84, 2022-Ohio-4672.

 

2022-0536 and 2022-0688.  State v. Blackburn, 170 Ohio St.3d 76, 2022-Ohio-4612.

 

2022-0930.  Ames v. Portage Cty. Budget Comm., 170 Ohio St.3d 83, 2022-Ohio-4666.

 

2022-1036.  Cleveland v. Rudolph, 170 Ohio St.3d 85, 2022-Ohio-4682.

 

2022-1055.  State ex rel. Trumbull Cty. Republican Cent. Commt. v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 170 Ohio St.3d 29, 2022-Ohio-3268.

 

2022-1128.  State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 170 Ohio St.3d 42, 2022-Ohio-3613.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1220.  State ex rel. Allenbaugh v. Sezon, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1754.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0002, 2022-Ohio-1718.  Appellants’ motion for oral argument denied.  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 31, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/31/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1769.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0350.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Purola, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1768.

Board of Professional Conduct No. 2022-003.  Albert Linden Purola, last known attorney-registration address in Willoughby, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0010275, suspended from the practice of law for six months.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1542.  Dean v. Schooley.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant an alternative writ as to Exhibits E and H.

Brunner and Deters, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.

 

2023-0282.  Clinton v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s revised motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2023-0309.  State ex rel. Davis v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0316.  Anderson v. Regel.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0317.  State ex rel. Keith v. Springdale Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Relator’s request for show-cause order denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0329.  State ex rel. Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Driscoll.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for sanctions denied.  Respondent’s motion for sanction granted.  Respondent ordered to submit an itemized statement of attorney fees and costs within 20 days.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart, J., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny respondent’s motion for sanctions. 

 

2023-0330.  State ex rel. Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Skelton.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0331.  Chapman v. Robert Half Internatl. & Accountemps.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

 

 

2023-0362.  Emerson v. Newmark.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On “federal notice of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and pattern of vexatious litigation.”  Motion to dismiss of respondents Craigslist, Inc., Craig Newmark, and William Powell granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0384.  State ex rel. Givens v. Adult Protective Servs.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Adult Protective Services, Belmont County Department of Job and Family Services, Kevin Flanagan, and Brent A. Clyburn.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Jeffrey T. Loeffler.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0416.  State ex rel. Allah-U-Akbar v. Schroeder.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0455.  State ex rel. Davis v. Stucki.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s emergency request for stay.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0461.  State ex rel. West v. Chambers-Smith.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2023-0462.  Spikes v. Dinkelacker.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0488.  State ex rel. Adkins v. Fayette Cty. Sheriff’s Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0420.  Bennett v. Barnes.

In Mandamus.  On relator Taneshe M. Bennett’s emergency motion for expedited relief from judgment.  Motion denied.  Respondents’ motion to strike and dismiss relator’s emergency motion denied.

 

2022-1148.  State ex rel. Adams v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s amended motion for sanctions.  Motion denied.  Respondents’ motion to strike relator’s motion for sanctions and amended motion for sanctions denied.

 

2022-1595.  In re Guardianship of Pond.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAF 06 0045, 2022-Ohio-4023.  On appellant’s motion to strike guardian’s filings of February 15, 2023, and impose sanctions on the guardian.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1648.  State ex rel. Sanduskians for Sandusky v. Sandusky.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion for sanctions.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0101.  State ex rel. Ware v. Pierce.

In Mandamus.  On amended application for default judgment.  Amended application denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would sua sponte dismiss the cause. 

 

 

2023-0303.  Love v. Foley.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion seeking consequences for not filing a brief.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0402.  State ex rel. Stokes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-482, 2023-Ohio-468.  On appellant’s motion to stay proceedings.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0407.  State ex rel. Wells v. Miday.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2023-0576.  State v. Wilson.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0042, 2023-Ohio-830.  On appellant’s motion for stay of lower-court decisions.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0577.  State ex rel. Hobbs v. Yurick.

Warren App. No. CA2023-02-019.  On appellant’s motion to stay case in abeyance.  Motion denied.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0293.  Berkheimer v. REKM, L.L.C.

Butler App. No. CA2022-03-026, 2023-Ohio-116 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/24/2023 Case Announcements #4, 2023-Ohio-1745.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0648.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Norton.

On relator’s motion for an immediate interim remedial suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(19).  Motion granted.  Eric Edward Norton, Attorney Registration No. 0071563, last known business address in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.  Joint motion to restrict public access and respondent’s motion for leave to file exhibit granted.  Respondent’s motion to strike four exhibits attached to relator’s motion denied.

  Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 25, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/25/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1743.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1511.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Stobbs, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1719.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-012.  Brent Clark Stobbs, Attorney Registration No. 0041262, last known business address in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for 18 months, with 12 months conditionally stayed.  Respondent’s motion to strike show-cause order denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Whitacre.

On “motion for leave to file mandamus pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).”  Motion denied.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0495.  State ex rel. Ames v. Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding and Steering Commt. 

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

2023-0582.  State ex rel. Panzeca v. Highland Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Gen. Div.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/24/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-1735.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Sultaana.  

On “motion for leave to request for civil contempt against respondent.”  On May 23, 2023, respondent filed a notice stating that it has complied with this court’s April 12, 2023 opinion and entry.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0656.  Page v. Geauga Cty. Probate & Juvenile Court.

In Procedendo and Mandamus.  Sua sponte, case ordered to proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.09(B).  Respondents shall file an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss within 15 days after service of the summons.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/24/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1734.]

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0294.  State v. Sheckles.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220255 and C-220256, 2023-Ohio-133 .

  Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

  John J. Eklund, J., of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/24/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1733.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1217.  State ex rel. Cartwright v. Ohio Adult Parole Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1717.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-62, 2022-Ohio-2934 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0993.  In re E.S.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110378, 2021-Ohio-4606.  On motion of amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General, for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General, shall share the time allotted to appellant.

 

2022-1037.  State v. Hurt.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110732, 2022-Ohio-2039.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association for leave to participate in oral argument and to share oral-argument time with appellee.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association shall share the time allotted to appellee.

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0251.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2023-0190.  State ex rel. Wells v. Lakota Local Schools Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 23, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/23/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1718.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0619.  State ex rel. Roush v. Hickson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1696.

Morrow App. No. 2022CA0005.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0004.  Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

Hamilton App. No. C-220504, 2022-Ohio-4540.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Julia C. Payne.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days. 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1651.  State ex rel. Walker v. Monnin.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due May 18, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.  Respondent’s motion to supplement evidence denied as moot.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/18/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1682.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0648.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Norton.

On relator’s motion for immediate interim remedial suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(19).  Respondent ordered to file a response, if any, to relator’s motion no later than 12:00 p.m. on May 22, 2023.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 23, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/23/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1665.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0429.  Gray v. Foley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0481.  Jemison v. Borcsh.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0371.  State v. McComb.

Montgomery App. No. 29083.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0403.  State v. Bell.

Medina App. No. 21CA0052-M, 2023-Ohio-277.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., dissent. 

 

 

2023-0414.  State v. Eaton.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1121, 2022-Ohio-2432.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0419.  State v. White.

Preble App. No. CA2021-12-018, 2022-Ohio-1707.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny the motion to dismiss on the merits.

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would grant the motion for leave and would deny the motion to dismiss on the merits. 

 

2023-0443.  State v. Gardner.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111506, 2023-Ohio-307.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Deters, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0230.  Estate of Tomlinson v. Mega Pool Warehouse, Inc.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAE 03 0020, 2023-Ohio-229.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. III.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0322.  State v. Roberts.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1171, 2023-Ohio-142.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. IV.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0352.  Stull v. Summa Health Sys.

Summit App. No. 29969.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, J., dissent. 

 

 

 

2023-0356.  State v. Fork.

Sandusky App. No. S-21-022, 2023-Ohio-242 .

 Fischer, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0392.  State v. Thomas.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111425, 2023-Ohio-302.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. III through VII.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0460.  State v. Potter.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111782, 2023-Ohio-534.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0115.  State v. Hutton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111432.

 

2023-0305.  State v. Aniton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 102440.

 

2023-0306.  State v. Benton.

Hamilton App. No. C-210476

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0315.  State v. Feagin.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0084, 2022-Ohio-3641 .

 

2023-0318.  State v. Morton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110946, 2022-Ohio-2358 .

 

2023-0321.  In re A.P.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-62, 2022-Ohio-4295 .

 

2023-0324.  State v. Brown.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00137.

 

 

2023-0327.  Armatas v. Aultman Hosp.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00133, 2022-Ohio-4577 .

 

2023-0328.  State ex rel. Slacas v. KCI Technologies, Inc.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0012, 2022-Ohio-4573 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0335.  State v. Qualls.

Meigs App. No. 22CA11.

 

2023-0338.  Russo v. Gissinger.

Summit App. No. 29881, 2023-Ohio-200 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-0341.  State v. Gray.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111263, 2023-Ohio-215 .

 

2023-0344.  Campbell v. Campbell.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-11.  Appellant’s motion for leave to proceed as a vexatious litigator denied.

 DeWine and Stewart, JJ., would deny the motion as moot. 

Brunner, J., would not rule on the motion since appellant has not been declared a vexatious litigator in this court.

 

2023-0345.  Sovereign Empire, L.L.C. v. Akron.

Summit App. No. 30186, 2023-Ohio-201 .

 

2023-0347.  Eagle Realty Invests., Inc. v. Dumon.

Hamilton App. No. C-220087, 2022-Ohio-4106 .

 

2023-0348.  Eagle Realty Invests., Inc. v. Dumon.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220087, C-220109, and C-220111, 2022-Ohio-4106 .

 

2023-0350.  Eagle Realty Invests., Inc. v. Dumon.

Hamilton App. No. C-220111, 2022-Ohio-4106 .

 

2023-0351.  Carter v. Univ. Park Dev. Corp.

Summit App. Nos. 30035 and 30180, 2022-Ohio-3462 .

 

 

2023-0353.  State v. Grondin.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011763, 2022-Ohio-3366 .

 

2023-0355.  DeVaughn v. Northeast Ohio Corr. Ctr.

Mahoning App. No. 23 MA 0009.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

 

2023-0358.  Plishka v. Skurla.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111122, 2022-Ohio-4744 .

 Fischer, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-0359.  Davis v. Yuspeh.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111575, 2023-Ohio-219 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0360.  In re G.Y.

Mercer App. No. 10-22-05, 2022-Ohio-4560 .

 

2023-0367.  Cleveland v. Toth.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111934, 2023-Ohio-315 .

 

2023-0374.  State v. Cole.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 103187 through 103190, 2016-Ohio-2936 .

 

2023-0397.  State v. Barnes.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0061, 2023-Ohio-353 .

 

2023-0404.  Cunning v. Windsor House, Inc.

Trumbull App. Nos. 2022-TR-0021 and 2022-TR-0050.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0427.  State v. Johnson.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0096, 2023-Ohio-918 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I and would appoint counsel.

 

2023-0459.  State v. Moore.

Erie App. No. E-21-041, 2022-Ohio-3504 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1543.  Wisehart v. Wisehart.

Preble App. No. CA2022-05-006, 2022-Ohio-3774.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1474, 2023-Ohio-921, 205 N.E.3d 557.  On motion for reconsideration and memorandum of law.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1636.  Woodgeard v. Heavlin.

Stark App. Nos. 2022CA00118 and 2022CA00119.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1458, 2023-Ohio-758, 204 N.E.3d 566.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0008.  Burress-El v. Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 21-298-GA-CSS.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1466, 2023-Ohio-773, 205 N.E.3d 547.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion for a response and motion for default judgment and summary judgment denied.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0112.  State v. Godfrey.

Licking App. No. 2022-CA-00036, 2023-Ohio-20.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1459, 2023-Ohio-758, 204 N.E.3d 572.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/18/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1664.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1262.  State ex rel. Haddix v. Warden, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1637.

Madison App. No. CA2022-07-015.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion to request trial transcripts and journal entries denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0134.  State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1636.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-91, 2022-Ohio-4534 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1400.  State ex rel. Evans v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion for clarification.  Motion granted.  Respondents shall file by May 23, 2023, unredacted copies of the records at issue under seal for in camera inspection.

 

2023-0004.  Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

Hamilton App. No. C-220504, 2022-Ohio-4540.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Scott G. Stewart and Justin Matheny.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0572.  State v. Jones.

Hamilton App. No. C-220007, 2023-Ohio-844.  On appellant’s motion for leave to file revised memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion granted.  Appellee shall file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction, if any, within 30 days of the date of filing of the amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1240.  State ex rel. Tradesmen Internatl., L.L.C. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-572, 2022-Ohio-2935.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 17, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/17/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1649.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0177.  Farmers Natl. Bank of Canfield v. Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0006, 2021-Ohio-4615.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0204.  State v. Wood.

Perry App. No. 22-CA-00002, 2022-Ohio-3536.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due May 11, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 17, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/17/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1635.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0143.  State ex rel. McDonald v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1620.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-386, 2021-Ohio-4494 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1271.  Rosenthal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas Div. of Domestic Relations.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss amended complaint.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1649.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., would sua sponte dismiss the cause and deny the motion as moot.

Stewart, J., dissents and would issue an alternative writ and award statutory damages. 

 

 

2023-0096.  State ex rel. Walker v. Ormsby.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, amended complaint stricken.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0160.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Hilton.

In Mandamus.  Cause dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0242.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Faber.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0251.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted as to Nos. 1 and 3 of the requested categories of records.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted as to Nos. 2, 4, and 5 of the requested categories of records.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Fischer, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would grant the motion as to all requested categories of records. 

 

2023-0252.  State ex rel. Williams v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant an alternative writ as to the 2017 petition.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

 

 

2023-0267.  State ex rel. Kolvek v. Oldfield.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., would sua sponte dismiss the cause and deny the motion as moot. 

 

2023-0269.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Caligiuri.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0280.  Emerson v. Exclusive Auto.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Cause dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0289.  Baksi v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0292.  State ex rel. Barnette v. Mahoning Cty.

In Mandamus.  Cause dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.  Relator’s motion for default judgment denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0299.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Wargo.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0300.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Croucher.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0363.  Whitacre v. Belmont Cty. Sheriff.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0914.  State ex rel. WTOL Television, L.L.C. v. Cedar Fair, L.P.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, parties directed to brief and submit evidence on whether the records requested by relators—assuming that the Public Records Act applies to respondents—are public records, whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus ordering their production, and whether the court should award statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees.  The briefs shall not readdress whether the Public Records Act applies to respondents.  Respondents may submit documents they believe are privileged or constitute confidential law-enforcement investigatory records under seal for in camera inspection.  Respondents shall file the records under seal within ten days, relators shall file a brief within 20 days, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relators’ brief, and relators may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 

2022-1388.  Byrd v. Shuster.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s objection and request for findings.  Objection and request denied.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0368.  State v. Christian.

Auglaize App. No. 2-21-14.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 16, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/16/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1632.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0232.  State ex rel. Davis v. Kennedy, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1593.

In Prohibition.  Writ granted.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0227.  State v. Miller.

Montgomery App. No. 29099, 2022-Ohio-213.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due May 11, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/15/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1624.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1651.  State ex rel. Walker v. Monnin.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for alternative evidence preservation and briefing schedule.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/15/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1599.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MAY 15, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the May 15, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1482.  State v. Whitaker, 169 Ohio St.3d 647, 2022-Ohio-2840.

 

2020-0197.  Senterra, Ltd. v. Winland, 169 Ohio St.3d 595, 2022-Ohio-2521.

 

2020-1247.  Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School, 169 Ohio St.3d 716, 2022-Ohio-3586.

 

2020-1469 and 2021-0211.  State ex rel. Myers v. Meyers, 169 Ohio St.3d 536, 2022-Ohio-1915.

 

2020-1520.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Morton, 169 Ohio St.3d 1264, 2022-Ohio-4409.

 

2021-0153.  In re Application of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc., 169 Ohio St.3d 617, 2022-Ohio-2742.

 

2021-0428.  State v. Stutler, 169 Ohio St.3d 639, 2022-Ohio-2792.

 

2021-0998.  State v. Hough, 169 Ohio St.3d 769, 2022-Ohio-4436.

 

2021-1087.  Willow Grove, Ltd. v. Olmsted Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 169 Ohio St.3d 759, 2022-Ohio-4364.

 

2021-1374.  In re Establishing the Solar Generation Fund Rider, 169 Ohio St.3d 740, 2022-Ohio-4348.

 

2021-1482.  State ex rel. Ware v. Wine, 169 Ohio St.3d 791, 2022-Ohio-4472.

 

2022-0298 and 2022-0303.  Neiman v. LaRose, 169 Ohio St.3d 565, 2022-Ohio-2471.

 

2022-1103.  State ex rel. Sanduskians for Sandusky v. Sandusky, 169 Ohio St.3d 702, 2022-Ohio-3362.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/12/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1586.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0759.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Kenneth Allen Nelson II, Attorney Registration No. 0075834, last known business address in Avon Lake, Ohio.  Application granted.  Kenneth Allen Nelson II reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/11/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1562.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0966.  State ex rel. Harm Reduction Ohio v. OneOhio Recovery Found., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1547.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.  Relator’s request for statutory damages and attorney fees denied.  Relator’s request for court costs granted.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0270.  State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-554, 2023-Ohio-364.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Melissa A. Holyoak and Christopher A. Bates.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0422.  State ex rel. McCorkle v. Young.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 10, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/10/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1557.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0983.  State ex rel. Straughter v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1543.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied as moot.  Relator awarded $1,000 in statutory damages.  Relator’s request for court costs denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would not award statutory damages.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Karnofel.

On motion for leave to proceed.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0559.  Harmon v. Cincinnati.

Hamilton App. No. C-220236, 2023-Ohio-788.  On appellees’ motion to strike.  Motion denied.  Appellees may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction by June 1, 2023.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0584.  State ex rel. Mohr v. Colerain Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 9, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/09/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1546.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0058.  Diller v. Diller, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1508.

Mercer App. Nos. 10-21-03 and 10-21-04, 2021-Ohio-4252.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., dissents and would affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.

Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Karnofel.

On motion for leave to proceed.  Motion denied.

 

In re Tingler.

On motion for leave to file a complaint for a writ of mandamus.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0391.  State ex rel. Feathers v. Wright.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, relator’s motion for judgment on pleadings filed May 1, 2023, stricken pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(B)(1) (prohibiting the relator from filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings in an original action).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/07/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1520.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0582.  State ex rel. Panzeca v. Highland Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Gen. Div.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ emergency motion for stay of trial proceedings.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J.

_________________

BRUNNER, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} Whether this court should stay the proceedings of the trial court pending the resolution of the mandamus action in this court is the question before us, and I would answer that question in the affirmative.  Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent.

2                    {¶ 2} Relators, Chelsea J. Panzeca and her client, Ronald W. Shepard, seek an immediate stay of all proceedings before respondents, the Highland County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, and Judge Rocky A. Coss in State v. Shepard, Highland C.P. No. 23CR0027 (the “criminal case”), pending a final decision in this mandamus action.  The trial in the criminal case is scheduled to take place on Monday, May 8, 2023.  Judge Coss denied a motion to stay proceedings in the criminal case on May 2, 2023.  And on May 5, the same date relators filed their motion to stay in this court, the Fourth District Court of Appeals dismissed Shepard’s interlocutory appeal in State v. Shepard, 4th Dist. Highland No. 23CA5.  This dismissal also resolved Shepard’s May 2 motion for stay pending appeal.

3                    {¶ 3} As posited by relators, this court possesses the authority to stay any proceedings underlying an original action in mandamus that is pending before this court on an emergency

 

1                    basis.  E.g., State ex rel. Messina v. Steiner, 87 Ohio St.3d 1466, 720 N.E.2d 920 (1999); see State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow, 125 Ohio St.3d 407, 2010-Ohio-1844, 928 N.E.2d 728, ¶ 8; State ex rel. Aycock v. Mowrey, 42 Ohio St.3d 716, 538 N.E.2d 1068 (1989).  In short, this court has the authority to stay the trial-court proceedings in the criminal case.

2                    {¶ 4} The majority may harbor doubts about whether we may consider the underlying claims via an action in mandamus, asking, should a defendant’s constitutional rights be the subject of a mandamus action?  For a mandamus claim to succeed, there must be proof by clear and convincing evidence of a clear legal duty to perform a governmental function and a clear legal right for it to be performed, there being no adequate remedy at law.  State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 135 Ohio St.3d 436, 2013-Ohio-1762, 988 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 7; State ex rel. White v. Aveni, 168 Ohio St.3d 540, 2022-Ohio-1755, 200 N.E.3d 211, ¶ 11.  Thus, in the context of a criminal trial, may a writ of mandamus be granted?  The answer lies in the nature of the clear legal duty and the clear right to have it performed.

3                    {¶ 5} The Sixth District Court of Appeals has addressed this point, safely relying on both the United States and the Ohio Constitutions, stating:

 

 

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel for his defense.  Accord Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10.  “[One] element of [that] right is the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him.”  United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006).  If a defendant has the ability to retain a qualified attorney, the Sixth Amendment generally protects his choice of counsel.  Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 625, 109 S.Ct. 2646, 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989).  A court commits structural error when it wrongfully denies a defendant his counsel of choice, thus a defendant need not demonstrate further prejudice.  Gonzalez-Lopez at 150.

 

(Brackets sic.)  State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-23-001, 2023-Ohio-323, ¶ 8.  The Sixth District also has addressed exceptions in this context:

 

Though fundamental, the constitutional right to one’s counsel of choice is not absolute.  Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988).  Trial courts have an “independent interest in ensuring that criminal trials are conducted within the ethical standards of the profession and that legal proceedings appear fair to all who observe them.”  Id. at 160.  Hence, an actual conflict of interest and “a showing of a serious potential for conflict” justify a trial court’s removal of a defendant’s counsel of choice.  Id. at 164.  A trial court’s pretrial ruling removing a criminal defendant’s retained counsel of choice is subject to immediate appeal.  State v. Chambliss, 128 Ohio St.3d 507, 2011-Ohio-1785, 947 N.E.2d 651, syllabus.

 

Id. at ¶ 9.  Here, there is no conflict of interest that would justify the trial court’s effective removal of Panzeca as Shepard’s counsel.  Instead, relators’ request should have been granted by respondents as “reasonable under the circumstances or [as] otherwise in the interest of justice” (emphasis added), R.C. 2930.08(C).  Moreover, the Fourth District should have considered Shepard’s interlocutory appeal.  See Chambliss at ¶ 22 (concluding that a defendant had a right to an immediate appeal upon the denial of his choice of counsel because postconviction reversal would not provide an effective remedy.)  Regardless of whether a posttrial appeal without Panzeca’s representation would be adequate or efficacious, her right to exercise the franchise of the practice of law at this trial is lost.  Nor would a posttrial appeal by Shepard regain for Panzeca the right to represent him in the first instance.  Moreover, it seems clear from the transcript of the pretrial hearing that Shepard will be prejudiced when he is forced to have his case tried with Adam Bleile, Panzeca’s cocounsel, as lead and only counsel on account of respondents’ removal of Panzeca from the case due to her imminent birth of twins this week.

1                    {¶ 6} Panzeca has asserted that she has particular skills and expertise in cases involving alleged child sexual-assault victims.  Moreover, the transcript of the April 19 pretrial hearing at which relators were denied a continuance indicates that Panzeca’s assisting counsel, Bleile, is hard of hearing.  The transcript further indicates that this may hinder effective representation of Shepard by Bleile’s handling the trial as lead and only counsel for Shepard:

 

 

MR. BLEILE:  Judge, I want to remind you I don’t hear that well, and so that’s why right now I’m leaning in to make sure I’m catching things.  I have a couple of questions to make sure I understand. 

THE COURT:  Sure. 

MR. BLEILE:  I want to let you know when I come into your courtroom, it is—I’m going to try to have hearing aids in.  The only thing is sometimes they’re—they—what they give, they also take. Okay?  So I will remind you of that.

THE COURT:  We do have the devices that we can give you now.  We just got some of those in for people that—participants, witnesses—that might need to have some assistance with that. So they’re wireless, so we can provide you with one of those and see if that helps any. 

MR. BLEILE:  We’ll figure it out.  I just want to let you know when I ask questions, sometimes I can’t hear. 

THE COURT:  Okay.

 

1                    {¶ 7} In addition, Panzeca, who is lead counsel of Shepard’s choosing, will be confined to bed rest during the trial and will have no ability to participate other than to passively watch Shepard’s trial on YouTube. Any attempt by Panzeca to communicate with Bleile, by silent text or email messages for example, would only serve as a distraction. 

2                    {¶ 8} The pretrial transcript reveals that Panzeca’s medical condition relating to her pregnancy, which was expected to result in her twins’ birth on May 25, changed rather quickly following her earlier agreement to a May 8 trial date for Shepard, resulting in the motion for continuance that was denied on April 19:

 

 

THE COURT:  All right.

All right.  Ms. Panzeca, you wish to address the motion [for continuance]?

MS. PANZECA:  Yes, Judge.

Obviously * * * attached to the motion I’m hoping you got the medical note. 

THE COURT:  I did. 

MS. PANZECA:  We filed.  I have that via record—

THE COURT:  Sure.

MS. PANZECA:  —but had I known I was going to be placed on this type of bed rest with limited activity [sic] would not have scheduled for May 6th.  I will say there have been new developments this week even with my medical status, that it’s actually going to be sooner.  So I’m actually going to be ending work, not able to return, starting next week.  So we are asking for a continuance.  I think I’ve put in here, Mr. Shepard, did hire both Mr. Bleile and myself.  That’s kind of how we work on other cases as well.  I’m lead counsel for these trials.  Mr. Bleile usually comes on for the trials.

Also, it looks like even if we went out in August, we are still within the statutory time frame to have a case tried, so I don't think Mr. Shepard’s been (Inaudible) to time. However, if that were to make the Court more comfortable, he would waive time because he has indicated to me multiple times he wants both of his attorneys there at trial.  Also, like I stated in the motion, I don’t know how the State would necessarily be prejudiced or even the prosecuting witness when there was such a delay in indicting anybody.  That had nothing to do with Mr. Shepard.

So we are asking for a continuance so that both of his attorneys could be present.

 

1                    {¶ 9} Regarding Panzeca’s access to the proceedings in order to participate in the trial, the record reveals that her access will be passive only:

 

 

MS. PANZECA:  Do you still stream the trials, Judge? 

THE COURT:  Yes. 

MS. PANZECA:  And how—do I just access that by calling the clerk’s office? 

THE COURT:  The—just go to YouTube and click on Highland County Common Pleas Court, and you should—it should pop right up.

 

Surely, this is not practicing law.

1                    {¶ 10} What it means to practice law was eloquently addressed almost 100 years ago by the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court:

 

 

The right to practice law is very valuable to the one possessing such right; it is a right acquired only after long study; and conferred by the state only after the closest investigation and rigid examination of the applicant as to his moral and intellectual fitness to be clothed with such right; it is a right in which the public is deeply interested as to the manner in which it is exercised; and after the right has been conferred, the state, through the public authorities, hold the possessor of the right to a strict accountability as to the manner in which he uses this right and sees to it that he does not abuse it, or impose upon the public or his clients, and if he does do so the state deprives him of such right.  Is the holder of such a right so obtained, and one held to such strict accountability to be denied protection in the possession and use of such right?  Surely the state ought not be permitted to demand so much and then refuse protection to the holder in the possession and use of a right to be conferred.  If it may then the holder of such right is denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by federal and state constitutions.  Such is not the law.

 

Dworken v. Cleveland Auto. Club, 29 Ohio N.P. 607, 617-618, 1931 WL 2254 (1931).1 

1. It should be acknowledged that the common pleas court’s description of the practice of law in this 1931 case also noted that protection of the franchise to practice law “and the remedy for its unlawful invasion [are] by way of injunction.”  Id. at 618.  This statement was made in the context of protecting the public from the unauthorized practice of law.  Such matters now are regulated by this court itself.  Gov.Bar R. VII.  For Panzeca, when seeking a remedy from this court to be treated equally in the exercise of the franchise, mandamus is appropriate.

 

2. This law took effect April 6, 2023.  It has not yet been determined whether the specifics of this legislative amplification of Article I, Section 10a of the Ohio Constitution, known as Marsy’s Law, will be held to apply to

1                    {¶ 11} And while Judge Coss cited the rights of the alleged victim to have the trial proceed promptly, he is also bound to consider the reasonableness of relators’ request for a continuance and to consider the “interests of justice,” R.C. 2930.08(C).  Under R.C. 2930.08(A), enacted as 2022 Sub.H.B. No. 343, and as legislation implementing provisions of the Ohio Constitution known as Marsy’s Law, a victim “has the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case”:2 

 

crimes occurring after the effective date of the law or to cases pending and for which no conviction has been obtained and/or no sentence has been imposed when the new law took effect.

1                    (1) The court and the prosecutor involved in the case shall take appropriate action to ensure a speedy disposition of the case.

2                    (2) A victim has the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case.  The court and all participants shall endeavor to complete the case within the time frame provided by the Rules of Superintendence.

 

 

 

Further:

 

If the victim, victim’s representative, or victim’s attorney, if applicable, objects to a delay in the prosecution of the case, the court shall grant a motion, request, or agreement for a continuance of the case only if the party seeking the continuance demonstrates that the delay in the prosecution of the case is reasonable under the circumstances or is otherwise in the interest of justice.  The court may grant a motion, request, or agreement for a continuance of the case only for the time necessary to serve the interests of justice.  If a continuance is granted, the court shall state on the record or in a judgment entry the specific reason for the continuance.

 

(Emphasis added.)  R.C. 2930.08(C).

1                    {¶ 12} Finally, I wish to caution that for the offense of gross sexual imposition, any “victim” must first be proved to be one.  Judge Coss has throughout the pretrial proceedings referred to the child who has made the allegations as “the victim,” but he should not do so when conducting a jury trial.  See State v. Almedom, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-852, 2016-Ohio-1553, ¶ 11.  Almedom involved charges of sexual abuse of three girls under the age of 13.  Almedom denied the charges, yet the trial-court judge consistently referred to the girls as “victims” in the presence of and when speaking to the jury.  This was viewed by the appellate court as being tantamount to inferring that the girls were telling the truth by claiming that the

 

1                    conduct occurred, “as opposed to telling the jury Almedom was truthful in his denial, or refusing to comment on the credibility of any potential witnesses.”  Id. at ¶ 2.  On Almedom’s appeal from his convictions, the Tenth District Court of Appeals explained:

 

 

The average person is disgusted by the idea of anyone sexually abusing young children.  Sefe Almedom was portrayed as such a disgusting person long before any evidence was presented.  The trial court judge, who is viewed as the ultimate authority figure in the courtroom, in essence told the jury more than once that Almedom had victimized three young girls.  Almedom’s claims that the accusations flowed from the hatred of the girls’ mother toward him following the end of his emotional relationship with her could not be fairly and impartially evaluated by the jury after the jury had been told repeatedly by the trial court judge that the girls were victims.  All the while, Almedom’s defense counsel, who was supposed to be advocating for Almedom’s well-being, stood idly by and made no objection to the trial judge’s accusation that his client was a child abuser.  The case was essentially decided before the first words were uttered by the witnesses for the State of Ohio and long before Almedom had a chance to deny the accusations and to submit a theory as to why the accusations were being made.

 

Id. at ¶ 11.

1                    {¶ 13} The case before us is troubling on many levels.  We should not prejudge the outcome of the mandamus action in deciding whether the trial court’s proceedings should be stayed.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent and would grant relators’ motion for a stay.

 

DONNELLY, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

__________________

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/05/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1519.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1444.  State ex rel. Copley Ohio Newspapers, Inc. v. Akron.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to file a response, if any, to respondents’ motion for a protective order regarding relator’s May 3, 2023 notice of Civ.R. 30(B)(5) deposition no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, May 8, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2023-0582.  State ex rel. Panzeca v. Highland Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Gen. Div.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to relators’ emergency motion for stay of trial proceedings before respondents in State v. Shepard, Highland C.P. No. 23CR0027, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 6, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 8, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/08/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1518.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Whitacre.

On motion for leave to proceed.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1352.  Roberts v. People at 215 W. 5th St.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service in accordance with Civ.R. 4(E) as to respondent USA Damron.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 9, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/09/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1507.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0394.  Sheppard v. Perry Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0428.  Karmasu v. DiMarco.

In Habeas Corpus.  Petitioner’s motion to file original pro se action out of S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.09.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny the motion as moot. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0334.  State v. Beasley.

Summit C.P. No. CR-2012-01-0169-A.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  The parties shall brief this case in accordance with the Rules of

Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

2023-0340.  State v. Twiley.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0007, 2022-Ohio-4751.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0342.  State v. Holley.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-022, 2022-Ohio-4465.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0277.  State v. Graves.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111348, 2023-Ohio-84.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0278.  State v. White.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111442, 2023-Ohio-73.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0281.  State v. Howard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111496, 2023-Ohio-74.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0377.  State v. Murray.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111546, 2023-Ohio-310.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0380.  State v. Jordan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111547, 2023-Ohio-311.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1474.  State v. McConnell.

Muskingum App. No. CT 2021-0063, 2022-Ohio-2902 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would appoint counsel.

 

2022-1594.  State v. Marcum.

Montgomery App. No. 29300, 2022-Ohio-3576 .

 

2022-1617.  State v. Springs.

Clark App. No. 2022-CA-19, 2022-Ohio-3761 .

 

2023-0014.  State v. O’Berry.

Montgomery App. No. 29566.

 

2023-0071.  Shury v. Cusato.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111228, 2022-Ohio-4401.  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

Fischer, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and III.

Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal.

 

2023-0233.  Mangelluzzi v. Mangelluzzi.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112414.

 

2023-0241.  Miller v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111526.

 

2023-0243.  Peled v. Peled.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-346, 2023-Ohio-52 .

 

2023-0257.  C.L. v. Weiler.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111474, 2023-Ohio-13 .

 

2023-0259.  Workman v. Warden.

Pickaway App. No. 22CA25, 2022-Ohio-4810 .

 

2023-0260.  State v. Buchanan.

Union App. No. 14-22-09, 2023-Ohio-125 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0261.  In re R.S.

Butler App. No. CA2022-01-008, 2023-Ohio-45 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0265.  Jones v. Russell.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0076, 2023-Ohio-351 .

 

2023-0266.  In re Webb Trust.

Allen App. No. 01-22-38.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0271.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110673, 2023-Ohio-80 .

 

2023-0285.  Smith v. Anderson.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1081, 2023-Ohio-108 .

 

2023-0286.  ILS Lending, L.L.C. v. B&B Gen. Contracting, L.L.P.

Franklin App. No. 23AP-17.

 

2023-0287.  State v. Leigh.

Montgomery App. No. 28821, 2023-Ohio-91 .

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0291.  State v. Dudas.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110573, 2023-Ohio-366 .

 

2023-0312.  State v. Jenkins.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109421, 2022-Ohio-297 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would remand the cause and order the court of appeals to consider the impact of State v. Bourn, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4321, __ N.E.3d __, on remand.

 

2023-0319.  State v. Casey.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0029, 2022-Ohio-2199 .

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

2023-0320.  Wilhelms v. ProMedica Health Sys., Inc.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1085, 2023-Ohio-143 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on the first proposition of law of appellants ProMedica Health System, Inc., et al.

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0343.  Chartier v. Rice Drilling D., L.L.C.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0046, 2023-Ohio-272 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0366.  State v. Jury.

Erie App. No. E-22-005, 2022-Ohio-4419 .

 

2023-0378.  State v. Hillman.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-741.  Appellant’s request for order that Kimberly Bond be replaced as representative for the state denied.

 Brunner, J., would deny the request as moot.

 

2023-0421.  State v. Gamble.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-584, 2023-Ohio-843 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1507.  State v. Lane.

Allen App. No. 1-21-33, 2022-Ohio-3775.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1443, 2023-Ohio-554, 203 N.E.3d 737.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1524.  State v. Sutherland.

Darke App. No. 2021-CA-16, 2022-Ohio-3079.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1444, 2023-Ohio-554, 203 N.E.3d 738.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1556.  Dye v. J.J. Detweiler Ents., Inc.

Stark App. No. 2022 CA 00012, 2022-Ohio-3250.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1444, 2023-Ohio-554, 203 N.E.3d 740.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 4, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/04/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1471.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1205.  Christian v. Davis, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1445.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0051, 2022-Ohio-3201 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0090.  State ex rel. Ware v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s request for extension of time to file merit brief.  Request granted.  Relator shall file a merit brief within 20 days of the filing of the evidence.

 

2023-0572.  State v. Jones.

Hamilton App. No. C-220007, 2023-Ohio-844.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 19 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction, exclusive of the certificate of service on page 19, stricken.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0284.  In re Buttars.

Sua sponte, Austin Roan Buttars, Attorney Registration No. 0091338, last known address in Dublin, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before March 31, 2023.

 

2023-0290.  In re Walker.

Sua sponte, Jessica Rae Walker, Attorney Registration No. 0080138, last known address in New Madison, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before April 3, 2023.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0167.  State v. Pierce.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110791, 2022-Ohio-3912.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due April 27, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2023-0198.  State v. Hooks.

Butler App. No. CA2021-12-148, 2022-Ohio-4132.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due April 27, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 3, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/03/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1444.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0927.  State ex rel. Howson v. Delaware Cty. Sheriff’s Office, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1440.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s requests for statutory damages, court costs, and attorney fees denied.  Relator’s motion to strike respondent’s merit brief denied.  Relator’s motion and amended motion to supplement the motion to strike denied.  Respondent’s motion to strike denied as moot.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1047.  State v. Bertram, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1456.

Scioto App. No. 21CA3950, 2022-Ohio-2488.  Judgment reversed, appellant’s burglary conviction and judicial sanction vacated, and cause remanded to the trial court.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1443.  State ex rel. Hutchison v. DeWine.

In Mandamus.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Newark Director of Law, ACLU, former Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Joseph T. Deters, Governor Mike DeWine et al., and Judge David Branstool.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2022-1496.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Ohio Health Marion Gen. Hosp.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0007.  State ex rel. Hutchison v. DeWine.

In Mandamus.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Annette Chambers-Smith et al. and Governor Mike DeWine, Attorney General Dave Yost, and Senator Theresa Gavarone.  Motions granted.  Respondents Annette Chambers-Smith et al.’s motion to have relator declared a vexatious litigator granted.  Relator, Randall Tyler Hutchison, found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Accordingly, Randall Tyler Hutchison prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.  Relator’s motion to object to claim relator is a vexatious litigator denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny the motion to have relator declared a vexatious litigator. 

 

2023-0137.  State ex rel. Taylor v. Hess.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., concurs and would also expressly note that the dismissal is without prejudice to refiling in the future, if necessary.

 

2023-0150.  State ex rel. Mobley v. O’Malley.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would issue an alternative writ. 

 

2023-0155.  Whitacre v. Ohio Atty. Gen.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motions to sanction respondent’s counsel and motion to strike respondent’s motion to dismiss denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0182.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Dove.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0223.  State ex rel. Whitacre v. Office of the Chief Inspector.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0226.  Koeberer v. Mackey.

In Mandamus.  On motions to dismiss of Robert E. Weir and Judge Jeffrey D. Mackey.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0228.  State ex rel. Hillman v. Klatt.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2023-0234.  State ex rel. Smith v. Hawkins.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur. Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would sua sponte dismiss the cause as moot. 

 

2023-0238.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Figlewicz.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0239.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Corbin.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0240.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ohio Ethics Comm.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0304.  Justice v. Young

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s emergency petition to stay trial, request to produce and file transcripts of proceedings at state expense, notice of demand for production of documents, petition for emergency stay of sentence, petition for release from detention, and petition for order to produce and convey case records denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1482.  State ex rel. Ware v. Wine.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for a court order to order respondents to pay relator his court costs and security deposit.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., would deny the motion as moot because respondents are already responsible for the costs of this action, see __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4472, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 17.

 

2022-1400.  State ex rel. Evans v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to submit unredacted copies of the records at issue under seal for in camera inspection.

 

2022-1401.  State ex rel. Evans v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 

2023-0176.  State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., dissent.

Brunner, J., dissents and would sua sponte dismiss the cause as moot.

 

 

 

2023-0264.  State v. McFarland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111390, 2022-Ohio-4638.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

Stewart, J., not participating.

 

2023-0301.  State ex rel. Rapier v. Stark Cty. Clerk’s Office.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would sua sponte dismiss the cause.  

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0166.  Everhart v. Merrick Mfg. II, L.L.C.

Montgomery App. No. 29520, 2022-Ohio-4626 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2023-0195.  BECDIR Constr. Co. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011766, 2022-Ohio-4762 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0214.  Black v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-218, 2022-Ohio-4782 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/02/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1443.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0955.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Reed, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1420.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-027.  Respondent, Ryan Shane Reed, Attorney Registration No. 0084670, last known business address in Urbana, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and ordered to make restitution within 90 days of $4,000 to Brandon Thomas and $750 to Tina Kermode.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 05/01/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1410.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MAY 1, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the May 1, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0859.  State v. O’Malley, 169 Ohio St.3d 479, 2022-Ohio-3207.

 

2021-0372.  Moore v. Mt. Carmel Health Sys., 169 Ohio St.3d 534, 2022-Ohio-4200.

 

2021-1056.  State ex rel. Suggs v. McConahay, 169 Ohio St.3d 463, 2022-Ohio-2147.

 

2021-1182.  State v. Troisi, 169 Ohio St.3d 514, 2022-Ohio-3582.

 

2021-1350.  State ex rel. Ohio State Univ. v. Pratt, 169 Ohio St.3d 527, 2022-Ohio-4111.

 

2021-1595.  State ex rel. Barnette v. Hill, 169 Ohio St.3d 476, 2022-Ohio-2469.

 

2022-0818.  State ex rel. Jones v. LaRose, 169 Ohio St.3d 467, 2022-Ohio-2445.

 

2022-1061.  State ex rel. Ungaro v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, 169 Ohio St.3d 508, 2022-Ohio-3318.

 

2022-1327.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rogalinski, 169 Ohio St.3d 1262, 2022-Ohio-4240.

 

22-AP-132.  In re Disqualification of Neff, 169 Ohio St.3d 1258, 2022-Ohio-4584.

 

22-AP-136.  In re Disqualification of Ghiz, 169 Ohio St.3d 1259, 2022-Ohio-4585.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Bloodworth.

On motion for leave to proceed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Motion denied.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0417.  Davis v. McGuffey.

Hamilton App. No. C-220040.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

April 25, 2023

[Cite as 04/25/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1332.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

2022-0017. State ex rel. Am. Homeowner Preservation, L.L.C. v. Montgomery Cty., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1282.

Montgomery App. No. 29140. Judgment affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1063, __ N.E.3d __.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

2022-0680. State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1283.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0023, 2022-Ohio-1817. Judgment affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-1063, __ N.E.3d __.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/27/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1361.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1512.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Russ, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1337.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-015.  Respondent, Andrew Edward Russ, Attorney Registration No. 0074974, last known business address in Pickerington, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year conditionally stayed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0402.  State ex rel. Stokes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-482, 2023-Ohio-468.  On appellant’s motion requesting tolling or extension of time.  Request for extension of time granted.  The time for filing appellant’s merit brief extended to May 18, 2023.  Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.03(B)(2)(b)(i), the court will grant a party only one extension of time, not to exceed ten days.  Request for tolling denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 26, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/26/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1342.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0617.  State ex rel. Adkins v. Cantrell, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1323.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted in part and denied in part and $1,000 in statutory damages awarded.  Relator’s “motion for orders to prevent miscarriage of justice” granted in part and denied in part and respondent’s untimely submitted evidence stricken.  Relator’s “motion to correct a miscarriage of justice,” motion for judicial notice and for orders “in the interests of justice,” and “motion in accordance with notice and opportunity & access to the courts” denied.  Respondent’s motion to strike relator’s merit brief and presentation of evidence denied.

DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in judgment only.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would not award statutory damages.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Karnofel.

On motion for leave to proceed.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0101.  State ex rel. Ware v. Pierce.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to strike or, in the alternative, for extension of time to respond to relator’s application for default judgment.  Motion to strike denied.  Relator shall immediately serve a copy of the application for default judgment on respondent.  Respondent may file a response to relator’s application for default judgment within 10 days from the date of this court’s entry.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/24/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1331.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0417.  Davis v. McGuffey.

Hamilton App No. C-220040.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to show cause within seven days why this cause should not be dismissed as moot in light of appellee’s guilty plea in State v. Davis, Hamilton C.P. No. 1606171 (Apr. 11, 2023).

Fischer, J., would defer ruling until after appellee’s sentencing.

Jason P. Smith, J., of the Fourth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

Matthew Byrne, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 25, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/25/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1326.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0256.  State v. Jefferson.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0081, 2022-Ohio-3448.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss appellant’s motion for leave denied.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny appellant’s motion for leave. 

 

2023-0258.  State v. Hill.

Stark App. No. 2017CA00183, 2018-Ohio-3901.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0272.  State v. Rogers.

Erie App. Nos. E-21-027 and E-21-031, 2022-Ohio-4126.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2023-0283.  State v. Harless.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-415, 2022-Ohio-4475.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0288.  State v. McGowan.

Sandusky App. No. S-20-020, 2022-Ohio-4124.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0302.  State v. Boyd.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0131, 2023-Ohio-271.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0202.  McDermott v. Ohio State Univ.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-76, 2022-Ohio-4780.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2023-0009, Smith v. Ohio State Univ.

 Fischer, J., would also accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. III and IV.

DeWine and Deters, JJ., would also accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, J., dissent.

 

2023-0216.  Corder v. Ohio Edison Co.

Harrison App. No. 21 HA 0008, 2022-Ohio-4818.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.

DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1465.  State v. Villafranco.

Clinton App. No. CA2021-09-029, 2022-Ohio-2826 .

 

2022-1598.  Lipin v. Wisehart.

Preble App. No. CA2022-09-017.  Appellant’s amended motion to consolidate with case Nos. 2022-1603 and 2023-0079 denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., would deny the motion on the merits.

 

2022-1603.  Lipin v. Wisehart.

Preble App. No. CA2022-11-018.  Appellant’s motion to consolidate with case Nos. 2022-1598 and 2023-0079 denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., would deny the motion on the merits.

 

2023-0053.  Gordon Restaurants, Inc. v. W.S. Carlile & Sons Co.

Franklin App. Nos. 21AP-550 and 21AP-551, 2022-Ohio-4589 .

 

2023-0079.  Lipin v. Wisehart.

Preble App. No. CA2022-12-022.  Appellant’s motion to consolidate with case Nos. 2022-1598 and 2022-1603 denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., would deny the motion on the merits.

 

2023-0105.  Johnson v. Houser.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1272.  Appellant’s “motion of notice of appeal” denied.  Appellee Jane Roman’s motion to dismiss pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01(A) or, in the alternative, to strike pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(E) denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny appellee Jane Roman’s motion on the merits.

Fischer, J., would deny appellant’s motion as moot.

Donnelly, J., would grant appellee Jane Roman’s motion.

 

2023-0144.  State v. Bias.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-329, 2022-Ohio-4643 .

 

2023-0148.  State v. Barnes.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0001, 2022-Ohio-4613 .

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0158.  State v. Olman.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0034, 2022-Ohio-4678 .

 

2023-0159.  Steese v. Canton Regency.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00038, 2022-Ohio-4711 .

 

2023-0168.  Findlay v. Martens.

Hancock App. No. 5-22-05, 2022-Ohio-4146 .

 

 

 

2023-0171.  Blue Ash Auto Body, Inc. v. Grange Property & Cas. Ins. Co.

Hamilton App. No. C-220165, 2022-Ohio-4599 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-0175.  Thorson Baker & Assocs., Inc. v. Nicholas.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111374, 2022-Ohio-4636 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0193.  Lepsky v. Lepsky.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00155, 2022-Ohio-4710 .

 

2023-0194.  Lakewood Cliffs, L.L.C. v. Weiler.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112256.

 

2023-0200.  State v. Farthing.

Fairfield App. No. 22 CA 02.

 

2023-0205.  Perez v. Crown Equip. Corp.

Allen App. No. 01-22-26, 2022-Ohio-4761 .

 

2023-0207.  Carroll v. Huber.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00073, 2022-Ohio-4712 .

 

2023-0210.  State v. Cobb.

Cuyahoga App. No. 106928, 2019-Ohio-2320 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0211.  Cirino v. Ohio Bur. of Worker’s Comp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110654, 2022-Ohio-1495 .

 

2023-0215.  State v. Jones.

Hamilton App. No. C-220655.

 Stewart, J., dissents.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0221.  State v. Johnpillai.

Licking App. No. 2022 CA 00077, 2023-Ohio-37 .

 

 

2023-0224.  State v. Horsley.

Pickaway App. No. 99CA33.

 

2023-0231.  Hawes v. Downing Health Technologies L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110920, 2022-Ohio-1677 .

 

2023-0248.  State v. Elliott.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0016, 2023-Ohio-181 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would appoint counsel.

 

2023-0250.  State v. Diamond.

Lorain App. No. 22CA011837, 2023-Ohio-40 .

 

2023-0263.  State v. Elek.

Lorain App. No. 20CA011611, 2023-Ohio-41 .

 

2023-0275.  Cleveland v. Thurman.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111410, 2023-Ohio-301 .

 

2023-0310.  State v. Crane.

Licking App. No. 2022-CA-00044, 2023-Ohio-188 .

 

2023-0325.  State v. Rexroad.

Scioto App. No. 21CA3972, 2023-Ohio-356 .

 

2023-0339.  State v. Donaldson.

Montgomery App. No. 29473, 2023-Ohio-234 .

 

2023-0349.  State v. Banks.

Scioto App. Nos. 22CA3980 and 22CA3981.

 

2023-0357.  State v. Hamilton.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-074, 2023-Ohio-415 .

 

2023-0370.  State v. Heiney.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1239.

 

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1505.  State ex rel. Reese v. Logan.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1436, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 718.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1526.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Perkins Twp. Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1436, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 718.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1528.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1436, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 718.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1533.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Toledo Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1436, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 719.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1539.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Howe-Gebers.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 720.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1544.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 720.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1562.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ohio Atty. Gen.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 720.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1563.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Cincinnati Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 721.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2022-1568.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Junk.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 721.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

2022-1573.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Bodenbender.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 722.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1576.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Howe-Gebers.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 721.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1584.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Huron Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1438, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 722.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1586.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Huron Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1438, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 722.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1591.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Richland Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1438, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 723.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1623.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Toledo Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1438, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 723.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1628.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Lucas Cty. Clerk of Courts.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1438, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 723.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 21, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/21/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1274.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Sultaana.

On motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration with reconsideration request.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 19, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/19/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1265.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0611.  In re Goodman.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt.  Motion granted.

 

2023-0134.  State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-91, 2022-Ohio-4534.  On appellee’s motion for leave to file revised merit brief pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.13(B)(3).  Motion granted.

 

2023-0365.  Emerson v. Local 421.

In Mandamus.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of John J. Gillooly.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0409.  Reister v. Gardner.

Butler App. No. CA2021-10-127, 2022-Ohio-4272.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Anthony Cillo, Jeffrey M. Pollock, and Robert J. Rohrberger.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0091.  State v. Coleman.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111332, 2022-Ohio-4013.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due April 13, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to this case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellant shall file either an application for dismissal or a merit brief in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules of Practice within 60 days.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a merit brief is not filed within 60 days.

 

2022-1240.  State ex rel. Tradesmen Internatl., L.L.C. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-572, 2022-Ohio-2935 .

_________________

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0495.  State ex rel. Ames v. Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/18/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1251.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1101.  State ex rel. Casanova v. Lutz, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1225.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0051.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot granted.  Appellant’s requests for oral argument denied.  Cause dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0226.  United States Monarchy v. Graham.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file within 14 days a notice that indicates whether the proceedings in federal court are still ongoing or the proceedings have been completed and the stay in this case may be lifted.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 19, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/19/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1242.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1359.  State ex rel. Woods v. Lawrence Cty. Sheriff’s Office, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1241.

In Mandamus.  Respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings granted in part and denied in part.  Writ denied as moot.  Relator’s request for statutory damages granted in the amount of $700.  Relator’s requests for attorney fees and court costs denied.  Relator’s “motion for leave to file judicial notice” and motion for judicial notice of adjudicated facts denied as moot.  Respondents’ motion to strike relator’s status update denied as moot.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would not award statutory damages.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1029.  State ex rel. Dates v. Hamilton Cty.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On motions to dismiss and requests to declare relator a vexatious litigator of respondents Hamilton County Courthouse et al., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al., and Carpenter Lipps, L.L.P.  Motions granted and requests denied as moot; relator was declared a vexatious litigator in 2022-1478, State ex rel. Dates v. Hamilton Cty. Courthouse.  Relator’s notice to strike respondent Carpenter Lipps, L.L.P.’s motion to dismiss and request to declare

relator a vexatious litigator denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner and Deters, JJ., not participating,

 

2022-1030.  State ex rel. Jones v. Hamilton Cty.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Hamilton County Courthouse et al. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  Motions granted.  Relators’ notice to strike motion to dismiss of respondents Hamilton County Courthouse et al. denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-0077.  State ex rel. Bell v. Montgomery Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0087.  Whitacre v. Ohio Atty. Gen.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to appoint James Leland Peters and motion to strike respondent’s motion to dismiss denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0095.  State ex rel. Dumas v. Donofrio.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0098.  State ex rel. Howard v. Clerk.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to make corrections and additions denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2023-0100.  State ex rel. Howard v. Clerk.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to make corrections and additions and amended application for order to require Ohio Supreme Court Clerk to accept and file merit brief denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0116.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Organized Crime Investigations Comm.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0118.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ohio Ethics Comm.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0119.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Meyer.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0122.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Sigsworth.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0123.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2023-0124.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Davis.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.    Relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0133.  State ex rel. Hale v. Spaeth.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0153.  State ex rel. Gauthier v. Zayas.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Motion of Su Gauthier to intervene as respondent denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-0154.  State v. Nixon.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0161.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Levorchick.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel of record denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0162.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Evans.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator denied as moot; relator was declared a vexatious litigator in 2022-1534, State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office; 2022-1612, State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office; and 2022-1624, State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.  Relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0183.  Whitacre v. Noble Cty. Clerk of Courts.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for a more definite statement denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0199.  Lucas v. Kuhn.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied; the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 do not apply to original actions filed in the Supreme Court.  E.g., State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 155 Ohio St.3d 216, 2018-Ohio-4200, 120 N.E.3d 216, ¶ 8.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0229.  Fletcher v. Lawrence Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1592.  State ex rel. Hunt v. E. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ motion for sanctions.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1424.  Perry v. Rice.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motion for order and/or relief.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2022-1444.  State ex rel. Copley Ohio Newspapers, Inc. v. Akron.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.  Relator’s request for oral argument denied.  

Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., would defer ruling on the request for oral argument.

 

2022-1464.  State ex rel. Whitt v. Graham.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for order of writ of mandamus to compel clerk of court to file brief for a new trial under newly discovered evidence.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0090.  State ex rel. Ware v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would grant the motion except as to the requests made directly to Glenn Booth and the request made to the Bureau of Records and would grant an alternative writ as to those requests only.

Deters, J., dissents and would grant the motion.

 

2023-0151.  State v. Reyes.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0018, 2022-Ohio-4046.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0782, State v. Schilling, and briefing schedule stayed.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., would not hold the cause.

 

2023-0327.  Armatas v. Aultman Hosp.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00133, 2022-Ohio-4577.  Appellants’ motion for stay of Fifth District Court of Appeals’ judgment pending this court’s ruling in 2022-0407, Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp. and the decision of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Armatas v. Aultman Health Found.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0340.  State v. Twiley.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0007, 2022-Ohio-4751.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0382.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-234, 2023-Ohio-435.  On relator’s emergency petition for stay of trial scheduled to begin March 6, 2023, by affidavit.  Petition denied.

 Deters, J., would deny the petition as moot.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 17, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/17/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1240.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF APRIL 17, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the April 17, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1134.  Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc., 169 Ohio St.3d 387, 2022-Ohio-3092.

 

2021-0704.  State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, 2022-Ohio-3991.

 

2021-1216.  State ex rel. Gray v. Kimbler, 169 Ohio St.3d 424, 2022-Ohio-3937.

 

2021-1504.  State ex rel. Cherry v. Breaux, 169 Ohio St.3d 376, 2022-Ohio-1885.

 

2022-0363.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fitz, 169 Ohio St.3d 409, 2022-Ohio-3108.

 

2022-0366.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Jarvis, 169 Ohio St.3d 430, 2022-Ohio-3936.

 

2022-0646.  McDonald v. Black, 169 Ohio St.3d 443, 2022-Ohio-3938.

 

2022-0712.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Sharp, 169 Ohio St.3d 415, 2022-Ohio-3702.

 

2022-0995.  State ex rel. Clark v. Twinsburg, 169 Ohio St.3d 380, 2022-Ohio-3089.

2022-1031.  In re Resignation of Owens, 169 Ohio St.3d 1252, 2022-Ohio-3069.

 

2022-1243.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fleming, 169 Ohio St.3d 1254, 2022-Ohio-3900.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0987.  State v. Palmer.

Clermont App. No. CA2021-07-035, 2022-Ohio-2181.  On appellant’s motion to continue oral argument.  Motion granted.  Oral argument scheduled for May 17, 2023, canceled.  Oral argument will be rescheduled at a later date.  No further continuances will be granted.

 

2022-1531.  In re Resignation of Corcoran.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt order.  Motion granted.

 

2023-0282.  Clinton v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for leave to file revised motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator shall file a response, if any, to the revised motion to dismiss within ten days of the court’s entry.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0362.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Wells.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Lisa Marie Wells, Attorney Registration No. 0076255, last known address in West Chester, Ohio.  Application granted.  Lisa Marie Wells reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/13/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1207.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1387.  State ex rel. Pool v. Sheffield Lake, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1204.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s requests for attorney fees, statutory damages, and court costs denied.  Relator’s motion for leave to file supplemental evidence denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would award statutory damages.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Valencia Richardson and Julie A. Ebenstein.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-1285.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Cocroft.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion in objection.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2020-0742.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Heller.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Michael Aaron Heller, Attorney Registration No. 0073376, last known business address in Euclid, Ohio.  Application granted.  Michael Aaron Heller reinstated to the practice of law.  Respondent shall be required to work with a monitor appointed by relator for six months to ensure that he implements proper law-office and client-trust-account management procedures.

Respondent’s second motion to extend time for ruling on application for reinstatement denied as moot.  Respondent’s motion regarding additional and/or alternative application and/or motion for order of reinstatement; motion to strike letters from the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and to deem respondent in compliance with reinstatement conditions and related relief; and motion to advance the case denied.

 

2023-0141.  In re Vick.

Sua sponte, Gary Allen Vick Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0071495, last known business address in Parma, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before March 6, 2023.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/12/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1202.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0702.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1177.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted in part and denied in part.  Relator’s request for statutory damages denied.  Relator’s motions to transfer to the Court of Claims, to strike respondent’s merit brief, and to seal or redact relator’s merit brief denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/11/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1189.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0327.  State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1165.

In Mandamus.  Relator’s motion for attorney fees denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Tingler.

On motion for leave to file complaint for a writ of mandamus.  Motion denied.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0439.  State ex. rel. Moro v. Freeman.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/11/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1149.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0303.  Love v. Foley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1482.  State v. Whitaker.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-614021-A.  On application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.06.  Application denied.

 

2023-0192.  State v. Ramilla.

Greene App. No. 2022-CA-35, 2022-Ohio-4318.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0204.  State v. Wood.

Perry App. No. 22-CA-00002, 2022-Ohio-3536.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Brunner and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

 

2023-0227.  State v. Miller.

Montgomery App. No. 29099, 2022-Ohio-213.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0232.  State v. Scott.

Delaware App. No. 21 CAA 09 0042, 2022-Ohio-2860.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0094.  State v. Terry.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111420, 2022-Ohio-4392.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0127.  State v. Glaze.

Montgomery App. No. 29431, 2022-Ohio-4549.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent.

 

2023-0128.  State v. Lovelace.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111510, 2022-Ohio-4514.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0129.  State v. Rodgers.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111563, 2022-Ohio-4516.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0156.  State v. Carter.

Logan App. No. 8-22-12, 2022-Ohio-4559 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0235.  State v. Bruce.

Hamilton App. No. C-220137.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1361.  State v. Wilkes.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00095.

 

2022-1413.  State v. Russell.

Franklin App. No. 03AP-666.

 

2022-1595.  In re Guardianship of Pond.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAF 06 0045, 2022-Ohio-4023.  Appellant’s motion to strike all pleadings from McGee denied as moot.  Appellant’s motion to strike McGee’s response in opposition denied as moot.  Appellee Adriann S. McGee’s “motion to strike appellant’s motion to strike McGee’s response in opposition” denied as moot.  Appellee Adriann S. McGee’s motion for sanctions denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., would deny appellant’s motions and appellee’s motion to strike on the merits.

 

2022-1614.  Cleveland v. Patton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112047.

 

2023-0063.  State v. Benedict.

Crawford App. No. 3-21-08, 2022-Ohio-3600 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

 

2023-0068.  State v. Midlam.

Highland App. No. 22CA7, 2023-Ohio-62 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2023-0072.  Alessio v. United Airlines, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111449, 2022-Ohio-4510 .

 

2023-0073.  Fifth Third Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Hillman.

Delaware App. No. 22-CAE-06-0050, 2022-Ohio-4338 .

 

 

 

2023-0076.  McKinney v. LaMalfa Party Ctr.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-023, 2022-Ohio-4333 .

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2023-0078.  State v. Shank.

Medina App. No. 22CA0067-M.

 Donnelly, J., concurs because appellant’s concerns are governed by App.R. 26(B), not App.R. 5(A).

 

2023-0085.  State v. Wolters.

Guernsey App. No. 21CA000008, 2022-Ohio-538 .

 

2023-0088.  Davis v. 40 East, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111329, 2022-Ohio-4505 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent.

 

2023-0092.  Korey v. Hunting Valley Planning & Zoning Commt.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111382, 2022-Ohio-4390 .

 

2023-0097.  Robinson v. Lorain Cty. Printing & Publishing Co.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011711, 2023-Ohio-3 .

 

2023-0103.  Carpenter v. Antero Resources Appalachian Corp.

Monroe App. No. 21 MO 0007, 2022-Ohio-4619 .

 

2023-0104.  State v. Kirby.

Butler App. No. CA2022-05-057, 2022-Ohio-4447 .

 

2023-0107.  Kotkowski-Paul v. Paul.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0088, 2022-Ohio-4567 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

 

2023-0108.  In re E.T.

Richland App. No. 22CA52.  Appellee’s “motion to strike appellant’s brief or in the alternative, pose a new deadline for filing appellee’s response” denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Brunner, JJ., would deny the motion as moot.

 

 

 

2023-0110.  State v. Bridle.

Medina App. No. 21CA0061-M, 2023-Ohio-109 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2023-0114.  State v. Wisener.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0025, 2022-Ohio-4557 .

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2023-0120.  State v. Clinkscale.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-731.

 

2023-0131.  State v. Dixon.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-152, 2022-Ohio-4532 .

 

2023-0132.  Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Schwarzmer.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111357, 2022-Ohio-4506 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

 

2023-0140.  State v. Travis.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2022 AP 08 0026, 2023-Ohio-33 .

 

2023-0165.  State v. Johnson.

Montgomery App. No. 29475, 2022-Ohio-4629 .

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0178.  State v. Drane.

Montgomery App. No. 29317, 2022-Ohio-4624 .

 

2023-0184.  State v. Ulm.

Montgomery App. No. 29168, 2022-Ohio-4741 .

 

2023-0187.  State v. Snowden.

Montgomery App. No. 14107.

 

2023-0196.  State v. Smith.

Defiance App. No. 4-21-10, 2022-Ohio-4687 .

 

2023-0203.  State v. Young.

Coshocton App. No. 21CA0028, 2022-Ohio-4726 .

 

2023-0212.  Goebel v. Hopkins.

Warren App. No. CA2022-06-042, 2022-Ohio-4718 .

 

2023-0213.  State v. Grad.

Medina App. No. 22CA0011-M, 2022-Ohio-4221 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and V.

Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2023-0217.  Myers v. Vitanovic.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAF 02 0009, 2022-Ohio-4802 .

 Deters, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III.

 

2023-0219.  State v. Marshall.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-402, 2022-Ohio-4693 .

 

2023-0220.  State v. Callaghan.

Summit App. No. 30483.

 

2023-0236.  State v. Long.

Hamilton App. No. C-220164, 2023-Ohio-132 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would appoint counsel.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-0247.  State v. Owens.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0111, 2023-Ohio-113 .

 

2023-0276.  State v. Allen.

Scioto App. No. 21CA3969, 2023-Ohio-192 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1399.  State v. Washington.

Miami App. No. 2020-CA-18, 2022-Ohio-1426.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1423, 2023-Ohio-212, 201 N.E.3d 909.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1525.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Sandusky Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1436, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 717.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1532.  State ex rel. Tingler v. McGookey.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1436, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 719.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1540.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Gross.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2023-Ohio-482, 203 N.E.3d 719.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 3, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/03/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1098.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF APRIL 3, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the April 3, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-0926.  State v. McAlpin, 169 Ohio St.3d 279, 2022-Ohio-1567.

 

2021-0481.  State v. Bellamy, 169 Ohio St.3d 366, 2022-Ohio-3698.

 

2021-1519.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble, 169 Ohio St.3d 350, 2022-Ohio-2190.

 

2022-0173.  State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, 169 Ohio St.3d 357, 2022-Ohio-2542.

 

2022-0338.  In re Application of Richmond, 169 Ohio St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-3169.

 

2022-0535.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmons, 169 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2022-Ohio-3835.

 

2022-0563.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Duff, 169 Ohio St.3d 1246, 2022-Ohio-3837.

 

2022-0714.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brooks, 169 Ohio St.3d 371, 2022-Ohio-3712.

 

2022-1248.  In re Resignation of Porter, 169 Ohio St.3d 1249, 2022-Ohio-3836.

 

22-AP-097.  In re Disqualification of Saffold, 169 Ohio St.3d 1235, 2022-Ohio-4429.

 

22-AP-099.  In re Disqualification of Gaul, 169 Ohio St.3d 1231, 2022-Ohio-4127.

 

22-AP-103.  In re Disqualification of DeWeese and Naumoff, 169 Ohio St.3d 1230, 2022-Ohio-3882.

 

22-AP-115.  In re Disqualification of Luebbers, 169 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2022-Ohio-4434.

 

22-AP-121.  In re Disqualification of Baker Ross, 169 Ohio St.3d 1239, 2022-Ohio-4488.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 3, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/03/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1106.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0782.  State v. Schilling.

Hamilton App. No. C-210363, 2022-Ohio-1773.  Sua sponte, appellant ordered to file a response, if any, to appellee’s motion for leave to disclose adverse authority pursuant to Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(2) no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 4, 2023.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 4, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/03/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1115.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1090, 2021-1091, and 2021-1181.  State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1063.

Cuyahoga App. No. CA 21 110297, 2021-Ohio-2524; Lucas App. No. L-21-1087; and Summit App. No. 29889, 2021-Ohio-3189.  Judgments affirmed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Byrne, JJ., concur.

 Matthew R. Byrne, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinion, which was previously issued as an entry in response to an affidavit of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

23-AP-009.  In re Disqualification of Bickerton, 2023-Ohio-1104 (decided Feb. 22, 2023).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0246.  Kent v. Lusane.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0011, 2022-Ohio-4057.  On appellant’s motion for leave to amend memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion granted.  Appellee shall

file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction, if any, within 30 days of the date of the filing of the amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellant shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.  As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, this court may dismiss this case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.

 

2022-0177.  Farmers Natl. Bank of Canfield v. Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0006, 2021-Ohio-4615 .

__________________

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits on this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0425.  Afzaal, L.L.C. v. Harris.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2021-306.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/05/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1116.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0545.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Bowen, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1105.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0025.  Judgment affirmed.

DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1148.  State ex rel. Adams v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for exemption from fees and costs.  Motion denied.  Respondents’ request for clarification and motion to dismiss granted.  Respondents’ request for extension of time to file response to complaint denied as moot.  Respondents’ motion to strike relator’s response to request for clarification and request for extension of time denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1566.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Sandusky Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for default judgment.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2022-1574.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Defiance Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motions for default judgment.  Motions denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Deters, JJ., concur. Stewart and Brunner, JJ., would deny the motions as moot.

 

2022-1581.  State ex rel. Walker v. Butler Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1590.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Elyria Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. Fischer and Deters, JJ., would dismiss the cause sua sponte.

 

2022-1634.  State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Sheeran.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2022-1645.  State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Jamison.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-1648.  State ex rel. Sanduskians for Sandusky v. Sandusky.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., would dismiss the cause on mootness grounds.

 

 

2023-0002.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Wood Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss and to find relator a vexatious litigator.  Motion granted as to request to dismiss the cause and denied as moot as to request to find relator a vexatious litigator; relator was declared a vexatious litigator in 2022-1534, State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office; 2022-1612, State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office; and 2022-1624, State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0012.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Columbus Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondent Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Columbus Police Department.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0047.  State ex rel. Havens v. Beathard.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relators’ motion to sanction opposing counsel denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0058.  State ex rel. Bishop v. Bruzzese.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2023-0067.  Whitacre v. Rose.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s motion to name relator a vexatious litigator granted.  Accordingly, Carl E. Whitacre is prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart, J., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny the motion to name relator a vexatious litigator.

 

 

 

2023-0089.  Terrell v. Gall.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0117.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Lucas Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-1293.  State v. Mitchell.

Portage App. No. 94-P-0070.  On appellant’s motion to vacate decision.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0824.  State ex rel. Gilreath v. Cuyahoga Job & Family Servs.

In Mandamus.  On January 19, 2023 motion for judgment on pleadings of respondents Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and Director Matt Damschroder.  Motion denied.   Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file under seal records at issue for in camera inspection.  Relator’s motion for leave to amend and supplement complaint denied as moot.  December 23, 2022 motion for judgment on pleadings of respondents Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and Matt Damschroder denied as moot.

 

2022-0836.  In re Allen v. McClain.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relators’ Civ.R. 52 demand.  Demand denied.

 

 

 

 

2022-1102.  Lamont v. State.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ motion to “show cause and to grant mandamus & relief sought.”  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Stewart, J., would deny the motion as moot.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2022-1302.  Whitacre v. Ohio Pub. Defender.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to sanction counsel for respondents.  Motion denied.  Relator’s filing regarding entry filed January 25, 2023 denied.

 

2022-1651.  State ex rel. Walker v. Monnin.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted as to claims for relief set forth in paragraphs (A) and (C) through (F) of the complaint.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days.

Sua sponte, alternative writ granted as to claim set forth in paragraph (B) of the complaint.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of the answer to the complaint, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2023-0113.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s complaint for TRO and preliminary injunction and affidavit.  Complaint for TRO and affidavit dismissed.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2023-0265.  Jones v. Russell.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0076, 2023-Ohio-351.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1049.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110833 and 111020, 2022-Ohio-2133.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.

 Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law and would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-1033, State v. Gwynne.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/05/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1117.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0046.  Mitchell v. Worley.

Medina App. No. 21CA0063-M, 2022-Ohio-4222 .

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Stewart, JJ.

_________________

BRUNNER, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(A)(1)(a) provides that in jurisdictional appeals, such as this one, we “will review the jurisdictional memoranda filed and determine whether to accept the appeal and decide the case on the merits.”  We may decline to accept jurisdiction over an appeal if we determine

 

 

that one or more of the following are applicable after review of the jurisdictional memoranda:

(a) The appeal does not involve a substantial constitutional question and should be dismissed;

(b) The appeal does not involve a question of great general or public interest;

(c) The appeal does not involve a felony;

(d) The appeal does involve a felony, but leave to appeal is not warranted.

 

S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(4).

1                    {¶ 2} In this case, the memoranda and the appellate court’s decision disclose that appellee, Travis Worley, was driving his truck to a jobsite at 6:30 a.m. on March 15, 2018, when he was involved in a traffic collision with appellant, Buddy Mitchell.  9th Dist. Medina No. 21CA0063-M, 2022-Ohio-4222, ¶ 2.  Worley was employed at the time by Michels Corporation (“Michels”).  Id.  Mitchell filed claims against Worley and against Michels based on respondeat superior.  Id. at ¶ 3.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Michels on the basis that Worley was not acting in the course of his employment at the time of the collision.  Id. at ¶ 5.

2                    {¶ 3} At the time of the collision, Worley lived in Missouri, but while working on a project for Michels in Seville, Ohio, he stayed in a hotel that was a 15-minute drive from the jobsite, and he received a weekly stipend of $235 from Michels to help offset the cost of food and lodging.  Id. at ¶ 15.  He used his own truck to travel to and from the jobsite.  Id. at ¶ 16.  The trial court concluded that Worley was not acting within the course of his employment when the collision occurred, because he was merely commuting to work and was not conferring any special benefit on his employer by driving (as opposed to someone who, for example, was a traveling employee).  Id. at ¶ 18.  The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.  Id. at ¶ 41.

3                    {¶ 4} On appeal to this court, Mitchell set forth two propositions of law: first, that because Worley was an out-of-state employee who was in Ohio at the direction of his employer, he was acting within the scope of his employment at all times while in Ohio, and second, that the lower courts improperly engaged in fact-finding on summary judgment in characterizing Worley’s activity as commuting rather than considering him a traveling employee.  I agree with the implicit determination of the majority of the court that Mitchell’s second proposition of law amounts to attempted error correction because he disagrees with the trial court’s characterization of undisputed facts and does not raise a substantial constitutional question or a question of great general or public interest.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(4)(a) and (b); Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(B)(2)(a)(ii) and (e).

4                    {¶ 5} However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision not to accept jurisdiction over the first proposition of law in Mitchell’s appeal.  Generally, a worker is not within the course of his or her employment when commuting to and from a fixed residence to a fixed work location.  Boch v. New York Life Ins. Co., 175 Ohio St. 458, 462-463, 196 N.E.2d 90

 

1                    (1964); Senn v. Lackner, 157 Ohio St. 206, 105 N.E.2d 49 (1952), paragraphs one through three of the syllabus.  However, it is also true that travel may count as an action within the course of employment for respondeat superior liability when the employee’s travel confers a special benefit on his or her employer.  Boch at 462-463.  For example, “getting to the place of work is ordinarily a personal problem of the employee and not a part of his services to his [employer], so that in the absence of some special benefit to the [employer] other than the mere making of the services available at the place where they are needed the employee is not acting in the scope of his employment in traveling to work.”  (Emphasis deleted.)  Id., quoting 52 American Law Reports 2d 350, 354.  Yet here, the circumstance is that Worley’s employer, Michels, apparently realized some benefit in maintaining Worley’s presence in Ohio while he was assigned to the Seville jobsite, such that it paid him extra to temporarily assure his continuous presence in Ohio, rather than hire workers who live in Ohio.

2                    {¶ 6} Whether Worley’s extended presence in Ohio (where he does not reside and was temporarily located for work purposes) at the behest of his employer conferred a special benefit on Michels is a question that we should consider.  The question whether workers who are sent from their state of residence to work at jobsites in Ohio are within the scope of their employment during their entire stay in this state holds special public interest for Ohioans.  Whether the worker is an oil-and-gas worker in eastern Ohio or a railroad employee who works 20 hours off and 20 hours on and depends on his or her employer to provide transportation to a rail stop, the “coming and going” of employees who are not Ohio residents but who work in Ohio is an important issue on which we could provide employers with some clarity regarding vicarious liability.  Because the majority declines to accept jurisdiction over the appeal in this important case and consider its merits, I respectfully dissent.

 

DONNELLY and STEWART, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/05/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-1122.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0782.  State v. Schilling.

Hamilton App. No. C-210363, 2022-Ohio-1773.  On appellee’s motion for leave to disclose adverse authority pursuant to Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(2).  Motion granted.

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Carl S. Kravitz, Nicholas M. DiCarlo, Jason M. Knott, Daniel J. Berkowitz, and Mitchell Goldgehn.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0293.  Berkheimer v. REKM, L.L.C.

Butler App. No. CA2022-03-026, 2023-Ohio-116.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of T. Patrick Byrnes.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/06/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1132.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0953.  Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Diam, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1118.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-031.  Brittany Dawn O’Diam, Attorney Registration No. 0086663, last known business address in Centerville, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for six months, conditionally stayed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/07/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1151.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Bozsik.

On motion for leave pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B) to commence a legal proceeding in mandamus.  Motion denied.

 

In re Chukwuani.

On motion for leave to file affidavit of disqualification.  Motion denied.

 

In re Hill.

On motions for leave pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Motions denied.

 

2022-1030.  In re Estate of Ohio Republic v. Hamilton Cty. Courthouse.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, relator’s corrected original action in prohibition and mandamus and proposed summons filed on March 31, 2023, stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.13(B)(1).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/07/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1152.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0326.  State ex rel. Massillon City Administration Bldg. v. Elum.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00153.  On appellant’s motion to stay execution of February 23, 2023 judgment entry of the Fifth District Court of Appeals.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0338.  Russo v. Gissinger.

Summit App. No. 29881, 2023-Ohio-200.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion granted.  Existing supersedeas bond shall continue and amount of existing bond shall increase to total a supersedeas bond in the amount of $288,150.

Brunner and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 10, 2023

 

[Cite as 04/10/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1176.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0400.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Murphy.

On Final Report by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, No. UPL 22-01.  Respondent, Leanne Murphy, enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.  Civil penalty in the amount of $625.00 imposed on respondent and ordered to be paid within 30 days.  If respondent fails to pay fine within 30 days, the matter will be referred to the attorney general for collection and this court may find respondent in contempt.  Respondent will be liable for all collection costs pursuant to R.C. 131.02 if the debt is certified to the attorney general for collection.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 30, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/30/2023 Case Announcements #4, 2023-Ohio-1062.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1473.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co. for Significantly

Excessive Earnings Test.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 19-1121-EL-UNC, 20-1041-EL-UNC, 20-680-

EL-UNC, 18-1875-EL-GRD, 18-1876-EL-WVR, and 18-1877-EL-AAM.  On joint motion to consolidate appeals and defer oral argument.  Motion granted.  Oral argument scheduled for Tuesday, April 4, 2023, canceled.  Oral argument will be rescheduled at a later date.  Case consolidated with case No. 2023-0111, In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co., and case No. 2023-0130, In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co., for oral argument and decision only.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0111.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 08-1094-EL-SSO, 08-1095-EL-ATA, 08-1096-EL-AAM, and 08-1097-EL-UNC.  On joint motion to consolidate with case No. 2023-0130.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cases consolidated for briefing.  Parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.05.

 On joint motion to consolidate appeals and defer oral argument.  Motion granted.  Case consolidated with case No. 2021-1473, In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co. for Significantly Excessive Earnings Test, for oral argument and decision only.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

2023-0130.  In re Application of the Dayton Power & Light Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 08-1095-EL-ATA, 08-1096-EL-AAM, and 08-1097-EL-UNC.  On joint motion to consolidate with case No. 2023-0111.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cases consolidated for briefing.  Parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.05.

 On joint motion to consolidate appeals and defer oral argument.  Motion granted.  Case consolidated with case No. 2021-1473, In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co. for Significantly Excessive Earnings Test, for oral argument and decision only.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 30, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/30/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-1061.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0332.  State ex rel. Pinkston v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1060.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 31, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/31/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1056.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0183.  Whitacre v. Noble Cty. Clerk of Courts.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied for failure to contain a certificate of service as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(D)(1).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 30, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/30/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1052.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0313.  State ex rel. Gold v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1051.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s motion to strike respondent’s merit brief denied.  Relator’s request for award of attorney fees denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 30, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/30/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1028.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0294.  State v. Marshall, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-999.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109633, 2021-Ohio-4434.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0723.  Robinson v. McConahay.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0033.  On appellant’s Evid.R. 201 judicial notices of adjudicative facts filed on February 23 and 24, 2023.  Notices dismissed as moot.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1126.  State ex rel. Patituce & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Toledo Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 29, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/29/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-1027.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0733.  State v. Jordan.

Scioto App. No. 20CA3936, 2022-Ohio-1480.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file supplemental briefs addressing whether the common pleas court’s order disqualifying defense counsel constituted a final, appealable order within the meaning of R.C. 2505.02.  The parties should further address this court’s decision in State v. Chambliss, 128 Ohio St.3d 507, 2011-Ohio-1785, 947 N.E.2d 651, and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984).  All briefs shall be filed within 14 days.  No responsive briefs permitted.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would not order supplemental briefing, because the issue to be briefed was not raised below.

Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2022-0734.  State v. Johnson.

Scioto App. No. 20CA3935, 2022-Ohio-1479.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file supplemental briefs addressing whether the common pleas court’s order disqualifying defense counsel constituted a final, appealable order within the meaning of R.C. 2505.02.  The parties should further address this court’s decision in State v. Chambliss, 128 Ohio St.3d 507, 2011-Ohio-1785, 947 N.E.2d 651, and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984).  All briefs shall be filed within 14 days.  No responsive briefs permitted.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would not order supplemental briefing, because the issue to be briefed was not raised below.

Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2022-1463.  Repp v. Best.

In Quo Warranto.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: When a judge is absent from office as result of a six-month suspension from the practice of law, does that suspension result in a R.C. 1901.10 “vacancy,” given the removal procedures in Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 23; Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 17; and R.C. 3.07 through R.C. 3.10?  Supplemental briefs not to exceed 20 pages.  Each side’s brief shall be filed within 14 days.  No reply briefs, stipulations, or requests for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any stipulations or requests for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 29, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/29/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-1014.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0843.  State ex rel. Norman v. Collins, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-975.

Pickaway App. No. 22CA7.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion to supplement brief pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.09 denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1381.  State v. Garrett.

Franklin C.P. No. 18CR168.  On appellant’s motion for stay of execution.  Motion granted.  The stay shall remain in effect until exhaustion of all state postconviction proceedings, including any appeals.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2018-1746.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton.

On petition for reinstatement by Timothy Solomon Horton, Attorney Registration No. 0065934, last known address in Lewis Center, Ohio.  Petition conditionally granted.  Respondent will be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio upon the following conditions: (1) he shall continue to participate in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings; (2) he shall continue counseling with Eric Currence, Ph.D., on an as-needed basis; (3) prior to reinstatement, he shall provide proof that he has taken

and passed the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam; and (4) he shall provide proof to relator that he has completed three additional hours of continuing legal education on sexual harassment.  Respondent further ordered to pay costs of proceedings in the amount of $2,136.62, less the deposit of $500, for a total balance of $1,636.62, within 90 days.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 

2022-1243.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fleming.

On certification of default.  Esmeralda Fleming, Attorney Registration No. 0066287, last known address in Cleveland, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/28/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-997.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0388.  State ex rel. DeBlase v. Ohio Ballot Bd.

In Mandamus.  On unopposed motion of respondents Nancy Kramer, Aziza Wahby, David Hackney, Jennifer McNally, and Ebony Speakes-Hall for expedited evidence and briefing schedule.  Motion granted.  The following schedule is set for the filing of answers, briefs, and evidence: Respondents shall file an answer to the complaint by March 29, 2023; relators shall file a merit brief and evidence no later than March 31, 2023; respondents shall file a merit brief and evidence no later than April 4, 2023; and relators shall file a reply brief no later than April 7, 2023.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/28/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-996.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0142.  State ex rel. Friendship Supported Living, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-957.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-882, 2021-Ohio-4490.  Judgment reversed and limited writ granted. 

Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

Kennedy, C.J., concurs, with an opinion joined by DeWine and Deters, JJ.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following cases to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  The respondent in each case shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2022-1542.  Dean v. Schooley.

In Mandamus.

 

2023-0043.  Dean v. Thompson.  

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/24/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-977.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0295.  State ex rel. Richardson v. Gowdy, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-976.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s request for attorney fees denied.  Relator’s request for court costs granted.  Relator’s motion to establish security for costs granted and provision of security for costs waived.  Costs assessed to respondent president of the East Cleveland City Council.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0388.  State ex rel. DeBlase v. Ohio Ballot Board.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file responses, if any, to the unopposed motion for expedited evidence and briefing schedule of respondents Nancy Kramer, Aziza Wahby, David Hackney, Jennifer McNally, and Ebony Speakes-Hall no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 27, 2023.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/27/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-974.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1496.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Ohio Health Marion Gen. Hosp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for leave to file opposition to respondent OhioHealth Marion General Hospital’s motion to dismiss relator’s amended complaint with relator’s opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion for leave granted.  The clerk of the court shall file relator’s motion for leave with relator’s opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss as of March 24, 2023.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/27/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-974.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1496.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Ohio Health Marion Gen. Hosp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for leave to file opposition to respondent OhioHealth Marion General Hospital’s motion to dismiss relator’s amended complaint with relator’s opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion for leave granted.  The clerk of the court shall file relator’s motion for leave with relator’s opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss as of March 24, 2023.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/24/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-956.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1446.  Ramos v. Fresh Mark Canton.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00076, 2022-Ohio-3642.  On motion of Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to realign as appellant.  Motion granted.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion.

_________________

 BRUNNER, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} According to the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ opinion in this case, appellant, Domingo Ramos, was working for appellee, Fresh Mark Canton, on December 16, 2017, when he was injured so grievously that he died immediately thereafter.  2022-Ohio-3642, 198 N.E.3d 1009, ¶ 2 (5th Dist.).  Almost two years later, on December 5, 2019, his significant other submitted an application to the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation seeking death benefits for Ramos’s four children.  Id. at ¶ 3.1  Fresh Mark, a self-insuring employer, denied the claim on the ground that it had been filed past the one-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 4123.84(A). 2022-Ohio-3642, 198 N.E.3d 1009, at ¶ 3.  However, the record indicates that Fresh Mark did not report Ramos’s death to the bureau in accordance with R.C. 4123.28, thus, arguably tolling the statute of limitations.  2022-Ohio-3642, 198 N.E.3d 1009, at ¶ 5.  A district hearing officer denied the application for death benefits and a staff hearing officer affirmed the denial, as did the court of common pleas.  Id. at ¶ 5-7.  In a fractured one-one-one opinion, the Fifth District affirmed the trial court’s judgment, with one dissenting judge and the two judges in the majority all asserting different reasoning.

 

1. Throughout this dissenting opinion, “Ramos” will be used to refer to the applicant on behalf of Ramos’s children.

                        {¶ 2} We accepted Ramos’s request for further appellate review.  169 Ohio St.3d 1423, 2023-Ohio-212, 201 N.E.3d 911. {¶ 6} Because of its decision to concede appellate error, the bureau appears to be concerned about due process for Fresh Mark.  But Fresh Mark has counsel and is perfectly free to defend its position on the meaning of the statute with or without a change in the bureau’s party status.  And whether the bureau is an appellant or an appellee, its view of the statute at issue is merely persuasive and not binding on either Fresh Mark or this court. See, e.g., State v. Pountney, 152 Ohio St.3d 474, 2018-Ohio-22, 97 N.E.3d 478, ¶ 20 (this court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo).  Thus, while I appreciate the bureau’s intellectual honesty and willingness to concede what it views to be a problematic interpretation by the Fifth District, I do not see the need to change its party status when it has merely changed its arguments and legal conclusions.

                        {¶ 7} It is not unheard of for a party to concede various arguments after reexamining the facts and the law in a case.  The objectivity displayed by the bureau is the result of diligent legal analysis, and the bureau does not need altered party labels to advocate for or validate its position.  Because of this, I would deny the bureau’s motion to realign its party status.  Because the majority does not, I respectfully dissent.

 

{¶ 3} The motion now under review by this court is whether the bureau may “realign” its party status to be designated as an appellant.  The bureau asserts that it was named as a defendant (actually, an appellee) in the court of common pleas as required by R.C. 4123.512(B).  It is undisputed that both a district and a staff hearing officer from the bureau agreed with Fresh Mark and denied the application for death benefits for Ramos’s children.  After the court of common pleas affirmed the staff hearing officer’s decision denying benefits and Ramos appealed that judgment to the Fifth District, the Fifth District erroneously omitted the bureau as a party to the appeal.  The bureau surmises that when this court granted Ramos’s request for jurisdictional review, there was no indication that the bureau (which had not sought to oppose the decision of the Fifth District) was anything other than appellee.  (However, our case-management system currently characterizes the bureau as a “Non-Party.”)

{¶ 4} Although the bureau neither participated in nor opposed Ramos’s arguments before the Fifth District (the bureau also did not seek reconsideration of the Fifth District’s judgment), it now asserts that the Fifth District’s interpretation of R.C. 4123.28 is erroneous.  Specifically, in its motion to realign, the bureau argues that “R.C. 4123.28 requires employers to report instantaneous workplace deaths to the Bureau, and each day the [employer] fails to do so extends the statute of limitations to file a claim for benefits due for that death.”  The bureau concludes, therefore, that while it normally would be an appellee under these circumstances, it now should be an appellant because of its changed views.  As such, the bureau seeks a redesignation of its party status in this appeal.

{¶ 5} The bureau’s request is unopposed by any party, and the majority now grants the bureau’s request to be “realigned.”  Because I do not believe that redesignating the bureau’s party status is procedurally necessary or appropriate, I respectfully dissent.  The bureau’s hearing officers denied Ramos’s request for death benefits, and both the court of common pleas (where the bureau was designated as an appellee) and the court of appeals (where the bureau did not participate) affirmed that judgment.  That procedural history makes the bureau an appellee.  The fact that the bureau has since reconsidered its position does not alter its party status—it merely makes the bureau a party that conceded its previously held position.

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/24/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-946.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Chukwuani.

On motion for leave to file affidavit of disqualification.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/28/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-921.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0163.  State v. Franco.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0172.  Williams v. Fender.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0206.  Howard v. Watson.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0222.  Collier v. Foley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0167.  State v. Pierce.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110791, 2022-Ohio-3912.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0198.  State v. Hooks.

Butler App. No. CA2021-12-148, 2022-Ohio-4132.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1543.  Wisehart v. Wisehart.

Preble App. No. CA2022-05-006, 2022-Ohio-3774 .

 

2023-0015.  State v. Schmidt.

Warren App. No. CA2021-12-115, 2022-Ohio-4138 .

 

2023-0021.  McMullen v. Wyatt.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0023, 2022-Ohio-4162 .

 

2023-0025.  Vukovic-Burkhardt v. Dayton Bd. of Edn.

Montgomery App. No. 29539, 2022-Ohio-4183 .

 

2023-0028.  Weiler v. C.L.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111657, 2022-Ohio-4212 .

 

2023-0034.  State v. Harper.

Scioto App. No. 21CA3965, 2022-Ohio-4357 .

 

2023-0035.  Ash-Holloway v. Holloway.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0031, 2022-Ohio-4248 .

 

2023-0038.  New Wembley, L.L.C. v. Klar.

Geauga App. No. 2022-G-0007, 2022-Ohio-4250 .

 

2023-0044.  State v. Cunningham.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0048, 2021-Ohio-4052 .

 

2023-0045.  State v. Cunningham.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0047, 2021-Ohio-4051 .

 

2023-0048.  State v. Evick.

Clinton App. No. CA2022-10-026.

 Stewart, J., dissents and would appoint counsel. 

 

2023-0049.  Lake Front Med., L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-102, 2022-Ohio-4281.  Appellant’s motion to strike memorandum in response to jurisdiction denied.

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., would deny the motion as moot.

 

2023-0050.  Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0099, 2022-Ohio-3282 .

 Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. V.

Deters, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and III.

 

2023-0052.  Powell v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111338, 2022-Ohio-4286 .

 

2023-0054.  Pierre Invests., Inc. v. CLS Capital Group, Inc.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1229, 2022-Ohio-4311.  Appellant’s motion for leave to file revised document previously filed denied.

 Brunner, J., would deny the motion as moot. 

 

2023-0055.  State v. Heiney.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1238.

 

2023-0057.  Norman v. Pearson.

Montgomery App. No. 29506, 2022-Ohio-4317 .

 Deters, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2023-0059.  State v. Voltz.

Jefferson App. No. 21-JE-0020, 2022-Ohio-4351 .

 

2023-0060.  State v. Fulton.

Marion App. No. 9-22-05, 2022-Ohio-4323 .

 

2023-0062.  State v. Ludwick.

Highland App. No. 21CA17, 2022-Ohio-2609 .

 

2023-0075.  State v. Kirkland.

Lorain App. No. 19CA011485.

 

2023-0081.  State v. Mitchell.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220155 and C-220156.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0082.  State v. Lindsay.

Richland App. No. 22-CA-61, 2022-Ohio-4498 .

 

2023-0136.  State v. Townsend.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110525, 2022-Ohio-4938 .

 

2023-0147.  State v. Snowden.

Montgomery App. No. 29355, 2022-Ohio-4119 .

 

2023-0149.  State v. Harvey.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1029, 2022-Ohio-4650 .

 

2023-0164.  State v. Draughon.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-182, 2022-Ohio-3443 .

 

2023-0174.  State v. Johnson.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0106, 2022-Ohio-4821 .

 

2023-0181.  State v. Thompson.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1287.

 

2023-0186.  State v. Knight.

Summit App. No. 30270, 2022-Ohio-4790 .

 

2023-0208.  State v. Burroughs.

Mahoning App. No. 93 CA 0013, 2022-Ohio-4823 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-1592.  State ex rel. Hunt v. E. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-407, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1190.  Career & Technical Assn. v. Auburn Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-113, 2022-Ohio-2737.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1527, 2023-Ohio-86, 200 N.E.3d 1151.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1199.  State v. Dean.

Madison App. Nos. CA2021-08-013 and CA2021-08-014, 2022-Ohio-3105.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1527, 2023-Ohio-86, 200 N.E.3d 1152.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1211.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-538.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1527, 2023-Ohio-86, 200 N.E.3d 1152.  On petition for reconsideration pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B).  Petition denied.

 

2022-1274.  Molai v. Standing Rock Cemetery Bd. of Trustees.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0117, 2022-Ohio-3004.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1528, 2023-Ohio-86, 200 N.E.3d 1153.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1292.  Whitacre v. Regel.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1417, 2023-Ohio-152, 201 N.E.3d 894.  On motion filed on February 6, 2023.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1369.  State v. Cruz.

Erie App. No. E-21-057, 2022-Ohio-3356.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1530, 2023-Ohio-86, 200 N.E.3d 1164.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1388.  Byrd v. Shuster.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1418, 2023-Ohio-152, 201 N.E.3d 902.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1436.  State ex rel. Douglas v. Cuyahoga Cty. Treasurer.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 169 Ohio St.3d 1419, 2023-Ohio-152, 201 N.E.3d 902.  On motion for reconsideration and notice.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 23, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/23/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-919.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0395.  In re Kingsbury.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Dorothea Jane Kingsbury, Attorney Registration No. 0009993, last known business address in Mayfield Village, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/22/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-904.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0488.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110347, 2022-Ohio-81.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae

Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Jonathan D. Hacker.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2023-0320.  Wilhelms v. ProMedica Health Sys., Inc.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1085, 2023-Ohio-143.  On appellants ProMedica Health System, Inc., et al.’s motion for leave to file revised memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion granted.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0940.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Moody.

Sua sponte, Steven Jerome Moody, Attorney Registration No. 0074731, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before February 17, 2023.

 

2022-1530.  In re Resignation of Stone.

Sua sponte, Adam Charles Stone, Attorney Registration No. 0085414, last known business address in Bucyrus, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his attorney-registration card and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before February 17, 2023.

 

2022-1531.  In re Resignation of Corcoran.

Sua sponte, James I. Corcoran, Attorney Registration No. 0032204, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before February 17, 2023.

 

2023-0386.  In re Boyuk.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Walter Charles Boyuk, Attorney Registration No. 0009810, last known business address in Hilliard, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0201.  State ex. rel. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-119, 2022-Ohio-4774.  On joint motion to stay briefing and to refer case to mediation.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/20/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-868.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MARCH 20, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the March 20, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1111.  State v. Hudson, 169 Ohio St.3d 216, 2022-Ohio-1435.

 

2020-1294 and 2020-1420.  State v. Irvin, 169 Ohio St.3d 276, 2022-Ohio-3587.

 

2020-1554.  State v. Pitts, 169 Ohio St.3d 276, 2022-Ohio-3588.

 

2021-0124.  State v. G.K., 169 Ohio St.3d 266, 2022-Ohio-2858.

 

2021-0224.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bahan, 169 Ohio St.3d 188, 2022-Ohio-1210.

 

2021-0573.  State v. Stiltner, 169 Ohio St.3d 277, 2022-Ohio-3589.

 

2021-0674.  State ex rel. Ugicom Ents., Inc. v. Morrison, 169 Ohio St.3d 244, 2022-Ohio-1689.

 

2021-0823.  State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt, 169 Ohio St.3d 223, 2022-Ohio-1627.

 

2021-1561.  State v. Cobb, 169 Ohio St.3d 278, 2022-Ohio-3590.

 

22-AP-105.  In re Disqualification of Melnick, 169 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2022-Ohio-4431.

 

22-AP-107.  In re Disqualification of Mackey, 169 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2022-Ohio-4432.

 

22-AP-112.  In re Disqualification of Haupt, 169 Ohio St.3d 1225, 2022-Ohio-4128.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2023-0109.  Beder v. Cerha Kitchen & Bath Design Studio, L.L.C.

Geauga App. No. 2022-G-0008, 2022-Ohio-4463.  On appellants’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 16, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/16/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-851.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0296.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bryant.

On relator’s motion for an immediate interim remedial suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(19).  Motion granted.  Kristin Jocele Bryant, Attorney Registration No. 0080197, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.  Relator’s motion to file under seal granted.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 16, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/16/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-796.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0332.  State ex rel. Pinkston v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  On Highland Realty Development’s motion to intervene as party-respondent.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 16, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/16/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-795.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0630.  State ex rel. Reynolds v. Kirby, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-782.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Writ of prohibition granted in part and denied in part.  Writ of mandamus denied.  Respondents Judges Joseph W. Kirby and Gary A. Loxley’s motion to dismiss denied.  Respondent Warren County Prosecuting Attorney David Fornshell’s motion to dismiss granted as to him.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1098.  State ex rel. Simpson v. Melnick, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-783.

Montgomery App. No. 29554.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0244.  State ex rel. Black v. E. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to refer case to mediation.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1197.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Maxfield.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/15/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-790.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-0926.  State v. McAlpin.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. 17-CR-623243-A.  On appellant’s motion for stay of execution.  Motion granted.  The stay shall remain in effect until exhaustion of all state postconviction proceedings, including any appeals.

 

2022-0603.  State v. Daniel.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1104, 2022-Ohio-1348.  On amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s motion to appoint counsel for oral argument.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1496.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Ohio Health Marion Gen. Hosp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for leave to file opposition to respondents State Medical Board and Ohio Board of Nursing’s motion to dismiss with relator’s opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion for leave granted.  The clerk of the court shall file relator’s motion for leave to file opposition to respondents State Medical Board and Ohio Board of Nursing’s motion to dismiss and relator’s opposition to respondents’ joint motion to dismiss as of March 13, 2023.

 

2022-1649.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Atty. Gen.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(E).  Motion denied.  Respondent shall immediately serve a copy of his motion to dismiss on relator, and relator may file a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss within ten days from the court’s entry.

 

 

2023-0255.  Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110187, 2022-Ohio-3031.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Matthew B. Anderson and Laura A. Foggan.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0346.  In re McClain.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  William Allen McClain, Attorney Registration No. 0082054, last known address in Franklin, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/15/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-773.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0191.  State ex rel. Ware v. Parikh, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-759.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted in part and denied in part and $1,000 in statutory damages awarded.

Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in judgment only in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2022-0811.  State ex rel. Justice v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-760.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-53.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

  

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1276.  State ex rel. Hutchison v. DeWine.

In Mandamus.  On state of Ohio’s motion to intervene.  Motion granted.  Motions to dismiss of respondent Newark Police Department and respondents Deputy Warden Hobbs and Unit Manager Hernandez and intervening respondent state of Ohio granted.  Renewed motions to dismiss of respondents Ohio Governor Mike DeWine et al.; Diane Menashe; and Licking County Court of Common Pleas Judges W. David Branstool and Thomas Marcelain, Prosecuting Attorney William Hayes, and Clerk of Courts Olivia C. Parkinson granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1516.  Wagoner v. Montgomery Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2022-1517.  State ex rel. Simpson v. Melnick.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1522.  Anderson v. Ohio Pub. Defender’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to show exhibits A to D denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1541.  State ex rel. Tingler v. VanEerten.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and discharge counsel of record denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2022-1546.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Angler.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and discharge counsel of record denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1552.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Thompson.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1557.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Port Clinton Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement.  Motion denied.  Respondents’ motions to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1558.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Bucyrus Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement.  Motion denied.  Respondents’ motions to dismiss granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and discharge counsel of record denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1564.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ottawa Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and discharge counsel of record denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1565.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Kettering Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2022-1567.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Gmoser.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1569.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Lucas Cty. Coroner’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1570.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Butler Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1571.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Mansfield Police Dept. Crime Lab.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-1572.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Evans.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel of record denied as moot.  Respondent’s motion for leave to file an amended answer, motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator, and motion to strike relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel of record denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., would deny respondent’s motion for leave on the merits.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant respondent’s motion to strike.

DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny relator’s motion to strike and respondent’s motion to strike on the merits and grant respondent’s motion for leave.

 

 

 

 

2022-1575.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Bowling Green Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1577.  State ex rel. McDougald v. Burkhart.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to amend denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents and would deny respondent’s motion, grant relator’s motion, and grant an alternative writ. 

 2022-1587.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Williams Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1589.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Medina Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1592.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Noble Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1596.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ottawa Cty. Probation Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2022-1605.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Port Clinton Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1606.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1607.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ottawa Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1608.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Noble Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1609.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Bur. of Criminal Investigation.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1610.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ravenna Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1611.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Portage Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion to withdraw granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1615.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ross Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and discharge counsel of record denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1616.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Upper Sandusky Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1618.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1619.  State ex rel. Tingler v. DeWine.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1620.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Akron Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1621.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Cleveland Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

2022-1622.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Port Clinton Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1629.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Cuyahoga Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1630.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Williams Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1631.  State ex rel. Gomez v. Martin.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1638.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Port Clinton Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and disqualify counsel denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1639.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Fremont Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ joint motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-1647.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Huron Cty. Clerk of Courts.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator denied as moot; relator has been declared a vexatious litigator in 2022-1534, State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty.

Prosecutor’s Office; 2022-1612, State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office; and 2022-1624, State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0003.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Perkins Twp. Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On motion for judgment on pleadings of respondent Perkins Township Police Department.  Motion granted.  Respondent Bureau of Adult Detention’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0022.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0023.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0037.  State ex rel. Scott v. Clark Cty. Clerk of Courts.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

1989-1291.  State v. Sneed.

Stark App. No. CA6976.  On joint motion to vacate scheduled execution date.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

2022-1271.  Rosenthal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Div. of Domestic Relations.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s supplemental motion to stay proceedings in the trial court.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., would deny the motion as moot.

Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

2022-1285.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Cocroft.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s request for vacation of judgment entry and opinion of December 13, 2022.  Motion denied.  Petitioner’s motion in objection denied.

 

2022-1457.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Bloom.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss amended complaint.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file answer to amended complaint within 14 days.

 Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2022-1548.  State ex rel. Payne v. Rose.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

 

2022-1601.  State v. Wagner.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-101, 2022-Ohio-4051.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt; cause consolidated with 2022-1626, State v. Wagner; and briefing schedule stayed.

 Fischer, J., would not hold the cause.

 

2022-1637.  State v. Heflin.

Wood App. No. WD-22-006.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0603, State v. Daniel, and briefing schedule stayed.

 

2023-0008.  In re Complaint of Burress-El v. Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 21-298-GA-CSS.  On appellee Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Appellant’s response to strike motion to dismiss and memorandum in support with counterclaims denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to appellee Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.  Cause dismissed.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2023-0073.  Fifth Third Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Hillman.

Delaware App. No. 22-CAE-06-0050, 2022-Ohio-4338.  On appellants’ emergency motion for stay pending appeal.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0126.  Kyser v. Summit Cty. Children Servs.

Summit App. No. 30080, 2022-Ohio-3467.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the conflict question as stated on page 5 of the court of appeals’ January 27, 2023 entry: “Does the prescribed 30-day period under R.C. 2505.07 commence with the mailing of the notice of the agency’s order or with the date of receipt?”  The conflict cases are Sturdivant v. Toledo Bd. of Edn., 157 Ohio App.3d 401, 2004-Ohio-2878, 811 N.E.2d 581 (6th Dist.); DHSC, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-424, 2012-Ohio-1014; and Manholt v. Maplewood Joint Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 11th Dist. Portage No. 91-P-2410, 1992 WL 207800 (Aug. 21, 1992).  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-1419, Kyser v. Summit Cty. Children Servs. and briefing in case Nos. 2022-1419 and 2023-0126 consolidated.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2023-0230.  Estate of Tomlinson v. Mega Pool Warehouse, Inc.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAE 03 0020, 2023-Ohio-229.  On appellants’ motion for stay of proceedings and execution.  Motion denied.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1419.  Kyser v. Summit Cty. Children Servs.

Summit App. No. 30080, 2022-Ohio-3467.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2023-0126, Kyser v. Summit Cty. Children Servs. and briefing in case Nos. 2022-1419 and 2023-0126 consolidated.

 Fischer, Donnelly and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 Matthew Byrne, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

2022-1626.  State v. Wagner.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-101, 2022-Ohio-4051.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt; cause consolidated with 2022-1601, State v. Wagner; and briefing schedule stayed.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2020-1126.  State v. Burns.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108468, 2020-Ohio-3966.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4606, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration as to Count 29 only.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-0980.  Doe v. Greenville City Schools.

Darke App. No. 2020-CA-4, 2021-Ohio-2127.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4618, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/13/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-772.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0332.  State ex rel. Pinkston v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file responses, if any, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 14, 2023, to Highland Realty Development’s motion to intervene as party-respondent.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 14, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/14/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-771.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0605.  State ex rel. Gallagher v. Collier-Williams, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-748.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111229, 2022-Ohio-1177.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0756.  State ex rel. Martre v. Watson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-749.

Marion App. No. 9-22-10.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion for leave to supplement reply brief denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 14, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/14/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-758.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0145.  Weatherford v. Kuhn.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2023-0146.  Thompson v. Harky.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1642.  State v. Brinkman.

Stark C.P. No. 2018CR1994.  On application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.06.  Application denied.

 

2023-0039.  State v. Jarmon.

Butler App. No. CA2021-08-091, 2022-Ohio-2327.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

2023-0086.  State v. Jemison.

Warren App. No. CA2022-03-009, 2022-Ohio-3597.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0091.  State v. Coleman.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111332, 2022-Ohio-4013.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2023-0093.  State v. Johnson.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00116, 2022-Ohio-4344.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1600.  State v. Reed.

Hamilton App. No. C-200104, 2022-Ohio-3986.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. II through V.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

DeWine and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-0004.  Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

Hamilton App. No. C-220504, 2022-Ohio-4540.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Byrne, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

Matthew Byrne, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Deters, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2023-0009.  Smith v. Ohio State Univ.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-125, 2022-Ohio-4101.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.

 DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent.

 

2023-0020.  State v. Thornton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111347, 2022-Ohio-4203.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0029.  State v. Sharp.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 111359 and 111360.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Deters, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II only.

 

2023-0031.  State v. Bradford.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1262.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2023-0074.  State v. Milton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111460, 2022-Ohio-4393.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1340.  State v. Carver.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111292, 2022-Ohio-3238 .

 

2022-1602.  State v. Howard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111286, 2022-Ohio-3739 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1613.  State v. Shundry.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00051.

 

 

2022-1625.  State v. Cervantes.

Wood App. No. WD-22-004, 2022-Ohio-4018 .

 

2022-1636.  Woodgeard v. Heavlin.

Stark App. Nos. 2022CA00118 and 2022CA00119.

 

2022-1642.  State v. Rose.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0040, 2022-Ohio-4041.  Appellant’s motion to represent himself in any further proceedings and “affidavit in support of emergency filing” denied as moot.

 Fischer, J., would deny the motion and affidavit on the merits.

DeWine, J., would deny the motion on the merits.

Kennedy, C.J., would grant the motion.

 

2022-1643.  DJD Invest. Co., Ltd. v. Holsopple.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 111549 and 111696, 2022-Ohio-4089 .

 

2022-1644.  Howard v. Mgt. & Training Corp.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-283, 2022-Ohio-4071 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Deters, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1646.  State v. Pierce.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0011, 2022-Ohio-4048 .

 

2022-1650.  State v. Bilitter.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2022AP100039.

 

2022-1652.  Accelerated Moving & Storage v. Herc Rentals, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-523, 2022-Ohio-3016 .

 

2023-0001.  State v. Sanchez-Sanchez.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110885, 2022-Ohio-4080 .

 

2023-0005.  State v. Cartlidge.

Seneca App. No. 13-18-33, 2019-Ohio-1283 .

 

2023-0010.  Crutcher v. Oncology/Hematology Care, Inc.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220086 and C-220106, 2022-Ohio-4105 .

 

 

2023-0011.  Siliko v. Miami Univ.

Butler App. No. CA2021-12-162, 2022-Ohio-4133 .

 

2023-0013.  State v. Gaines.

Ashtabula App. Nos. 2022-A-0046, 2022-A-0047, and 2022-A-0049, 2022-Ohio-4278 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0018.  State v. Ahreshien.

Lucas App. No. L-19-1184, 2021-1223 .

 

2023-0019.  Herman v. Herman.

Putnam App. No. 12-22-01, 2022-Ohio-4148 .

 

2023-0040.  State v. Tanner.

Butler App. No. CA2021-12-167, 2022-Ohio-4224 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2023-0056.  State v. E.H.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111590, 2022-Ohio-4289 .

 

2023-0061.  State v. Thomann.

Hamilton App. No. C-220028, 2022-Ohio-4264 .

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2023-0083.  State v. Smith.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111604, 2022-Ohio-4396 .

 Donnelly and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2023-0084.  State v. Casshie.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111270, 2022-Ohio-4403 .

 

2023-0106.  State v. Mason.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-777.

 

2023-0112.  State v. Godfrey.

Licking App. No. 2022-CA-00036, 2023-Ohio-20.  Appellant’s motion to strike appellee’s response to memorandum in support of jurisdiction denied.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., would deny the motion as moot.

 

2023-0121.  State v. Malvasi.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0083, 2022-Ohio-4556 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1281.  State v. Fraley.

Butler App. No. CA2021-10-131, 2022-Ohio-3270.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1526, 2023-Ohio-86, 200 N.E.3d 1146.  On motion for reconsideration of proposition of law No. III.  Motion granted and briefing schedule stayed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/13/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-747.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0396.  Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas v. Waterhouse.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s February 23, 2023 motion to enter evidence.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0150.  State ex rel. Mobley v. O’Malley.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(E).  Motion denied.  Relator may file a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss within ten days.

 

2023-0262.  Emerson v. Auto Warehousing Co.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent Federal Bureau of Investigation’s notice of filing a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  Cause stayed pending the federal court’s determination.  The parties shall notify this court immediately upon conclusion of the federal-court proceedings.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 10, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/10/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-745.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0603.  State v. Daniel.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1104, 2022-Ohio-1348.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file responses, if any, to amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s motion to appoint counsel for oral argument no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 13, 2023.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 10, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/10/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-727.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2023-0218.  State ex rel. N. Canton City Council v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-726.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 9, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/09/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-711.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0418.  Bell v. McConahay, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-693.

Richland App. No. 2022-CA-005.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion to reverse and vacate judgment and conviction for failure to timely file response denied.  

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0513.  State ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-692.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-303, 2022-Ohio-1251 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1560.  State v. Gibson.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011847, 2022-Ohio-3862.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/07/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-691.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1421.  State v. Walker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-652.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1047, 2021-Ohio-3860.  Judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Messenger, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4562, __ N.E.3d __.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., dissents and would dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently accepted.

 

2022-0083.  State ex rel. Gregory v. Toledo, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-651.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator awarded $400 in statutory damages.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would not award damages.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0595.  Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110428, 2022-Ohio-1062.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Jeffrey C. Gerish.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1050.  Auto Place, L.L.C. v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals Nos. 2015-474, 2015-475, and 2015-479.  On joint application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to the following case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2022-1197.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Maxfield.

In Mandamus.

__________________

 

The court refers the following cases to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for each case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in these cases until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0237.  State ex rel. McVicker v. Delaware City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.

 

2023-0279.  State ex rel. Doe v. Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/06/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-660.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1256.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Adams.

On certification of default.  On relator’s motion to remand proceeding to Board of Professional Conduct to initiate default proceedings under Gov.Bar R. (V)(14)(D).  Motion granted.  Matter remanded to the board for further proceedings under Gov.Bar R. V(14)(F).  Respondent’s interim default suspension imposed on November 2, 2022, shall remain in place while this matter is pending before the board.  Proceedings before this court stayed until further order of this court.

 

2023-0041.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Stenson.

On certification of default.  On respondent’s motion for leave to file answer.  Motion granted.  Matter remanded to the Board of Professional Conduct for further proceedings under Gov.Bar R. V(12).  Proceedings before this court stayed until further order of this court.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., would also impose an interim default suspension.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0157.  In re Resignation of Bosecker.

On application for retirement or resignation of Kelley A. Bosecker, Attorney Registration No. 0006194, last known business address in Tampa, Florida.  Application accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/06/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-656.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MARCH 6, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the March 6, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1642.  State v. Brinkman, 169 Ohio St.3d 127, 2022-Ohio-2550.

 

2020-0312.  State v. Montgomery, 169 Ohio St.3d 84, 2022-Ohio-2211.

 

2020-0773 and 2020-0861.  Fonzi v. Brown, 169 Ohio St.3d 70, 2022-Ohio-901.

 

2020-1304.  State v. Burroughs, 169 Ohio St.3d 79, 2022-Ohio-2146.

 

2021-0190 and 2021-0191.  Portage Cty. Educators Assn. for Dev. Disabilities- Unit B, OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 169 Ohio St.3d 167, 2022-Ohio-3167.

 

2021-0981.  Valentine v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 169 Ohio St.3d 181, 2022-Ohio-3710.

 

2022-0918.  State ex rel. Cunnane v. LaRose, 169 Ohio St.3d 156, 2022-Ohio-2875.

 

2022-1003.  State ex rel. Moscow v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections, 169 Ohio St.3d 161, 2022-Ohio-3138.

 

2022-1142.  In re Fusco, 169 Ohio St.3d 1219, 2022-Ohio-3300.

 

22-AP-100.  In re Disqualification of Searcy, 169 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2022-Ohio-4430.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 3, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/03/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-642.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1158.  State v. Morris.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-015, 2021-Ohio-2646.  On appellee’s notice of withdrawal of motion to stay mandate filed on January 3, 2023.  Stay of issuance of mandate lifted.  Mandates shall be sent to and filed with the clerks of the Court of Appeals for Ashland County and the Court of Common Pleas of Ashland County.

 

2022-1257.  State v. Degahson.

Clark App. No. 2021-CA-35, 2022-Ohio-2972.  On joint motion to withdraw appellant’s pro se merit brief.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/02/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-641.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1612.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator, Charles Tingler, found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Accordingly, Charles Tingler prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.  Respondents’ motions to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.  

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion in State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-640, __ N.E.3d __. 

 

2022-1624.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator, Charles Tingler, found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Accordingly, Charles Tingler prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.  Respondents’ motions to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion in State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-640, __ N.E.3d __.

 

 

2022-1633.  State ex rel. Schrader v. Bender.

In Prohibition.  Cause dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1257.  State v.  Degahson.

Clark App. No. 2021-CA-35, 2022-Ohio-2972.  On appellant’s motion to stay briefing.  Motion granted.  Cause held for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt, and briefing schedule stayed.

  Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2023-0134.  State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-91, 2022-Ohio-4534.  On appellant’s motion for expedited briefing schedule.  Motion granted.  Appellee shall file a merit brief no later than Thursday, March 9, 2023, and appellant may file a reply brief within three days after the filing of appellee’s brief.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

  Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2023-0217.  Myers v. Vitanovic.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAF 02 0009, 2022-Ohio-4802.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion granted.

  Fischer, DeWine, and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/02/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-640.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1534.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Franklin Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, relator, Charles Tingler, found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Accordingly, Charles Tingler prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.  Respondents’ motions to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

_________________

FISCHER, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 1} I agree with the majority that relator Charles Tingler’s complaint for a writ of mandamus should be dismissed.  I write separately to explain why I join in the majority’s decision to sua sponte declare Tingler a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(A) and (B).

2                    {¶ 2} We have a duty to ensure that the Ohio judicial system functions to benefit all Ohioans.  We prescribe rules governing practice and procedure to ensure the timely resolution of matters that come through the courts of this state.  Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 5.  Indeed, “Ohio litigants are specifically and unequivocally entitled under our state Constitution to justice without delay.”  (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Johnson v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, 159 Ohio St.3d 552, 2020-Ohio-999, 152 N.E.3d 251, ¶ 23, citing Ohio Constitution, Article I,

 

1                    Section 16.  Vexatious litigators, however, throw a wrench into our well-oiled system and disrupt the wheels of justice.

2                    {¶ 3} We may declare a person to be a vexatious litigator if he “habitually, persistently, and without reasonable cause” files actions that are “not reasonably well-grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(A) and (B).  And we have a duty to name as vexatious litigators those individuals who abuse the court process and engage in frivolous conduct so that we may put an end to repeated and frivolous conduct that substantially burdens our court system and deprives litigants of the prompt handling of their cases.  See Johnson at ¶ 22.

3                    {¶ 4} Reviewing Tingler’s filings in this court, there is no doubt that we must declare him a vexatious litigator to protect our court system and ensure that other litigants—those who follow our rules and procedures—receive timely resolution of their cases.  Tingler has filed 84 original actions in this court since December 2022 and shows no signs of stopping.  He filed 63 original actions in December 2022, 12 original actions in January 2023, and 9 original actions in February 2023.  While the sheer number of cases that Tingler has filed is only one factor in the vexatious-litigator assessment, see Johnson at ¶ 21, it is a significant factor here.

4                    {¶ 5} Additionally, many of Tingler’s original actions address similar issues and contain nearly identical language claiming the failure of law-enforcement officials and other government officials in various counties and municipalities in the state to perform their duties.  He also alleges, among other things, perjury and obstruction of justice on the part of these officials.  In some of his original actions, he makes improper requests for grand-jury materials.  The claims reviewed thus far have been without merit; including this case, we have unanimously dismissed 22 of his original actions, 17 of which were dismissed on the merits.1  See, e.g., Supreme Court case Nos. 2022-1525, 2022-1526, 2022-1528, 2022-1532, and 2022-1533.  And after reviewing the claims in this case, I do not foresee that result changing.

5                    {¶ 6} The justices, law clerks, filing clerks, and other court personnel have had to review the 22 actions filed by Tingler that have already been adjudicated, and they have reviewed or will have to review the remaining 62 pending actions.  And the county prosecutors, their employees, and other members of the state’s legal system have had to spend valuable time

 

1.  Two cases were dismissed on Tingler’s application for dismissal, and three were dismissed for failure to comply with Sup.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02(B)(1) (requiring that complaints be supported by affidavit).

1                    responding to all these lawsuits and motions.  This excessive use of court resources is unfair to other litigants in Ohio’s court system.

2                    {¶ 7} For those reasons, I agree with the majority’s decision to sua sponte declare Tingler a vexatious litigator and prohibit him from instituting or continuing legal proceedings in this court on a pro se basis unless he first seeks and obtains leave of this court to do so.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/02/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-595.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1592.  State ex rel. Hunt v. E. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to refer case to mediation.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0139.  Emerson v. United States Dist. Court.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s notice of filing a notice of removal in the United States District Court  for the Southern District of Ohio.  Cause stayed pending the federal court’s determination.  The parties shall notify this court immediately upon conclusion of the federal-court proceedings.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0290.  In re Walker.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Jessica Rae Walker, Attorney Registration No. 0080138, last known address in New Madison, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0179.  State ex rel. Fix v. Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0245.  State ex rel. Marlow v. Hamersville.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/01/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-580.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1462.  State v. Wiesenborn.

Montgomery App. No. 29388, 2022-Ohio-3762 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} Appellant, Zaren P. Wiesenborn, was 19 years old when he pleaded no contest to 33 counts involving rape, gross sexual imposition, and kidnapping.  Most of the charged offenses took place when Wiesenborn was under 18 years old.  The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 78.5 years.  As the Second District Court of Appeals acknowledged in its review of the sentencing decision, Wiesenborn’s first opportunity to apply for judicial release would be a decade beyond his life expectancy.  State v. Wiesenborn, 2019-Ohio-4487, 135 N.E.3d 812, ¶ 3, 48 (2d Dist.).

2                    {¶ 2} Wiesenborn filed a motion to withdraw his plea under Crim.R. 32.1 a few days after sentencing, asserting that defense counsel had led him to believe that he was likely to receive an aggregate sentence of 10 to 20 years and that defense counsel had told Wiesenborn that he could not imagine that the trial court would impose the 60-year sentence that appellee, the state, was seeking.  In addition to his own affidavit, Wiesenborn submitted an affidavit from defense counsel supporting his claims.  The trial court denied the motion without holding a hearing.  The Second District affirmed the trial court’s judgment, describing the entirety of defense counsel’s statements to Wiesenborn as mere “speculation and prediction” and noting that

 

1                    counsel did not claim to have promised Wiesenborn that he would receive a sentence less severe than what the state sought.  2022-Ohio-3762, ¶ 20.

2                    {¶ 3} Defense counsel’s statements regarding the 10-to-20-year sentencing range might be considered mere speculation or prediction.  But what about counsel’s statement to Wiesenborn that he could not imagine that the trial court would impose a 60-year sentence (let alone a 78.5-year sentence)?  An assurance that an event is unimaginable—i.e., beyond the realm of possibility—seems an awful lot like a promise that the event will not happen.

3                    {¶ 4} The inquiry into the voluntary, knowing, and intelligent nature of a criminal defendant’s plea should not be oversimplified.  The Second District’s oversimplification of this process in Wiesenborn’s case creates room for injustice in plea-withdrawal cases based on misrepresentations that do not involve the magic words, “I promise.”

4                    {¶ 5} As I have previously stated, “[t]he standards currently employed by Ohio’s courts do not adequately differentiate between postsentence plea-withdrawal motions that merit closer review and those that do not.  Trial and appellate courts across the state would benefit greatly from this court’s review of the issue.”  State v. Dunlap, 161 Ohio St.3d 1416, 2021-Ohio-181, 161 N.E.3d 704, ¶ 6 (Donnelly, J., dissenting).  I maintain that position and therefore dissent from this court’s decision to not accept Wiesenborn’s appeal.

 

STEWART and BRUNNER, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 03/01/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-579.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0284.  In re Buttars.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Austin Roan Buttars, Attorney Registration No. 0091338, last known address in Dublin, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/28/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-576.]

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1515.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Gaul.

On respondent’s motion for new oral-argument date.  Motion granted.  Oral argument will be rescheduled at a later date.  No further continuances will be granted.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 28, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/28/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-554.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2023-0042.  State v. Dameh.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0014.  State v. O’Berry.

Montgomery App. No. 29566.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2023-0032.  State v. Stearns.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-091, 2022-Ohio-4245.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2023-0033.  State v. Allen.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-060, 2022-Ohio-4243.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1415.  Smith v. McDiarmid.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-199, 2022-Ohio-2151.  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2022-1426.  State v. Walker.

Darke App. No. 2022-CA-2, 2022-Ohio-3849 .

 

2022-1501.  State v. Mills.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110893, 2022-Ohio-4010 .

 DeWine and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1502.  Krueger v. Krueger.

Geauga App. Nos. 2022-G-022 and 2022-G-0028, 2022-Ohio-3782 .

 

2022-1503.  State v. Brown.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00067.

 

2022-1507.  State v. Lane.

Allen App. No. 1-21-33, 2022-Ohio-3775 .

 

2022-1510.  State v. Sprankle.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-003, 2022-Ohio-3812 .

 Brunner, J., dissents.

Deters, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2022-1519.  State v. Malachin.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0002, 2022-Ohio-4047 .

 

2022-1520.  State v. Risner.

Hardin App. No. 6-21-13, 2022-Ohio-3877 .

 

2022-1524.  State v. Sutherland.

Darke App. No. 2021-CA-16, 2022-Ohio-3079 .

 

 

2022-1527.  State v. Picard.

Richland App. No. 2009 CA 0108, 2010-Ohio-6358 .

 

2022-1536.  DeVito v. Clear Fork Valley Local Schools Bd. of Edn.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0025, 2022-Ohio-3894 .

 

2022-1538.  State v. Thomas.

Hamilton App. No. C-210659.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-1545.  State v. Furmage.

Ashtabula App. No. 2020-A-0057, 2022-Ohio-1465 .

 

2022-1551.  State v. Jones.

Montgomery App. No. 29214, 2022-Ohio-3162 .

 

2022-1555.  M.A.D. v. M.D.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112009.

 

2022-1556.  Dye v. J.J. Detweiler Ents., Inc.

Stark App. No. 2022 CA 00012, 2022-Ohio-3250 .

 

2022-1578.  State v. Sanders.

Allen App. No. 1-21-47, 2022-Ohio-1806 .

 

2022-1580.  State v. Slaughter.

Montgomery App. No. 29305, 2022-Ohio-3946 .

 DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1582.  State v. Hodkinson.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2022 AP 01 0001, 2022-Ohio-3931 .

 

2022-1583.  State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Maple Hts. Police Dept.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111335, 2022-Ohio-3920 .

 Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

2022-1585.  State v. Johnson.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-222, 2022-Ohio-1733 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

2022-1588.  M.A.D. v. M.D.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 111972, 111984, 112012, and 112021.  Appellant’s motion to strike memorandum in response to jurisdiction denied.

 Brunner and Deters, JJ., would deny the motion as moot.

 

2022-1599.  CHS-Lake Erie, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid.

Franklin App. No. 18AP-897, 2020-Ohio-505 .

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2022-1627.  Schultz v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-86 and 22AP-88, 2022-Ohio-4591 .

 

2022-1641.  State v. Trowbridge.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111401, 2022-Ohio-4208 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2020-0341.  Lycan v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 107700 and 107737, 2019-Ohio-3510.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4676, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2020-0677.  Eighmey v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108540, 2020-Ohio-1500.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4729, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2020-1032.  Lindsay v. Garfield Hts.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108967, 2020-Ohio-3672.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4730, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

 

2021-0579.  State v. Bunch.

Mahoning App. No. 18 MA 0022, 2021-Ohio-1244.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4723, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent.

Laurel Beatty Blunt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

 

2021-0706.  Ames v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

Portage App. No. 2020-P-0063, 2021-Ohio-1369.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4605, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

 

2021-1153.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

Portage App. Nos. 2020-P-0088 and 2020-P-0089, 2021-Ohio-3178.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4663, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

 

2022-1045.  State ex rel. Howard v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1494, 2022-Ohio-4763, 200 N.E.3d 288.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2022-1077.  Ijakoli v. Alungbe.

Hamilton App. No. C-210366, 2022-Ohio-2423.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1480, 2022-Ohio-4617, 200 N.E.3d 257.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1145.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Marion Corr. Inst.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1484, 2022-Ohio-4670, 200 N.E.3d 272.  On amended emergency motion for reconsideration and/or relief from judgment.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1224.  State v. Messenger.

Columbiana App. No. 21 CO 0017, 2022-Ohio-3120.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1481, 2022-Ohio-4617, 200 N.E.3d 263.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, J., dissents.

 

 

 

2022-1273.  Whitacre v. Riddle.

In Procedendo.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1486, 2022-Ohio-4670, 200 N.E.3d 276.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion to strike denied.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., would deny the motion to strike as moot. 

 

2022-1291.  Whitacre v. Trouten.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1486, 2022-Ohio-4670, 200 N.E.3d 277.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/24/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-555.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0073.  Fifth Third Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Hillman.

Delaware App. No. 22-CAE-06-0050, 2022-Ohio-4338.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to appellants’ emergency motion for stay pending appeal no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, February 27, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motion shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/24/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-541.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0515.  State v. Tancak.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011725, 2022-Ohio-880.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2023-0194.  Lakewood Cliffs, L.L.C. v. Weiler.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112256.  On appellant’s emergency motion for expedited review.  Motion denied.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1537.  State ex rel. Brown v. May.

Marion App. No. 9-22-42.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due February 17, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 23, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/23/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-520.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0723.  Robinson v. McConahay, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-498.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0033.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion for summary judgment denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0814.  Westerfield v. Bracy, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-499.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0012, 2022-Ohio-1904.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

2022-1157.  State ex rel. Boler v. McCarthy, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-500.

Athens App. No. 22CA12.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1029.  In re Estate of Ohio Republic v. Hamilton Cty. Courthouse.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service in accordance with Civ.R. 4(E) as to respondents Sheriff Office–Hamilton County;

Clunk Hoose Co., L.P.A.; Laura C. Infante; Leann Covey; Lawrence C. Baron, Jason A. Whitacre; James A. Tully, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.; and Lereta, L.L.C.

 

2022-1030.  In re Estate of Ohio Republic v. Hamilton Cty. Courthouse.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service in accordance with Civ.R. 4(E) as to respondents Sheriff Office–Hamilton County, Ohio; Clunk Hoose Co., L.P.A.; and AP Rimextex, L.L.C.

 

2022-1496.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Ohio Health Marion Gen. Hosp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for leave to amend complaint.  Motion granted.

 

2022-1553.  Johnson v. Watson.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion for prior actions.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2023-0246.  Kent v. Lusane.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0011, 2022-Ohio-4057.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 17 through 22 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction, exclusive of the certificate of service on page 22, stricken.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/22/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-521.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0134.  State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-91, 2022-Ohio-4534.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to the motion for expedited briefing schedule no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 24, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motion shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/22/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-516.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1457.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Burgess.

On joint motion to amend January 13, 2023 order.  Motion granted.  Respondent shall notify relator within ten days of returning to the practice of law in Ohio, and the one-year period of monitored probation shall then commence.  Within 30 days of respondent’s notification, relator shall file with the clerk of this court the name of the attorney who will serve as respondent’s monitor.

 

2023-0102.  Emerson v. FBI Interstate.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ notice of filing a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  Cause stayed pending the federal court’s determination.  The parties shall notify this court immediately upon conclusion of the federal-court proceedings.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1314.  State ex rel. Howson v. Ohio Atty. Gen. 

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 21, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/21/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-484.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 20, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, were published in the February 20, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0797.  State v. Crawford, 169 Ohio St.3d 25, 2022-Ohio-1509.

 

2020-1018.  State v. Eatmon, 169 Ohio St.3d 1, 2022-Ohio-1197.

 

2021-0266.  State v. Moore, 169 Ohio St.3d 18, 2022-Ohio-1460.

 

2021-0382.  State v. Yontz, 169 Ohio St.3d 55, 2022-Ohio-2745.

 

2021-0580.  Durkin v. Williams, 169 Ohio St.3d 10, 2022-Ohio-1416.

 

2021-0646.  State ex rel. Mango v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 169 Ohio St.3d 32, 2022-Ohio-1559.

 

2021-0725.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 169 Ohio St.3d 39, 2022-Ohio-1765.

 

2021-0744.  State v. McNeal, 169 Ohio St.3d 47, 2022-Ohio-2703.

 

2021-1138.  State ex rel. Stevenson v. King, 169 Ohio St.3d 61, 2022-Ohio-3093.

 

2022-0128.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Owens, 169 Ohio St.3d 1209, 2022-Ohio-2477.

 

2022-0535.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmons, 169 Ohio St.3d 1203, 2022-Ohio-1892.

 

2022-0611.  In re Goodman, 169 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2022-Ohio-1717.

 

2022-0778.  In re Corcoran, 169 Ohio St.3d 1206, 2022-Ohio-2208.

 

2022-0906.  In re Resignation of Feltis, 169 Ohio St.3d 1211, 2022-Ohio-3063.

 

2022-1185.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. D’Atri, 169 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2022-Ohio-3392.

 

22-AP-108.  In re Disqualification of Fleegle, 169 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2022-Ohio-4433.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0441.  State ex rel. Lusane v. Kent Police Dept., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-480.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.  Relator awarded $1,000 in statutory damages.  Costs assessed to respondent.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0574.  Furr v. Ruehlman, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-481.

Hamilton App. No. C-220122.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motions for writ of default judgment and writ of summary judgment denied.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 22, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/22/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-482.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0677.  State ex rel. Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Skelton, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-485.

Montgomery App. No. 29476.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0696.  State ex rel. Myles v. Goering, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-483.

Hamilton App. No. C-220112.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0581.  State ex rel. Estate of Brame v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

2022-1117.  State ex rel. McCarley v. Aramark.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for default judgment.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would grant an alternative writ.

  

2022-1134.  State ex rel. Robinson v. Tenth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1351.  Whitacre v. Seventh Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to sanction counsel for respondent denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1377.  Koeberer v. Mackey.

In Procedendo and Prohibition.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Judge Jeffrey D. Mackey and Robert E. Weir.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion for second stay pending further order of this court denied.  Relator’s motion for stay of hearing denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1409.  State ex. rel. Spears v. Krapenc.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2022-1438.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Cuyahoga Cty. Sheriff’s Dept.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to consolidate with case No. 2022-1330.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator denied as moot; relator was declared a vexatious litigator in 2022-1330, State ex rel. Sultaana v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Relator’s motion for statutory damages denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1452.  State v. Nixon.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1464.  State ex rel. Whitt v. Graham.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s petition for removal of clerk of court and request to uphold removal of clerk of court denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1471.  Justice v. Young.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s request to file transcripts denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1478.  State ex rel. Dates v. Hamilton Cty. Courthouse.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Requests of respondents Clunk, Hoose Co., L.P.A., Laura C. Infante, Leann Covey, and Law Offices of Richard Bardach, L.L.C., to declare relator a vexatious litigator granted.  Carlean Dates found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B) and prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

 

2022-1505.  State ex rel. Reese v. Logan.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1525.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Sandusky Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement denied as moot.  Relator’s motion to strike and discharge counsel of record denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1526.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Perkins Twp. Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1528.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1532.  State ex rel. Tingler v. McGookey.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1533.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Toledo Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2022-1539.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Howe-Gebers.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement.  Motion denied as moot.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1540.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Gross.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1544.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to waive affidavit requirement.  Motion denied as moot.  Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04, cause dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1562.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Ohio Atty. Gen.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1563.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Cincinnati Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2022-1568.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Junk.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

2022-1573.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Bodenbender.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1576.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Howe-Gebers.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1584.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Huron Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02(B)(1) (requiring that all complaints be supported by affidavit).

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would grant the motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator. 

 

2022-1586.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Huron Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02(B)(1) (requiring that all complaints be supported by affidavit).

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Deters, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would grant the motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator. 

 

2022-1591.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Richland Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1623.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Toledo Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1628.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Lucas Cty. Clerk of Courts.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2016-1108.  State v. Harris.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-683, 2016-Ohio-3424.  On appellant’s “memorandum appealing Judge decision for re-sentencing.”  Memorandum dismissed.

 

2021-0215.  State v. Haynes.

Wood App. No. WD-19-035, 2020-Ohio-6977.  On appellee’s motion for order or relief pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0339.  State v. Barnes.

Ross App. No. 19CA3687, 2020-Ohio-3943.  On appellant’s motion for reopening appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0725.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for order of contempt of court and motion for postjudgment interest.  Motions denied. 

 

2021-0836.  State ex rel. DeMarco v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-227, 2021-Ohio-1937.  On appellant’s motion to reopen case.  Motion granted.  Cause reopened.

 

2022-0458.  In re Application of E. Ohio Gas Co.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 19-468-GA-ALT.  On motion of appellee East Ohio Gas Company d.b.a. Dominion Energy Ohio to strike portions of appellants’ reply brief.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0591.  Waterhouse v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for sanctioned default judgment.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

2022-1146.  State v. Harrison.

Logan App. No. 8-22-05, 2022-Ohio-2537.  On appellant’s motion for stay/bail pending appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1154.  State ex rel. Howard v. Turner.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.  Relator’s “motion to strike respondent[’s] answer as being untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(A)(1) and to strike the notice of appearance for respondents” and “request for leave instanter to file motion to strike respondents’ answer/notice of appearance and relator’s request for statutory damages” denied.

 Brunner, J., would grant relator’s “request for leave instanter to file motion to strike respondent’s answer/notice of appearance and relator’s request for statutory damages.”

 

2022-1242.  State ex rel. Mather & Assured Administration, L.L.C. v. Oda.

In Prohibition.  On relators’ motion for leave to file supplemental complaint.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file answers to the supplemental complaint within 21 days.

Respondents’ motion to withdraw amended answer and motion to withdraw motion for judgment on pleadings granted.  Relators’ motion to strike amended answer and motion to strike motion for judgment on the pleadings denied as moot.  Joint motion of Steve Yeoman et al. to intervene as respondents granted.

 Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of the filing of respondents’ answers to the supplemental complaint, relators shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relators’ brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 Brunner, J., would allow seven days for the filing of respondents’ answers to the supplemental complaint.

 

2022-1251.  In re Z.C.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0014, 2022-Ohio-3199.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the

conflict question as stated in In re Z.C., 2022-Ohio-3199, 195 N.E.3d 590, ¶ 23 (11th Dist.): “When reviewing a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights, is the appellate standard of review abuse of discretion, manifest weight of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or sufficiency of the evidence?”  The conflict cases are In re S.V., 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-13-060, 2014-Ohio-422; In re Y.M., 5th Dist. Tuscarawas Nos. 2021 AP 09 0020 through 0023, 2022-Ohio-677; In re Ca.S., 4th Dist. Pickaway Nos. 21CA9 and 21CA10, 2021-Ohio-3874; In re W.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-110363 and C-110402, 2011-Ohio-4912; In re R.B., 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2022-01-003 and CA2022-01-004, 2022-Ohio-1705.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1450.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2022-1523.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Szoke.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent and would dismiss the cause.

 

2022-1643.  DJD Invest. Co., Ltd. v. Holsopple.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 111549 and 111696, 2022-Ohio-4089.  On appellants’ motion for stay of execution of judgment or, alternatively, filing of supersedeas bond.  Motion denied.

 

2023-0027.  Duncan v. Schumaker.

Clark App. No. 2022-CA-71, 2022-Ohio-4625.  On appellee’s motion to substitute Daniel P. Driscoll, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, for Stephen A. Schumaker.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 17, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/17/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-473.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On notices of automatic exclusion filed by Office of Attorney Services.  Valencia Richardson, Donald Wesley Brown, Greg McGuire, Alexander Thomson, and Julie Ebenstein have not complied with the pro hac vice registration requirements as outlined in Gov.Bar R. XII.  Pro hac vice admissions of Valencia Richardson, Donald Wesley Brown, Greg McGuire, Alexander Thomson, and Julie Ebenstein revoked.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On notice of automatic exclusion filed by Office of Attorney Services.  Greg McGuire has not complied with the pro hac vice registration requirements as outlined in Gov.Bar R. XII.  Pro hac vice admission of Greg McGuire revoked.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On notice of automatic exclusion filed by Office of Attorney Services.  Greg McGuire has not complied with the pro hac vice registration requirements as outlined in Gov.Bar R. XII.  Pro hac vice admission of Greg McGuire revoked.

 

 

2022-0316.  Schaad v. Alder.

Hamilton App. No. C-210349, 2022-Ohio-340.  On notices of automatic exclusion filed by Office of Attorney Services.  Bailey Roese and Stephanie Bruns have not complied with the pro hac vice registration requirements as outlined in Gov.Bar R. XII.  Pro hac vice admissions of Bailey Roese and Stephanie Bruns revoked.

 

2022-1518.  State ex rel. Sands v. Lake Cty. Common Pleas Court.

Marion App. No. 9-22-36.  On appellant’s request for extension of time to file reply brief.  Request denied.  Appellant was previously granted a one-time extension of time on January 17, 2023, under S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.03(B)(2)(b)(i).

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 16, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/16/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-443.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0108.  State ex rel. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. O’Donnell, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-428.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Writs granted.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0561.  State ex rel. Hatfield v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-429.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-97.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0712.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Sharp.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt.  Motion granted.

 

2022-1431.  Whitacre v. Selmon.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s request to seal materials filed.  Request denied.

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1521.  State ex rel. Miller v. Foley.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 15, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/15/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-437.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1592.  State ex rel. Hunt v. E. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-407.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0493.  State ex rel. Heyside v. Calabrese, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-406.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111200, 2022-Ohio-1245.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0004.  Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

Hamilton App. No. C-220504, 2022-Ohio-4540.  On amended motions for admission pro hac vice of Peter Neiman, Alan Schoenfeld, Michelle Diamond, Davina Pujari, Allyson Slater, Chris Rheinheimer, and Melissa Cohen.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2009-1918.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer.

On petition for reinstatement by respondent, Blaine Lawrence Gottehrer, Attorney Registration No. 0027147, last known business address in Mayfield Heights, Ohio.  Petition conditionally granted.  Respondent will be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio upon providing proof that he has taken and passed the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) and subject to the following conditions: (1) prior to or within the first 30 days following his reinstatement, respondent shall provide proof to relator that he has completed the free, one-hour continuing-legal-education IOLTA webinar available through the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s website; (2) prior to or within the first 30 days following his reinstatement, respondent shall contact the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), submit to an evaluation if recommended by OLAP, and comply with any recommendations provided by OLAP; (3) respondent shall retake the oath of office; and (4) respondent shall cooperate, for at least one year following his reinstatement, with one or more monitors, approved by relator, who are experienced in the practice of domestic-relations, bankruptcy and/or real-estate law and whose assignment shall be to monitor the progress of respondent’s legal work, client relations, and compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Respondent further ordered to pay costs of proceedings in the amount of $529.80, less the deposit of $500, for a total balance of $29.80, within 90 days.

 

2023-0209.  In re Rohrbaugh.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Robert James Rohrbaugh II, Attorney Registration No. 0071688, last known address in Canfield, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1386.  Abedrabbo v. Reali.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-1547.  State ex rel. Orr v. Corrigan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111878, 2022-Ohio-3924.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due February 6, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the

Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 14, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/14/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-423.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0416.  State ex rel. Jackson v. Watson, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-401.

Marion App. No. 9-22-01.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0463.  Alston v. Bracy, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-402.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0046, 2022-Ohio-1208 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondents shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2022-1496.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Ohio Health Marion Gen. Hosp.

In Mandamus.

 

__________________

 

 

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellant shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.  As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, this court may dismiss this case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.

 

2022-1187.  State ex rel. Levitin v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-495, 2022-Ohio-2750 .

__________________

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0190.  State ex rel. Wells v. Lakota Local Schools Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 10, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/10/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-384.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0977.  State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 9, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/09/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-383.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0053.  Gordon Restaurants, Inc. v. W.S. Carlile & Sons Co.

Franklin App. Nos. 21AP-550 and 21AP-551, 2022-Ohio-4589.  On appellant’s emergency motion for stay.  Interim stay granted pending this court’s determination on jurisdiction.

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 14, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/14/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-381.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1560.  State v. Gibson.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011847, 2022-Ohio-3862.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Deters, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1594.  State v. Marcum.

Montgomery App. No. 29300, 2022-Ohio-3576.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2022-1617.  State v. Springs.

Clark App. No. 2022-CA-19, 2022-Ohio-3761.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1449.  State v. Miree.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110749, 2022-Ohio-3664.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt.

 Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law and would not hold the cause.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1458.  State v. Duncan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110784, 2022-Ohio-3665.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt.

 Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law and would not hold the cause.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent.

 

2022-1459.  State v. Morris.

Henry App. No. 7-21-05, 2022-Ohio-3608.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

Kennedy, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law.

 

2022-1472.  State v. Wells.

Washington App. No. 21CA16, 2022-Ohio-3793.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. III.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1482.  State v. Wilson.

Clark App. No. 2021-CA-68, 2022-Ohio-3763 .

Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Deters, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1597.  State v. Collins.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-109, 2022-Ohio-3971.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. VI.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1381.  Marquette Orri Holdings, L.L.C. v. Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0035, 2022-Ohio-3786 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1447.  Pirock v. Crain.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0060, 2022-Ohio-3612 .

 

2022-1466.  State v. Cooper.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0065.

 

2022-1467.  McCown v. Eichenberger.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAG 01 001, 2022-Ohio-2861 .

 

2022-1468.  Katz v. Univ. Hosps. Health Sys., Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111164, 2022-Ohio-3328 .

 

2022-1475.  State v. Berk.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-121, 2022-Ohio-2297 .

 

2022-1476.  State v. Smith.

Hamilton App. No. C-220110.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-1481.  State v. Ferricci.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110208, 2022-Ohio-1393 .

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1484.  State v. Harrell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111293, 2022-Ohio-3740 .

 

2022-1485.  State v. Runnion.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0029, 2022-Ohio-3785 .

 

2022-1486.  State v. Barker.

Montgomery App. No. 29227, 2022-Ohio-3756 .

 Deters, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2022-1493.  In re J.H.

Hamilton App. No. C-220345.

Fischer, J., dissents.

DeWine and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-1494.  Gemperline v. Franano.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAE 03 0017, 2022-Ohio-3727 .

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-1499.  State v. Craig.

Wood App. No. WD-22-001, 2022-Ohio-3355 .

 

2022-1506.  State v. Jones.

Butler App. No. CA2022-04-036, 2022-Ohio-3864 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would appoint counsel.

 

2022-1579.  State v. Hayden.

Hamilton App. No. C-210352, 2022-Ohio-3933 .

 Deters, J., not participating.

 

2022-1653.  In re E.G.

Muskingum App. No. CT2022-0057.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-1514.  Akron Bar Assn. v. Spears.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-028.  Ronald Scott Spears, Attorney Registration No. 0069143, last known business address in Akron, Ohio, publicly reprimanded.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 2, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/02/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-299.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1381.  State v. Garrett.

Franklin C.P. No. 18CR168.  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion granted.  Elizabeth A. Arrick and Angela Miller appointed to represent appellant for the purpose of filing an application to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.06.

 

2021-1473.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co. for Significantly Excessive Earnings Test. 

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 19-1121-EL-UNC, 20-1041-EL-UNC, 20-680-

EL-UNC, 18-1875-EL-GRD, 18-1876-EL-WVR, and 18-1877-EL-AAM.  On appellee/cross-appellant Dayton Power & Light Co.’s motion to vary time for oral argument.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, oral argument ordered to proceed as follows: Appellant/cross-appellee Ohio Consumers’ Counsel shall argue first and is permitted ten minutes of oral-argument time.  Dayton Power & Light Co. shall argue second and is permitted ten minutes of oral-argument time.  Appellee/cross-appellee Public Utilities Commission of Ohio shall argue third and is permitted ten minutes of oral-argument time.  Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and Dayton Power & Light Co. may reserve any portion of their allotted time for rebuttal, and rebuttal shall proceed in the same order as specified above.

 

2022-1227 and 2022-1238.  State v. Dunlap.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0037, 2022-Ohio-3007.  On R. Robert Umholtz’s motion to withdraw as counsel for appellee and to appoint the Office of the Ohio

Public Defender.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellee.

 

2022-1257.  State v. Degahson.

Clark App. No. 2021-CA-35, 2022-Ohio-2972.  Sua sponte, Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0141.  In re Vick.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Gary Allen Vick Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0071495, last known business address in Parma, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/06/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-332.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 6, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the February 6, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

 

2021-0742.  State v. Jackson, 168 Ohio St.3d 632, 2022-Ohio-1823.

 

2021-0759.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson, 168 Ohio St.3d 596, 2022-Ohio-1288.

 

2021-0794.  State v. Fuell, 168 Ohio St.3d 631, 2022-Ohio-1607.

 

2021-0868.  State ex rel. Reese v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 168 Ohio St.3d 647, 2022-Ohio-2105.

 

2021-0978.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Family, 168 Ohio St.3d 1252, 2022-Ohio-2507.

 

2021-1233.  Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buzzelli, 168 Ohio St.3d 661, 2022-Ohio-2470.

 

2021-1312.  State ex rel. Jones v. Ohio State House of Representatives, 168 Ohio St.3d 634, 2022-Ohio-1909.

 

2021-1313.  State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio State Senate, 168 Ohio St.3d 640, 2022-Ohio-1912.

 

2021-1463.  State ex rel. M.D. v. Kelsey, 168 Ohio St.3d 679, 2022-Ohio-2556.

 

2021-1515.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick, 168 Ohio St.3d 683, 2022-Ohio-2541.

 

2021-1516.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Davis, 168 Ohio St.3d 588, 2022-Ohio-1286.

 

2022-0152.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Watson, 168 Ohio St.3d 656, 2022-Ohio-2212.

 

2022-0212.  Jones. v. Foley, 168 Ohio St.3d 691, 2022-Ohio-2551.

 

2022-0343.  In re Resignation of Wright, 168 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2022-Ohio-1268.

 

2022-0350.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Purola, 168 Ohio St.3d 1247, 2022-Ohio-1476.

 

2022-0421.  State ex rel. T.B. v. Mackey, 168 Ohio St.3d 675, 2022-Ohio-2493.

 

2022-0850.  State ex rel. Ames v. LaRose, 168 Ohio St.3d 693, 2022-Ohio-2794.

 

22-AP-050.  In re Disqualification of Baker Ross, 168 Ohio St.3d 1245, 2022-Ohio-2191.

 

22-AP-060.  In re Disqualification of Cook, 168 Ohio St.3d 1249, 2022-Ohio-2268.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0392.  State v. Hawkins.

Clark App. No. 2015-CA-16, 2015-Ohio-5383.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Oral argument scheduled for March 22, 2023, canceled.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/06/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-354.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1473.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co. for Significantly Excessive Earnings Test.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 19-1121-EL-UNC, 20-1041-EL-UNC, 20-680-EL-UNC, 18-1875-EL-GRD, 18-1876-EL-WVR, and 18-1877-EL-AAM.  Sua sponte, oral argument scheduled for Tuesday, February 7, 2023, canceled.  Oral argument will be rescheduled at a later date.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/07/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-357.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Sultaana.

On motion for leave to continue or institute a legal proceeding.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 7, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/07/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-358.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0244.  State ex rel. Fair Housing Opportunities of Northwest Ohio v. Ohio Fair Plan.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-351, 2022-Ohio-385.  On appellee/cross-appellant’s motion for oral argument and motion to strike.  Motions granted.  Oral argument scheduled for Wednesday, March 22, 2023.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 1, 2023

 

[Cite as 02/01/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-287.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1518.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Carr.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt order.  Motion granted.

 

2022-1292.  Whitacre v. Regel.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 31, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/31/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-286.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1313.  State ex rel. Maron v. Reali.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would deny the application, as the pendency of this matter in procedendo does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to act.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 31, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/31/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-269.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1324.  State v. Moss.

Summit App. No. 30005, 2022-Ohio-1833.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due January 26, 2023, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to the following case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellants shall file either an application for dismissal or a merit brief within 60 days.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a merit brief is not filed within 60 days.

 

2022-1050.  Auto Place, L.L.C. v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2015-474, 2015-475, and 2015-479.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 31, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/31/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-212.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1549.  Higgins v. Black.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1553.  Johnson v. Watson.

In Habeas Corpus.  Petitioner’s “motion of affidavit,” “motion of prior actions,” “motion of notice of appeal,” “motion of prior actions,” and motion for bail and suspension denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny the motions as moot.

 

2022-1593.  State v. Dameh.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1635.  State v. Dameh.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1465.  State v. Villafranco.

Clinton App. No. CA2021-09-029, 2022-Ohio-2826.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1474.  State v. McConnell.

Muskingum App. No. CT 2021-0063, 2022-Ohio-2902.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1498.  State v. Payne.

Summit App. No. 30275.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion for remand denied.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny the motion for remand as moot.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1380.  State v. Thomason.

Allen App. No. 1-22-33, 2022-Ohio-3873.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1391.  Ludlow v. Ohio Dept. of Health.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-369, 2022-Ohio-3399 .

 DeWine, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1399.  State v. Washington.

Miami App. No. 2020-CA-18, 2022-Ohio-1426.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1404.  Epcon Community Franchising, L.L.C. v. Wilcox Dev. Group, L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-674, 2022-Ohio-3442 .

 

2022-1429.  State v. Brown.

Allen App. No. 1-22-36, 2022-Ohio-4065.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1430.  State v. Day.

Allen App. No. 1-22-32, 2022-Ohio-4064.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1445.  State v. Allen.

Allen App. No. 1-21-59, 2022-Ohio-3599.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. III.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1446.  Ramos v. Fresh Mark Canton.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00076, 2022-Ohio-3642 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1455.  State v. Bryant.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 111206 and 111522, 2022-Ohio-3669.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. II through V.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 

2022-1456.  State v. Eggleton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111244, 2022-Ohio-3671.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1500.  State v. Heath.

Hamilton App. No. C-200387.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating. 

 

2022-1508.  State v. Stevens.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-105, 2022-Ohio-3781.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1550.  State v. Woods.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-044, 2022-Ohio-3970.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1272.  State v. Ahmed.

Belmont App. No. 22 BE 0021.

 

2022-1378.  State v. Struckman.

Hamilton App. No. C-210640, 2022-Ohio-2848 .

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-1385.  State v. Cutlip.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0032, 2022-Ohio-3524 .

 

2022-1392.  Nikooyi v. Nikooyi.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111392, 2022-Ohio-3239 .

 

2022-1394.  State v. Woodson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112052.

 

2022-1396.  Steuer Revocable Trust v. Strauss.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-118, 2022-Ohio-3484 .

 

2022-1397.  State v. Matheny.

Licking App. No. 21CA0088, 2022-Ohio-3447 .

 

2022-1403.  State v. Thomas.

Hamilton App. No. C-210659.

 Fischer and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-1405.  State v. Cunningham.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1136, 2022-Ohio-3497 .

 

2022-1406.  Keller v. Carroll Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

Carroll App. No. 21 CA 0952, 2022-Ohio-3526 .

 

2022-1408.  Pond v. Pond.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-392, 2022-Ohio-3561 .

 

 

2022-1412.  State v. Weimert.

Morgan App. No. 22AP0004, 2022-Ohio-3416 .

 

2022-1417.  State v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111212, 2022-Ohio-3549 .

 

2022-1418.  Hogue v. Whitacre.

Monroe App. No. 20 MO 0011, 2022-Ohio-3616 .

Kennedy, C.J., dissents.

Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and III.

 

2022-1423.  Helfrich v. Foor Family Invests., L.L.C.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00070, 2022-Ohio-3446 .

 

2022-1425.  State v. Thornton.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210629 through C-210632, 2022-Ohio-3452 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1427.  State v. Casey.

Clinton App. No. CA2022-03-007, 2022-Ohio-3100 .

 

2022-1433.  Ferrell v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-278, 2022-Ohio-2937 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1435.  Ricksecker v. Ricksecker.

Ashland App. No. 22-COA-004, 2022-Ohio-3564 .

 

2022-1439.  State v. Feagin.

Richland App. No. 2021-CA-0084, 2022-Ohio-3641 .

 

2022-1442.  State v. Cleavenger.

Summit App. No. 29519, 2022-Ohio-2942 .

 Deters, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1448.  State v. Thomas.

Scioto App. No. 22CA3994.

 Brunner and Deters, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2022-1460.  State v. Johnson.

Richland App. No. 21CA62, 2022-Ohio-3051 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1477.  State v. Solorio.

Hamilton App. No. C-210526, 2022-Ohio-3749 .

 DeWine and Deters, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-1480.  State v. Redmond.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111138, 2022-Ohio-3734 .

 

2022-1483.  In re Trust of Tary v. Seiple.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1256, 2022-Ohio-3773 .

 

2022-1487.  In re J.R.

Coshocton App. No. 2022CA0005, 2022-Ohio-3721 .

 

2022-1488.  In re R.R.

Coshocton App. No. 2022CA0006, 2022-Ohio-3722 .

 

2022-1489.  In re F.A.

Coshocton App. No. 2022CA0007, 2022-Ohio-3723 .

 

2022-1509.  State v. Marshall.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-394, 2022-Ohio-3795 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 26, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/26/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-211.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0392.  State v. Hawkins.

Clark App. No. 2015-CA-16.  On motion of amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General, for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2022-0603.  State v. Daniel.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1104, 2022-Ohio-1348.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2022-1441.  Anderson v. Monroe Cty.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to add exhibits A through D.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 25, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/25/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-199.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1431.  Whitacre v. Selmon.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 24, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/24/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-190.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1346.  McKitrick v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-136.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-582, 2022-Ohio-3800.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted, on mootness grounds.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2023-0079.  Lipin v. Wisehart.

Preble App. No. CA2022-12-022.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 19 and 20 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-1519.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Michael Allen Noble, Attorney Registration No. 0088639, last known business address in Ravenna, Ohio.  Application granted.  Michael Allen Noble reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following cases to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for each case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in these cases until mediation has concluded.

 

2023-0043.  Dean v. Thompson.

In Mandamus.

 

2023-0069.  Grim v. New Holland.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 23, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/23/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-171.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JANUARY 23, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the January 23, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0031.  Siltstone Resources, L.L.C. v. Ohio Pub. Works Comm., 168 Ohio St.3d 439, 2022-Ohio-483.

 

2020-0306.  Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ironics, Inc., 168 Ohio St.3d 467, 2022-Ohio-841.

 

2020-0608.  State v. CSX Transp., Inc., 168 Ohio St.3d 543, 2022-Ohio-2832.

 

2020-1078.  State ex rel. Yost v. Burns, 168 Ohio St.3d 507, 2022-Ohio-1326.

 

2021-0247.  Newburgh Hts. v. State, 168 Ohio St.3d 513, 2022-Ohio-1642.

 

2021-0310.  State ex rel. Randlett v. Lynch, 168 Ohio St.3d 568, 2022-Ohio-3260.

 

2021-0373.  Colonial, Inc. v. McClain, 168 Ohio St.3d 501, 2022-Ohio-1149.

 

2021-1187.  State ex rel. Huth v. Animal Welfare League of Trumbull Cty., Inc., 168 Ohio St.3d 574, 2022-Ohio-3583.

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 168 Ohio St.3d 522, 2022-Ohio-1727.

 

2021-1206.  State ex rel. White v. Aveni, 168 Ohio St.3d 540, 2022-Ohio-1755.

 

2022-0713.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Lemons, 168 Ohio St.3d 580, 2022-Ohio-3625.

 

2022-0939.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick, 168 Ohio St.3d 1234, 2022-Ohio-2967.

 

2022-0940.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Moody, 168 Ohio St.3d 1238, 2022-Ohio-2966.

 

2022-1048.  In re Nolan, 168 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2022-Ohio-2951.

 

22-AP-053.  In re Disqualification of Vavra, 168 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2022-Ohio-2192.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1228.  Combs v. Cincinnati.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s motion to strike or deny respondent’s memorandum.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2022-1233.  Knox v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s “amended by law, right writ of prohibition, as a matter of law, due process, equal protection violations, noncompliance to a legal, lawful, timely notice violated, respondents in default, right to remedy for relief, stated claims, [and] statement for relief claims proven.”  Motion denied as moot.

 

2022-1614.  Cleveland v. Patton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112047.  On appellee’s motion to strike.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1428.  Stapleton v. Stapleton.

Hamilton App. No. C-210329, 2022-Ohio-3018.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-1640.  Whitacre v. Black.

In Quo Warranto.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 25, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/25/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-152.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0231.  Freeman v. Spencer.

In Procedendo.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0420.  Bennett v. State.

In Mandamus.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Anthony Costello, Benjamin Ayers, Summit County Job and Family Services Agency et al., Akron Police Department, and Judge Linda Teodosio et al.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0633.  Waterhouse v. AMHA.

In Procedendo.  On motion to dismiss of respondents AMHA et al.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to enter statement and motion to enter evidence denied as moot.  Relator’s motion to perfect service denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

2022-0836.  In re Allen v. McClain.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-1004.  Harris v. Adam.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1195.  State ex rel. Brame v. Hamilton Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Hamilton County et al.; Manley, Deas & Kochalski, L.L.C., and David E. Johnson; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-1235.  McNutt v. Anderson.

In Quo Warranto.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Brandon Waltenbaugh and Toni Anderson, David Haverfield, Jamie Grunder, Jeffrey Kiggans, Judge Adam Wilgus, and Mary Warlop.  Motions granted.  Relators’ motions to add Kristine W. Beard and Kevin R. L’Hommedieu, “motion for review of perjury,” motion to bring charges, motion for order of protection, motion to strike, and “motion for peaceful protest” denied.  Relators’ motions to remove Jesse Jackson, Melissa Perry, and Amy Thomas’s Lighthouse Center granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-1275.  State ex rel. Majid v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

2022-1292.  Whitacre v. Regel.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike motion to dismiss denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1302.  Whitacre v. Ohio Pub. Defender.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1316.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s emergency motion to compel denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-1330.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s emergency motion to compel.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss complaint and amended complaint granted.  Relator’s motion to take judicial notice, motion to compel, and motion to strike denied as moot.  Respondent’s motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator granted.  Amirah Sultaana found to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B).  Accordingly, Amirah Sultaana prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny respondent’s motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator.

Stewart, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant relator’s motion to take judicial notice, deny respondent’s motions, grant an alternative writ, and deny relator’s motion to compel and motion to strike on the merits. 

 

2022-1339.  State v. Nixon.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1341.  McNutt v. Young.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relators’ motion to exclude Tuscarawas County Job and Family Services denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1347.  State ex rel. Boyle v. Fifth Dist. Court of Appeals Judges.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1360.  State ex rel. Jordan v. Hamilton Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

2022-1362.  State ex rel. Jordan v. Cincinnati, Police Dept. Records.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1374.  State ex rel. Keith v. Hamilton Cty. Clerk of Courts.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1375.  Anderson v. Corr. Inst. Inspection Commt.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2022-1384.  Sevilla v. Cocroft.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1388.  Byrd v. Shuster.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1422.  State ex rel. Keith v. Springdale Tax Comm.

In Mandamus.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Ohio Department of Taxation and Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Springdale Tax Commission.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1424.  Perry v. Rice.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Deters, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2022-1434.  Whitacre v. Yoss.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-1436.  State ex rel. Douglas v. Cuyahoga Cty. Treasurer.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

2022-1441.  Anderson v. Monroe Cty.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, Brunner, and Deters, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2018-0666.  State ex rel. McBroom v. Tenth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion filed December 12, 2022.  Motion denied.

 

2018-1163.  State ex rel. McBroom v. Gertmenian.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion filed December 12, 2022.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0592.  Waterhouse v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s motion filed November 16, 2022.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion for sanctioned default judgment denied.

 

2022-0736.  State v. Jordan.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210198 and C-210199, 2022-Ohio-1512.  On appellee’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike.  Motion denied as moot.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would grant appellee’s motion to strike. 

 

2022-1044.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson.

Miscellaneous case.  On relator’s “motion to strike respondent’s motion for leave and motion to answer to amended complaint and to strike from the record.”  Motion denied as moot.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2022-1070.  State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file

a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2022-1143.  State v. Whitt.

Coshocton App. No. 22CA0012.  On appellant’s petition for removal of clerk of court.  Petition denied.

 

2022-1271.  Rosenthal v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court Div. of Domestic Relations.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied as moot.  Relator’s motion for leave to file amended complaint and motion to strike motion to dismiss denied as moot.  Under Civ.R. 15(A), relator was not required to seek leave to file an amended complaint.  Relator’s amended complaint was filed on November 16, 2022.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file a response, if any, to the amended complaint within 21 days.

 

2022-1314.  State ex rel. Howson v. Ohio Atty. Gen.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would grant the motion. 

 

2022-1386.  Abedrabbo v. Reali.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 

2022-1426.  State v. Walker.

Darke App. No. 2022-CA-2, 2022-Ohio-3849.  On appellant’s motion for immediate stay of court of appeals’ judgment.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1495.  State ex rel. Maron v. Corrigan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 112130.  On appellant’s motion to stay underlying proceedings.  Motion denied.  United Twenty-Fifth Building, L.L.C.’s motion to intervene denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 27, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/27/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-233.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2012-2069.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Gill.

On application for termination of probation by respondent, Sterling Everard Gill II, Attorney Registration No. 0034021, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio.  Respondent has complied with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D) and with this court’s order dated October 10, 2019, reinstating respondent to the practice of law and ordering him to serve a two-year period of monitored probation.  Probation of Sterling Everard Gill II terminated.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 18, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/18/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-87.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0939.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick.

On certification of default.  On relator’s motion to remand proceeding to Board of Professional Conduct to initiate default proceedings seeking permanent disbarment.  Motion granted.  Matter remanded to the board for further proceedings under Gov.Bar R. V(14)(F).  Respondent’s interim default suspension shall remain in place while this matter is pending before the board.  Proceedings before this court stayed.

 

2022-1595.  In re Guardianship of Pond.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAF 06 0045, 2022-Ohio-4023.  On motion of appellee Adriann S. McGee to strike notice of appeal and memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1395.  Cottrill v. Quarry Ents., L.L.C.

Stark App. No. 2022 CA 00011, 2022-Ohio-3396 .

Fischer, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0940.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Moody.

On certification of default.  Steven Jerome Moody, Attorney Registration No. 0074731, last known address in Cleveland, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

 

2022-1530.  In re Resignation of Stone.

On application for retirement or resignation of Adam Charles Stone, Attorney Registration No. 0085414, last known business address in Bucyrus, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 

2022-1531.  In re Resignation of Corcoran.

On application for retirement or resignation of James I. Corcoran, Attorney Registration No. 0032204, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0106.  State v. Zarlengo.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0036, 2021-Ohio-4631.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.  Oral argument scheduled for February 8, 2023, canceled.

 

2022-1176.  State ex rel. Hughes v. Lakota Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following cases to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  The respondent in each case shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2022-1400.  State ex rel. Evans v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.

 

 

2022-1401.  State ex rel. Evans v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.

_________________

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellant shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.  As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, this court may dismiss this case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.

 

2022-1208.  State ex rel. Cassens Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-93, 2022-Ohio-2936 .

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/13/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-101.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0977.  State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to extend or reset deadlines for submission of evidence and briefs.  Motion granted.  The deadlines for the submission of evidence and briefing will be set following the disposition of the pending motion for protective order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 19, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/19/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-137.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1276.  State ex rel. Hutchison v. DeWine.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service in accordance with Civ.R. 4(E) as to respondents Attorney Kirk McVay, Director Chambers-Smith, Warden Harold May, Major Brown, and Chief Unit Manager Robinson.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/20/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-150.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0742.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Heller.

On motion by R. Jeffrey Pollock to withdraw as counsel for relator.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 19, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/19/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-151.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0977.  State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for a protective order.  Limited protective order granted, allowing depositions of Bethany McCorkle and Kevin Servick with restrictions.  The depositions shall not exceed one hour (30 minutes per witness) and shall be limited to matters within each witness’s knowledge concerning (1) the manner in which the office maintains electronic communications and (2) the search undertaken for documents responsive to relators’ public-records request.  The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days; relators shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence; respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relators’ brief; and relators may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 20, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/20/2023 Case Announcements#2, 2023-Ohio-163.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1604.  In re Application of Davis, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-161.

On Report by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, No. 839.  Applicant Damon Ray Davis’s pending registration application approved.  Applicant is permitted to sit for the February 2023 bar exam provided that he complies with all applicable procedures and requirements.

Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Deters, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 Reporter’s Note: These cases were decided on January 6, 2023.

 

January 17, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/17/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-86.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1414.  Whitacre v. Monroe Cty. Sheriff.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1440.  Gregley v. McConahay.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1454.  Marie-Lucas v. Roberts.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.  Petitioner’s motion for bond reduction, motion for discovery, motion for grand-jury transcripts, petition to subpoena documents, and memorandum in support of constitutions of 1787 denied as moot.

 Kennedy, C.J., would deny the motion for bond reduction. 

 Fischer, J., would deny the motion for discovery, motion for grand-jury transcripts, petition to subpoena documents, and memorandum in support of constitutions of 1787.

 

 

 

 

2022-1470.  Justice v. Dallas.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1490.  Roberson v. Campbell.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1497.  Polachek v. Roberts.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1504.  Frances v. Roberts.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1529.  Kuhn v. Lape.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-0926.  State v. McAlpin.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. 17-CR-623243-A.  On appellant’s application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.06.  Application denied.

 

2022-1361.  State v. Wilkes.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00095.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and Donnelly, J., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

2022-1371.  State v. Hymes.

Mahoning App. No. 19 MA 0130, 2021-Ohio-3439.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion fails for want of four votes.

 Fischer, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., would grant the motion.

 

2022-1387.  State v. Lewis.

Richland App. No. 22CA40.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1413.  State v. Russell.

Franklin App. No. 03AP-666, 2004 -Ohio- 2501.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1451.  State v. Anthony.

Stark App. No. 2020CA00126, 2021-Ohio-1755.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1281.  State v. Fraley.

Butler App. No. CA2021-10-131, 2022-Ohio-3270.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I, II, and IV.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

Fischer and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I only.

 Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law and would summarily reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court for application of State v. Gwynne, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4607, __ N.E.3d __.

 

2022-1283.  State v. Pugh.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111099, 2022-Ohio-3038.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1286.  State ex rel. Yost v. FirstEnergy Corp.

Franklin App. Nos. 21AP-443, 21AP-444, and 21AP-445, 2022-Ohio-3400 .

Fischer, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. II and III only.

 Brunner, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II only.

 

2022-1287.  State v. Llapur.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111246, 2022-Ohio-3134.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1290.  State v. Beatty.

Clermont App. No. CA2021-10-057, 2022-Ohio-3099 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1297.  State v. Carstaphen.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110906, 2022-Ohio-3129.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II only.

 

2022-1312.  Vandercar, L.L.C. v. Port Auth. of Greater Cincinnati Dev. Auth.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210643, C-210665, and C-220130, 2022-Ohio-3148 .

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1326.  State v. Long.

Pickaway App. No. 20CA9, 2021-Ohio-2672.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1365.  State v. Knox.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111262, 2022-Ohio-3331.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. II through VI.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 

2022-1393.  State v. Joyce.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-006, 2022-Ohio-3370.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 DeWine, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II only.

 

 

2022-1437.  State v. Haynes.

Hamilton App. No. C-210371.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0996.  State v. Jaeger.

Medina App. No. 20CA0053-M, 2022-Ohio-2183 .

 

2022-1059.  State v. Gause.

Montgomery App. No. 29162, 2022-Ohio-2168 ..

 

2022-1119.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110673, 2022-Ohio-2577 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2022-0987, State v. Palmer.  

 

2022-1131.  State v. Tipton.

Madison App. No. CA2022-04-006, 2022-Ohio-3998 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1190.  Career & Technical Assn. v. Auburn Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-113, 2022-Ohio-2737 .

 Kennedy, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1199.  State v. Dean.

Madison App. Nos. CA2021-08-013 and CA2021-08-014, 2022-Ohio-3105 .

 

2022-1211.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. No.   Appellant’s petition to stay trial, petition for order of release from prison, petition for transcript of proceedings, and request to file transcripts denied.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss appeal denied as moot.

Kennedy, C.J., and Brunner, J., would deny appellee’s motion. 

Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., would deny appellant’s petitions and request as moot.

Stewart, J., would grant appellee’s motion.

 

 

2022-1267.  Bridges v. Gray.

Belmont App. No. 22BE0034.

 

2022-1269.  State v. Rice.

Mahoning App. No. 2021 MA 0085.

 

2022-1274.  Molai v. Standing Rock Cemetery Bd. of Trustees.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0117, 2022-Ohio-3998

 

2022-1276.  Finley v. Miami Univ.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-58, 2022-Ohio-3066 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1277.  E. Cleveland IAFF 500 v. E. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111156, 2022-Ohio-3668 .

 

2022-1284.  Lakhi v. Meritra Health Care, L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-480, 2022-Ohio-3062 .

 

2022-1289.  Pantalone v. W. Coast Performance Co.

Summit App. No. 30444.

 

2022-1298.  State v. Dixon.

Greene App. No. 2021-CA-29, 2022-Ohio-3157 .

 

2022-1299.  Kolkowski v. Ashtabula Area Teachers Assn.

Ashtabula App. No. 2021-A-0033, 2022-Ohio-3112 .

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1301.  State v. Carter.

Allen App. No. 1-21-19, 2022-Ohio-1444 .

 

2022-1305.  State v. Boyle.

Greene App. No. 2022-CA-7, 2022-Ohio-2165 .

 

2022-1307.  Mancz v. McHenry.

Greene App. No. 2022-CA-20.

 

 

 

2022-1310.  Leaf v. Leaf.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAF 03 0016, 2022-Ohio-3809.  Appellant’s motion for stay of certain orders denied.

 Brunner, J., would deny the motion as moot. 

 

2022-1311.  State v. Young.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110973, 2022-Ohio-3132 .

 

2022-1315.  A.A.O. v. A.M.O.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110338 and 110349, 2022-Ohio-2767.

 

2022-1317.  State v. Rose.

Ashtabula App. No. 2021-A-0015, 2022-Ohio-3197 .

 

2022-1319.  State v. Fenstermaker.

Delaware App. No. 21-CAA090044.

 

2022-1320.  State v. Kerr.

Ottawa App. No. {62}OT-13-036, 2015-Ohio-2228 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1325.  Delasoft, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-85, 2022-Ohio-3403 .

 

2022-1328.  State v. King.

Butler App. No. CA2021-09-116, 2022-Ohio-3178 .

 

2022-1329.  State v. Torres.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111037, 2022-Ohio-3230 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1331.  Seid v. Roberts.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-22, 2022-Ohio-4670 .

 

2022-1332.  State v. Robinson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111966.  Appellant’s motion for stay denied.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., would deny the motion as moot. 

 

 

 

2022-1333.  Medina v. Medina.

Medina App. No. 22CA0013-M.  Appellant’s request to consolidate cause with 2022-1334, Medina v. Medina, denied. 

 Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., would deny the request as moot. 

 

2022-1334.  Medina v. Medina.

Medina App. No. 22CA0014-M.  Appellant’s request to consolidate cause with 2022-1333, Medina v. Medina, denied as moot.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., would deny the request. 

 

2022-1335.  State v. Hudson.

Montgomery App. No. 29333, 2022-Ohio-3253 .

 

2022-1336.  State v. Ursic.

Harrison App. No. 21 HA 0007

 

2022-1342.  Yemma v. Leber Real Estate, Ltd.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0069, 2022-Ohio-3289 .

 

2022-1344.  Bashein v. Laurels of Chagrin Falls, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111914.

 

2022-1348.  State v. Hayden.

Montgomery App. No. 29490, 2022-Ohio-3574 .

 

2022-1349.  In re L.W.

Jefferson App. Nos. 22 JE 0010 and 22 JE 0011, 2022-Ohio-3547 .

 

2022-1353.  Citizens Action Group v. Granger Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

Medina App. No. 21CA0087-M, 2022-Ohio-3280 .

Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1354.  State v. Buckman.

Perry App. No. 22-CA-00001, 2022-Ohio-3303 .

 

2022-1355.  Cook v. Kramer.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0026, 2022-Ohio-3422 .

 

2022-1356.  State v. Craig.

Wood App. No. WD-21-086, 2022-Ohio-2976 .

 

2022-1357.  State v. Gutierrez.

Delaware App. No. 18CAA030029.

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would summarily reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court for application of State v. Leyh, 166 Ohio St.3d 365, 2022-Ohio-292, 185 N.E.3d 1075.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would order appellee to respond to appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction.

  

2022-1358.  Tillman v. Mantz.

Erie App. No. E-21-042, 2022-Ohio-2527 .

 

2022-1363.  State v. Brown.

Hamilton App. No. C-050320

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I and would hold the cause for the decision in 2022-0392, State v. Hawkins.

 

2022-1364.  State v. Knuckles.

Summit App. No. 30337.

 

2022-1367.  In re R.Z.

Hamilton App. No. C-210660, 2022-Ohio-3630 .

 Kennedy, C.J., dissents. 

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-1368.  Crenshaw v. Cleveland Police Dept.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110951, 2022-Ohio-3915 .

 Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

2022-1369.  State v. Cruz.

Erie App. No. E-21-057, 2022-Ohio-3356 .

 

2022-1370.  State v. Lawson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111288, 2022-Ohio-3332 .

 

2022-1372.  State v. Acosta.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111110, 2022-Ohio-3327 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

 

2022-1373.  In re J.C.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 111077, 111149 through 111152, and 111078, 2022-Ohio-3326 .

 

2022-1376.  State v. O’Brien.

Wood App. No. WD-20-060, 2021-Ohio-4037 .

 

2022-1379.  State v. Timm.

Delaware App. No. 21-CA-11-0060.

 

2022-1382.  Morley v. Medina Cty. Sheriff.

Medina App. No. 21CA0001-M, 2022-Ohio-3469 .

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1389.  State v. Sims.

Seneca App. No. 13-21-14, 2022-Ohio-3365 .

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1398.  Metz v. CSX Transp. Corp.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1255, 2022-Ohio-3503 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1402.  Levine v. Kellogg.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-338, 2022-Ohio-3440 .

 

2022-1407.  State v. Taylor.

Montgomery App. Nos. 29422 and 29423, 2022-Ohio-3579 .

 

2022-1410.  State v. Graggs.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-170, 2022-Ohio-3407 .

 

2022-1416.  State v. Seem.

Sandusky App. No. S-21-014, 2022-Ohio-3507 .

 DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1420.  Rainy Day Rentals, Inc. v. Next Gen. Properties, Inc. 

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0096, 2022-Ohio-3530 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

2022-1421.  Lelak v. Lelak.

Montgomery App. No. 29321, 2022-Ohio-3458 .

 

2022-1453.  State v. Sherman.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-541, 2021-Ohio-4532 .

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 13, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/13/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-66.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2019-1457.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Burgess.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Andrew Thomas Burgess, Attorney Registration No. 0094128, last known address in Bothell, Washington.  Application granted.  Andrew Thomas Burgess reinstated to the practice of law.  In accordance with this court’s June 30, 2021 opinion, respondent suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on conditions.

 

2023-0036.  In re Robinson.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  James Terry Robinson, Attorney Registration No. 0068785, last known business address in Elyria, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 12, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/12/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-63.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Bloodworth.

On motion for leave to institute a legal proceeding.  Motion denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-1518.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Carr.

Sua sponte, Pinkey Susan Carr, Attorney Registration No. 0061377, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 17, 2022.

 

2022-0534.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chambers.

Sua sponte, Richard Francis Chambers II, Attorney Registration No. 0081139, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 28, 2022.

 

2022-0535.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmons.

Sua sponte, Andrew Simmons, last known address in Middletown, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 28, 2022.

 

2022-0712.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Sharp.

Sua sponte, Marianne Kathleen Sharp, Attorney Registration No. 0085179, last known address in Louisville, Kentucky, found in contempt for failure to surrender her attorney-registration card on or before November 18, 2022.

 

2022-0714.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brooks.

Sua sponte, Robert Chester Brooks II, Attorney Registration No. 0040881, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 21, 2022.

 

2022-1215.  In re Resignation of Simmons.

Sua sponte, Frank J. Simmons, Attorney Registration No. 0058498, last known business address in Toledo, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his attorney-registration card, failure to surrender his certificate of admission, and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 28, 2022.

 

2022-1243.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fleming.

Sua sponte, Esmeralda Fleming, Attorney Registration No. 0066287, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before December 2, 2022.

 

2022-1256.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Adams.

Sua sponte, Dennis Lee Adams, Attorney Registration No. 0068481, last known business address in Hamilton, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before December 2, 2022.

 

2022-1350.  In re Andrews.

Sua sponte, Amanda Ann-Carmen Andrews, Attorney Registration No. 0088814, last known business address in Port Clinton, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before December 7, 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/11/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-58.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0977.  State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relators ordered to file their response, if any, to respondent’s motion for protective order and motion to extend or reset deadlines for submission of evidence and briefs no later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 12, 2023.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/11/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-57.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1158.  State v. Morris.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-015, 2021-Ohio-2646.  On appellee’s motion to stay mandate.  Motion granted.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 11, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/11/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-53.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1415.  Smith v. McDiarmid.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-199, 2022-Ohio-2151.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Travis Moore.  Motion denied.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02(B) requires that the motion contain all information required by Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A)(7)(a) through (e).  Moore may file a new motion for pro hac vice admission, provided that it complies with Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A)(7)(a) and otherwise complies with S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02(B).

 

2023-0025.  Vukovic-Burkhardt v. Dayton Bd. of Edn.

Montgomery App. No. 29539, 2022-Ohio-4183.  Appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 18 through 19 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 9, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/09/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-34.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JANUARY 9, 2023

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the January 9, 2023 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 168 Ohio St.3d 374, 2022-Ohio-1235.

 

2021-1596.  Stevens v. Hill, 168 Ohio St.3d 427, 2022-Ohio-2479.

 

2022-0318.  Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc., 168 Ohio St.3d 437, 2022-Ohio-3714.

 

2022-1083.  State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose, 168 Ohio St.3d 430, 2022-Ohio-3295.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/06/2023 Case Announcements #3, 2023-Ohio-36.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0053.  In re Application of Alamo Solar I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 18-1578-EL-BGN.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-0054, In re Application of Angelina Solar I, L.L.C., for oral argument.

 

2022-0054.  In re Application of Angelina Solar I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, Nos. 18-1579-EL-BGN.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-0053, In re Application of Alamo Solar I, L.L.C., for oral argument.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/06/2023 Case Announcements #2, 2023-Ohio-35.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0485 and 2020-0826.  State v. Jones.

Harrison App. No. 19 HA 0003, 2020-Ohio-762  and 2020-Ohio-3607.  On appellant’s motion for appellate-bond modification.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0058.  Diller v. Diller.

Mercer App. Nos. 10-21-03 and 10-21-04, 2021-Ohio-4252.  On appellees’ motion to dismiss as improvidently accepted.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., concurs but would continue the scheduled oral argument and order additional briefing.

 DeWine, J., dissents and would remand the cause to the trial court.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 6, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/06/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-19.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1154.  State ex rel. Howard v. Turner.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator’s first amended complaint stricken pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.02(B) (clerk of the court shall refuse to file a document not timely received).

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 5, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/05/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-10.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0652.  State v. Drain.

Warren C.P. No. 19CR35870.  On appellant’s motion for stay of execution.  Motion granted.  The stay shall remain in effect until exhaustion of all state postconviction proceedings, including any appeals.

 

2020-1496.  State v. Hacker.

Logan App. No. 8-20-01, 2020-Ohio-5048.  On motion of amicus curiae Office of the Ohio Public Defender for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Office of the Ohio Public Defender shall share time allotted to appellant. 

 

2022-0934.  In re Application for Correction of Birth Record of Adelaide.

Clark App. No. 2022-CA-1, 2022-Ohio-2053.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Z. Gabriel Arkles, Mark Selwyn, Joshua Rosenthal, and Andrew Waks.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days. 

 

2022-1648.  State ex rel. Sanduskians for Sandusky v. Sandusky.

In Mandamus.  This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for emergency peremptory writ of prohibition and award of attorney fees and costs.  Case ordered not to proceed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08 but instead as an original action pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.  Respondents shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2023-0006.  In re Alexander.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Christopher Mark Alexander, Attorney Registration No. 0073543, last known business address in Mason, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0571.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. State Hwy. Patrol.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-1559.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-1561.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Medina Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 4, 2023

 

[Cite as 01/04/2023 Case Announcements, 2023-Ohio-6.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1158.  State v. Morris.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-015, 2021-Ohio-2646.  Sua sponte, issuance of mandate stayed pending consideration of appellee’s motion to stay.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/30/2022 Case Announcements #10, 2022-Ohio-4809.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0761.  State v. Schubert.

Licking App. No. 2020 CA 00040, 2021-Ohio-1478.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4604, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent, with an opinion.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 1} I agree unreservedly with the majority’s decision to deny the motion for reconsideration in this case.  I write separately, however, to express my surprise at the dissenting justices’ newfound appreciation of a party’s opportunity to file a memorandum opposing a motion for reconsideration.  Waiting for memoranda opposing motions for reconsideration is not unlike waiting for the sun to rise.  We know exactly what is going to happen: the sun is going to rise, and the parties opposing reconsideration are going to extol the virtues of the opinion that determined that their side carried the day.  If the motion for reconsideration itself does not persuade us to reconsider our decision, nothing that the party who opposes reconsideration might say is going to convince us to grant reconsideration.  (Deciding to grant reconsideration before the party opposing reconsideration has been heard is an entirely different matter.)

2                    {¶ 2} This court has a historied practice of accelerating internal timelines during election years based on the reasonable understanding that, to the extent possible, motions for

 

1                    reconsideration should be decided by the same court that decided the case on the merits.  For example, this court ruled on 31 motions for reconsideration between December 18, 2020, and the end of that year.  In some of those cases, the court considered and ruled on the motion before the time for filing a memorandum in opposition had expired.  Notably, the three justices who dissent today participated in this court’s rulings on the motions for reconsideration in all of those cases (except for two cases in which Justice Fischer recused himself).  None of the dissenting justices objected to this court’s decision at the end of 2020 to rule on those motions before the opposing party’s response time had expired, nor did any of them file a dissenting opinion in 2020 on the grounds they raise today, presumably because they agreed at that time that “the interests of justice warrant[ed] immediate consideration [of the motions] by the Supreme Court,” S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C).  The dissenters’ sudden and inconsistent concern about the injustice that may occur by ruling on motions for reconsideration before the composition of the court changes strikes me as disingenuous.

2                    {¶ 3} The motion for reconsideration filed in this case—like all the others this court has ruled on this month—is properly before us and has been properly resolved by a majority of the court.

 

_________________

KENNEDY, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 4} The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days after entry of this court’s judgment.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A).  Our rules also afford a party opposing reconsideration the same amount of time to respond to the motion.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A).  Because, under the circumstances of this specific case, nothing in the Rules of Practice gives this court the authority to deny a party opposing reconsideration the opportunity to be heard, we dissent.

2                    {¶ 5} S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01 sets forth the general rules for filing a “[m]otion for order or relief.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(B)(1) establishes the deadline for a party to file a response to such a motion: “If a party files a motion with the Supreme Court, any other party may file a response to the motion within ten days from the date the motion is filed, unless otherwise provided in these rules or by order of the Supreme Court.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C) provides that “[t]he Supreme Court may act upon a motion before the deadline for filing a response to the motion, if the interests of justice warrant immediate consideration by the Supreme Court.”

 

1                    {¶ 6} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A) provides a specific deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration, stating that “[e]xcept as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B), any motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days after the Supreme Court’s judgment entry or order is filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A) affords a party opposing reconsideration an opportunity to be heard: “Except as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B), a party opposing reconsideration may file a memorandum in response to a motion for reconsideration within ten days of the filing of the motion.”

2                    {¶ 7} The default rule, then, is that the party opposing a motion for reconsideration may file a response to the motion within the time parameters of the rule.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C) creates a limited exception to this default rule, providing that a motion may be acted upon immediately, but only if the interests of justice warrant it.

3                    {¶ 8} The “interests of justice” involve “[t]he proper view of what is fair and right in a matter in which the decision-maker has been granted discretion.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 971 (11th Ed.2019).  It has been said that “ ‘[j]ustice is even-handed and equally administered to all, irrespective of any and all considerations.’ ”  (Brackets added in Clay.)  State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner’s Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 163, 2017-Ohio-8714, 94 N.E.3d 498,  ¶ 39, quoting Koppelman v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 202 F.2d 955, 956 (3d Cir.1953) (Kalodner, J., dissenting).

4                    {¶ 9} There are few opinions from this court discussing when expedited review is warranted.  In State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts., we granted expedited consideration under former S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(4)(C), the predecessor to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C).  93 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 752 N.E.2d 854 (2001).  In that case, the party seeking expedited review had allegedly been deprived of economically viable use of property for over nine years; this court had ruled in favor of the movant in prior litigation regarding the zoning classification of the property, and the failure to act on the motion immediately could have caused irreparable harm.  Id.  In State ex rel. Taft-O’Connor ’98 v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, we expedited our consideration of a case reviewing a trial court’s restraint on campaign speech.  83 Ohio St.3d 487, 488, 700 N.E.2d 1232 (1998).  We explained: “Given the proximity of the November election and the statewide importance of the issue involved, we find that this cause merits the requested expedited consideration.”  Id.; see also State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 21, 706 N.E.2d 771 (1999) (discussing cases in which we granted motions to expedite in advance of an election).

 

1                    {¶ 10} But even in those cases, we did not deny the opposing party the opportunity to respond.  And in this case, there is nothing to warrant expedited consideration of the motion for reconsideration that would justify denying the opposing party an opportunity to be heard.  Notably, the movant in this case did not even ask the court to expedite consideration of the motion for reconsideration.  And there is no suggestion that irreparable harm will result if the court waits a few days for the opposing party to respond.  There are simply no facts before us that suggest that the interests of justice warrant this court’s immediate consideration, sua sponte, of the motion for reconsideration.

2                    {¶ 11} What sets this case apart from the numerous motions for reconsideration this court has decided recently without expediting them sua sponte?  A change in the court’s membership is imminent, and the majority must believe that it would be an injustice for a different composition of this court to rule on a motion for reconsideration than decided the case on original submission.  But that fact, standing alone, does not warrant expedited review.

3                    {¶ 12} In Jezerinac v. Dioun, this court addressed what happens when a case is decided by a court of appeals and a motion for reconsideration is considered after a member of the original panel leaves the bench.  168 Ohio St.3d 286, 2022-Ohio-509, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 1.  The question was whether that judge’s successor could hear the motion when App.R. 26(A)(1)(c) provides that a motion for reconsideration “shall be considered by the panel that issued the original decision.”  Id.

4                    {¶ 13} This court’s holding that the successor could hear the motion was unanimous.  We explained that “[a] court’s identity is wholly independent from the specific individuals who make up its personnel.  Thus, a ‘court as an entity remains the same, regardless of any change in personnel.’ ” Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Cincinnati v. Alcorn, 122 Ohio St. 294, 297, 171 N.E. 330 (1930).  This court continued:

 

 

The independent existence of courts and panels separate and apart from their particular members is crucial to the continuity of the judiciary itself.  A judge exercises judicial authority only by virtue of the office he occupies during his active tenure on the bench. * * * The judicial authority belongs to the office, not the judge.

 

Id. at ¶ 19.

1                    {¶ 14} The same is true for this court and its members.  The interests of justice therefore do not warrant expediting review of the motion for reconsideration filed in this case simply because it was filed when a changeover in the court’s membership is at hand.  It is not an injustice for a court composed of different members to hear a motion for reconsideration.  It is a situation contemplated by our Constitution, which provides for six-year terms of office for justices.  See Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(A).  Despite a change in membership, the court as an entity remains the same.  And because the interests of justice require the fair and evenhanded treatment of parties before this court, the interests of justice also demand that motions for reconsideration that are filed this month be treated the same as motions for reconsideration that were filed last month.  After all, “ ‘[j]ustice is served by the consistent and methodical application of the law.’ ”  State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 64 (Donnelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting State v. Tijerina, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-02-01, 2002-Ohio-2979, ¶ 11.

2                    {¶ 15} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A) affords the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a motion for reconsideration.  This court has allowed countless other parties the opportunity to respond to motions for reconsideration without expediting consideration of their cases sua sponte.  And the interests of justice do not warrant expedited consideration here simply because a change in the membership of this court is approaching.  Consequently, we dissent from the majority’s decision today to advance and rule on the motion for reconsideration that was filed in this case without allowing the opposing party the opportunity to respond.

 

_________________

FISCHER, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 16} I fully join the opinion dissenting from the court’s entry denying the motion for reconsideration that was filed in this case for the reasons stated therein and for the reasons stated in my own opinion dissenting from the court’s entry denying reconsideration in State v. Haynes, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4776, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 16-26 (Fischer, J., dissenting).

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/30/2022 Case Announcements #9, 2022-Ohio-4808.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2020-1129.  Ohio Pub. Works Comm. v. Barnesville.

Belmont App. No. 19BE0011, 2020-Ohio-4034.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4603, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

_________________

FISCHER, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 1} I believe that the majority opinions in Siltstone Resources, L.L.C. v. Ohio Pub. Works Comm., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-483, __ N.E.3d __, and Ohio Pub. Works Comm. v. Barnesville, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4603, __ N.E.3d __, were wrongly decided.  However, I agree that the motion for reconsideration filed by appellants, Gulfport Energy Corporation and Village of Barnesville, should be denied.  Thus, I concur in the decision to deny the motion for reconsideration.  I write separately to emphasize that I have a significant problem with the way these motions for reconsideration are being handled by this court at this time.

2                    {¶ 2} The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days after entry of this court’s judgment.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A).  Our rules also afford a party opposing reconsideration the same amount of time to respond to that motion.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A).  And our rules also specifically allow amici curiae to file memoranda in support of or memoranda in response to reconsideration within those same time frames.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(C) and 18.03(B).

 

1                    {¶ 3} In this case, Gulfport Energy Corporation and the Village of Barnesville filed a motion for reconsideration on December 30, 2022.  Appellee, Ohio Public Works Commission, filed its memorandum in opposition to reconsideration the same day.  Any amicus curiae would have until January 9, 2023, to file a memorandum in response to reconsideration.  Nevertheless, over the objections of the undersigned, the justices of this court were forced to vote on this motion by December 30, 2022—ten days before the amici curiae’s deadline to respond.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(B).

2                    {¶ 4} While the parties have had an opportunity to be heard by this court, that does not mean that this court should issue a decision on this motion for reconsideration immediately, as it does today.  Doing so not only denies the amicus curiae the opportunity to participate in the reconsideration process that is guaranteed by our rules, but we also arbitrarily deny ourselves the time for a thorough, full, and fair deliberation of the motion for reconsideration and the memorandum in opposition to reconsideration.  The court makes this decision less than eight hours after the motion for reconsideration was filed and less than four hours after the memorandum in opposition to reconsideration was filed.  This early activity is improper because it insults the parties and the judicial system, and it denies the nearly 12 million Ohioans the full and fair consideration due to all participants in this process.

3                    {¶ 5} There is no need for this type of rushed decision.  This case is not expedited.  And the change in the membership of the court will not deprive Gulfport Energy Corporation, the Village of Barnesville, or the Ohio Public Works Commission of full and fair consideration should this court decide to wait for the entire period allotted by our rules to pass before issuing a decision on the motion for reconsideration.  Justice demands that motions for reconsideration that are filed this month be treated the same as motions for reconsideration that were filed in the previous months.  After all, “ ‘[j]ustice is served by the consistent and methodical application of the law.’ ”  State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 64 (Donnelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting State v. Tijerina, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-02-01, 2002-Ohio-2979, ¶ 11.

4                    {¶ 6} The parties in this case deserve the same consideration that this court has provided to other litigants, which our rules demand.  And to the extent that a pattern of not following our reconsideration rules in prior election years somehow justifies the court’s reconsideration decision today, that practice should be stopped.  We have these rules for a reason.  And we

 

1                    should stop acting as though a change in the membership of this court is now a valid reason to shortchange the parties in our consideration of motions filed in this court.

2                    {¶ 7} Nevertheless, after reviewing Gulfport Energy Corporation and the Village of Barnesville’s motion for reconsideration and the Ohio Public Works Commission’s memorandum in opposition to reconsideration, but without consideration of any response that any amici curiae may wish to file within the time frame allowed by our rules, I agree that the motion should be denied.  Therefore, I respectfully concur.

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/30/2022 Case Announcements #8, 2022-Ohio-4807.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2020-1093.  Siltstone Servs., L.L.C. v. Guernsey Cty. Community Dev. Corp.

Guernsey App. No. 19CA000047, 2020-Ohio-3877.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4659, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

_________________

FISCHER, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 1} I believe that the majority opinions in Siltstone Resources, L.L.C. v. Ohio Pub. Works Comm., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-483, __ N.E.3d __, and Ohio Pub. Works Comm. v. Barnesville, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4603, __ N.E.3d __, were wrongly decided.  However, I agree that the motion for reconsideration filed by appellant, Gulfport Energy Corporation, should be denied.  Thus, I concur in the decision to deny the motion for reconsideration.  I write separately to emphasize that I have a significant problem with the way these motions for reconsideration are being handled by this court at this time.

2                    {¶ 2} The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days after entry of this court’s judgment.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A).  Our rules also afford a party opposing reconsideration the same amount of time to respond to that motion.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A).  And our rules also specifically allow amici curiae to file memoranda in support of or memoranda in response to reconsideration within those same time frames.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(C) and 18.03(B).

 

1                    {¶ 3} In this case, Gulfport Energy Corporation filed its motion for reconsideration on December 30, 2022.  Appellee, Ohio Public Works Commission, filed its memorandum in opposition to reconsideration the same day.  Any amicus curiae would have until January 9, 2023, to file a memorandum in response to reconsideration.  Nevertheless, over the objections of the undersigned, the justices of this court were forced to vote on this motion by December 30, 2022—ten days before the amici curiae’s deadline to respond.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(B).

2                    {¶ 4} While both parties have had an opportunity to be heard by this court, that does not mean that this court should issue a decision on this motion for reconsideration immediately, as it does today.  Doing so not only denies the amicus curiae the opportunity to participate in the reconsideration process that is guaranteed by our rules, but we also arbitrarily deny ourselves the time for a thorough, full, and fair deliberation of the motion for reconsideration and the memorandum in opposition to reconsideration.  The court makes this decision less than eight hours after the motion for reconsideration was filed and less than four hours after the memorandum in opposition to reconsideration was filed.  This early activity is improper because it insults the parties and the judicial system, and it denies the nearly 12 million Ohioans the full and fair consideration due to all participants in this process.

3                    {¶ 5} There is no need for this type of rushed decision.  This case is not expedited.  And the change in the membership of the court will not deprive Gulfport Energy Corporation or the Ohio Public Works Commission of full and fair consideration should this court decide to wait for the entire period allotted by our rules to pass before issuing a decision on the motion for reconsideration.  Justice demands that motions for reconsideration that are filed this month be treated the same as motions for reconsideration that were filed in the previous months.  After all, “ ‘[j]ustice is served by the consistent and methodical application of the law.’ ”  State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 64 (Donnelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting State v. Tijerina, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-02-01, 2002-Ohio-2979, ¶ 11.

4                    {¶ 6} The parties in this case deserve the same consideration that this court has provided to other litigants, which our rules demand.  And to the extent that a pattern of not following our reconsideration rules in prior election years somehow justifies the court’s reconsideration decision today, that practice should be stopped.  We have these rules for a reason.  And we

 

1                    should stop acting as though a change in the membership of this court is now a valid reason to shortchange the parties in our consideration of motions filed in this court.

2                    {¶ 7} Nevertheless, after reviewing Gulfport Energy Corporation’s motion for reconsideration and the Ohio Public Works Commission’s memorandum in opposition to reconsideration, but without consideration of any response that any amici curiae may wish to file within the time frame allowed by our rules, I agree that the motion should be denied.  Therefore, I respectfully concur.

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/30/2022 Case Announcements #7, 2022-Ohio-4806.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinion, which was previously issued as an entry in response to an affidavit of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-153.  In re Disqualification of Cottrill, 2022-Ohio-4800 (decided Dec. 30, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0485.  State v. Jones.

Harrison App. No. 19 HA 003.  On appellant’s motion for appellate-bond modification.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to appellant’s motion no later than Tuesday, January 3, 2023.

 

2020-0826.  State v. Jones.

Harrison App. No. 19 HA 0003, 2020-Ohio-3607.  On appellant’s motion for appellate-bond modification.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to appellant’s motion no later than Tuesday, January 3, 2023.

 

 

 

 CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/30/2022 Case Announcements #6, 2022-Ohio-4799.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1147.  State v. Bowman.

Darke App. No. 2021-CA-14, 2022-Ohio-2705.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1472, 2022-Ohio-4380, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent with an opinion.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 1} I agree unreservedly with the majority’s decision to deny the motion for reconsideration in this case.  I write separately, however, to express my surprise at the dissenting justices’ newfound appreciation of a party’s opportunity to file a memorandum opposing a motion for reconsideration.  Waiting for memoranda opposing motions for reconsideration is not unlike waiting for the sun to rise.  We know exactly what is going to happen: the sun is going to rise, and the parties opposing reconsideration are going to extol the virtues of the opinion that determined that their side carried the day.  If the motion for reconsideration itself does not persuade us to reconsider our decision, nothing that the party who opposes reconsideration might say is going to convince us to grant reconsideration.  (Deciding to grant reconsideration before the party opposing reconsideration has been heard is an entirely different matter.)

2                    {¶ 2} This court has a historied practice of accelerating internal timelines during election years based on the reasonable understanding that, to the extent possible, motions for reconsideration should be decided by the same court that decided the case on the merits.  For

 

1                    example, this court ruled on 31 motions for reconsideration between December 18, 2020, and the end of that year.  In some of those cases, the court considered and ruled on the motion before the time for filing a memorandum in opposition had expired.  Notably, the three justices who dissent today participated in this court’s rulings on the motions for reconsideration in all of those cases (except for two cases in which Justice Fischer recused himself).  None of the dissenting justices objected to this court’s decision at the end of 2020 to rule on those motions before the opposing party’s response time had expired, nor did any of them file a dissenting opinion in 2020 on the grounds they raise today, presumably because they agreed at that time that “the interests of justice warrant[ed] immediate consideration [of the motions] by the Supreme Court,” S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C).  The dissenters’ sudden and inconsistent concern about the injustice that may occur by ruling on motions for reconsideration before the composition of the court changes strikes me as disingenuous.

                        {¶ 3} The motion for reconsideration filed in this case—like all the others this court has ruled on this month—is properly before us and has been properly resolved by a majority of the court. {¶ 4} The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days after entry of this court’s judgment.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A).  Our rules also afford a party opposing reconsideration the same amount of time to respond to the motion.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A).  Because, under the circumstances of this specific case, nothing in the Rules of Practice gives this court the authority to deny a party opposing reconsideration the opportunity to be heard, we dissent.

                        {¶ 5} S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01 sets forth the general rules for filing a “[m]otion for order or relief.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(B)(1) establishes the deadline for a party to file a response to such a motion: “If a party files a motion with the Supreme Court, any other party may file a response to the motion within ten days from the date the motion is filed, unless otherwise provided in these rules or by order of the Supreme Court.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C) provides that “[t]he Supreme Court may act upon a motion before the deadline for filing a response to the motion, if the interests of justice warrant immediate consideration by the Supreme Court.”

                        {¶ 6} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A) provides a specific deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration, stating that “[e]xcept as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B), any motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days after the Supreme Court’s judgment entry or order is filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A) affords a party opposing reconsideration an opportunity to be heard: “Except as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B), a party opposing reconsideration may file a memorandum in response to a motion for reconsideration within ten days of the filing of the motion.”

                        {¶ 7} The default rule, then, is that the party opposing a motion for reconsideration may file a response to the motion within the time parameters of the rule.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C) creates a limited exception to this default rule, providing that a motion may be acted upon immediately, but only if the interests of justice warrant it.

                        {¶ 8} The “interests of justice” involve “[t]he proper view of what is fair and right in a matter in which the decision-maker has been granted discretion.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 971 (11th Ed.2019).  It has been said that “ ‘[j]ustice is even-handed and equally administered to all, irrespective of any and all considerations.’ ”  (Brackets added in Clay.)  State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner’s Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 163, 2017-Ohio-8714, 94 N.E.3d 498,  ¶ 39, quoting Koppelman v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 202 F.2d 955, 956 (3d Cir.1953) (Kalodner, J., dissenting).

                        {¶ 9} There are few opinions from this court discussing when expedited review is warranted.  In State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts., we granted expedited consideration under former S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(4)(C), the predecessor to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C).  93 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 752 N.E.2d 854 (2001).  In that case, the party seeking expedited review had allegedly been deprived of economically viable use of property for over nine years; this court had ruled in favor of the movant in prior litigation regarding the zoning classification of the property, and the failure to act on the motion immediately could have caused irreparable harm.  Id.  In State ex rel. Taft-O’Connor ’98 v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, we expedited our consideration of a case reviewing a trial court’s restraint on campaign speech.  83 Ohio St.3d 487, 488, 700 N.E.2d 1232 (1998).  We explained: “Given the proximity of the November election and the statewide importance of the issue involved, we find that this cause merits the requested expedited consideration.”  Id.; see also State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 21, 706 N.E.2d 771 (1999) (discussing cases in which we granted motions to expedite in advance of an election).

                        {¶ 10} But even in those cases, we did not deny the opposing party the opportunity to respond.  And in this case, there is nothing to warrant expedited consideration of the motion for reconsideration that would justify denying the opposing party an opportunity to be heard.  Notably, the movant in this case did not even ask the court to expedite consideration of the motion for reconsideration.  And there is no suggestion that irreparable harm will result if the court waits a few days for the opposing party to respond.  There are simply no facts before us that suggest that the interests of justice warrant this court’s immediate consideration, sua sponte, of the motion for reconsideration.

                        {¶ 11} What sets this case apart from the numerous motions for reconsideration this court has decided recently without expediting them sua sponte?  A change in the court’s membership is imminent, and the majority must believe that it would be an injustice for a different composition of this court to rule on a motion for reconsideration than decided the case on original submission.  But that fact, standing alone, does not warrant expedited review.

                        {¶ 12} In Jezerinac v. Dioun, this court addressed what happens when a case is decided by a court of appeals and a motion for reconsideration is considered after a member of the original panel leaves the bench.  168 Ohio St.3d 286, 2022-Ohio-509, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 1.  The question was whether that judge’s successor could hear the motion when App.R. 26(A)(1)(c) provides that a motion for reconsideration “shall be considered by the panel that issued the original decision.”  Id.

                        {¶ 13} This court’s holding that the successor could hear the motion was unanimous.  We explained that “[a] court’s identity is wholly independent from the specific individuals who make up its personnel.  Thus, a ‘court as an entity remains the same, regardless of any change in personnel.’ ” Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Cincinnati v. Alcorn, 122 Ohio St. 294, 297, 171 N.E. 330 (1930).  This court continued:

                        {¶ 14} The same is true for this court and its members.  The interests of justice therefore do not warrant expediting review of the motion for reconsideration filed in this case simply because it was filed when a changeover in the court’s membership is at hand.  It is not an injustice for a court composed of different members to hear a motion for reconsideration.  It is a situation contemplated by our Constitution, which provides for six-year terms of office for justices.  See Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(A).  Despite a change in membership, the court as an entity remains the same.  And because the interests of justice require the fair and evenhanded treatment of parties before this court, the interests of justice also demand that motions for reconsideration that are filed this month be treated the same as motions for reconsideration that were filed last month.  After all, “ ‘[j]ustice is served by the consistent and methodical application of the law.’ ”  State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 64 (Donnelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting State v. Tijerina, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-02-01, 2002-Ohio-2979, ¶ 11.

                        {¶ 15} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A) affords the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a motion for reconsideration.  This court has allowed countless other parties the opportunity to respond to motions for reconsideration without expediting consideration of their cases sua sponte.  And the interests of justice do not warrant expedited consideration here simply because a change in the membership of this court is approaching.  Consequently, we dissent from the majority’s decision today to advance and rule on the motion for reconsideration that was filed in this case without allowing the opposing party the opportunity to respond.

 

 

_________________

KENNEDY, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., dissenting.

 

The independent existence of courts and panels separate and apart from their particular members is crucial to the continuity of the judiciary itself.  A judge exercises judicial authority only by virtue of the office he occupies during his active tenure on the bench. * * * The judicial authority belongs to the office, not the judge.

 

Id. at ¶ 19.

_________________

FISCHER, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 16} I fully join the joint opinion dissenting from the court’s entry denying the motion for reconsideration that was filed in this case for the reasons stated therein and for the reasons stated in my own opinion dissenting from the court’s entry denying reconsideration in State v. Haynes, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4776, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 16-26 (Fischer, J., dissenting).

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/30/2022 Case Announcements #5, 2022-Ohio-4798.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1138.  Ricksecker v. Thomson.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0095, 2022-Ohio-2628.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1472, 2022-Ohio-4380, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent with an opinion.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 1} I agree unreservedly with the majority’s decision to deny the motion for reconsideration in this case.  I write separately, however, to express my surprise at the dissenting justices’ newfound appreciation of a party’s opportunity to file a memorandum opposing a motion for reconsideration.  Waiting for memoranda opposing motions for reconsideration is not unlike waiting for the sun to rise.  We know exactly what is going to happen: the sun is going to rise, and the parties opposing reconsideration are going to extol the virtues of the opinion that determined that their side carried the day.  If the motion for reconsideration itself does not persuade us to reconsider our decision, nothing that the party who opposes reconsideration might say is going to convince us to grant reconsideration.  (Deciding to grant reconsideration before the party opposing reconsideration has been heard is an entirely different matter.)

2                    {¶ 2} This court has a historied practice of accelerating internal timelines during election years based on the reasonable understanding that, to the extent possible, motions for

 

1                    reconsideration should be decided by the same court that decided the case on the merits.  For example, this court ruled on 31 motions for reconsideration between December 18, 2020, and the end of that year.  In some of those cases, the court considered and ruled on the motion before the time for filing a memorandum in opposition had expired.  Notably, the three justices who dissent today participated in this court’s rulings on the motions for reconsideration in all of those cases (except for two cases in which Justice Fischer recused himself).  None of the dissenting justices objected to this court’s decision at the end of 2020 to rule on those motions before the opposing party’s response time had expired, nor did any of them file a dissenting opinion in 2020 on the grounds they raise today, presumably because they agreed at that time that “the interests of justice warrant[ed] immediate consideration [of the motions] by the Supreme Court,” S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C).  The dissenters’ sudden and inconsistent concern about the injustice that may occur by ruling on motions for reconsideration before the composition of the court changes strikes me as disingenuous.

2                    {¶ 3} The motion for reconsideration filed in this case—like all the others this court has ruled on this month—is properly before us and has been properly resolved by a majority of the court.

 

_________________

KENNEDY, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 4} The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days after entry of this court’s judgment.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A).  Our rules also afford a party opposing reconsideration the same amount of time to respond to the motion.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A).  Because, under the circumstances of this specific case, nothing in the Rules of Practice gives this court the authority to deny a party opposing reconsideration the opportunity to be heard, we dissent.

2                    {¶ 5} S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01 sets forth the general rules for filing a “[m]otion for order or relief.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(B)(1) establishes the deadline for a party to file a response to such a motion: “If a party files a motion with the Supreme Court, any other party may file a response to the motion within ten days from the date the motion is filed, unless otherwise provided in these rules or by order of the Supreme Court.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C) provides that “[t]he Supreme Court may act upon a motion before the deadline for filing a response to the motion, if the interests of justice warrant immediate consideration by the Supreme Court.”

 

1                    {¶ 6} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A) provides a specific deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration, stating that “[e]xcept as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B), any motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days after the Supreme Court’s judgment entry or order is filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A) affords a party opposing reconsideration an opportunity to be heard: “Except as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B), a party opposing reconsideration may file a memorandum in response to a motion for reconsideration within ten days of the filing of the motion.”

2                    {¶ 7} The default rule, then, is that the party opposing a motion for reconsideration may file a response to the motion within the time parameters of the rule.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C) creates a limited exception to this default rule, providing that a motion may be acted upon immediately, but only if the interests of justice warrant it.

3                    {¶ 8} The “interests of justice” involve “[t]he proper view of what is fair and right in a matter in which the decision-maker has been granted discretion.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 971 (11th Ed.2019).  It has been said that “ ‘[j]ustice is even-handed and equally administered to all, irrespective of any and all considerations.’ ”  (Brackets added in Clay.)  State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner’s Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 163, 2017-Ohio-8714, 94 N.E.3d 498,  ¶ 39, quoting Koppelman v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 202 F.2d 955, 956 (3d Cir.1953) (Kalodner, J., dissenting).

4                    {¶ 9} There are few opinions from this court discussing when expedited review is warranted.  In State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts., we granted expedited consideration under former S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(4)(C), the predecessor to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C).  93 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 752 N.E.2d 854 (2001).  In that case, the party seeking expedited review had allegedly been deprived of economically viable use of property for over nine years; this court had ruled in favor of the movant in prior litigation regarding the zoning classification of the property, and the failure to act on the motion immediately could have caused irreparable harm.  Id.  In State ex rel. Taft-O’Connor ’98 v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, we expedited our consideration of a case reviewing a trial court’s restraint on campaign speech.  83 Ohio St.3d 487, 488, 700 N.E.2d 1232 (1998).  We explained: “Given the proximity of the November election and the statewide importance of the issue involved, we find that this cause merits the requested expedited consideration.”  Id.; see also State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 21, 706 N.E.2d 771 (1999) (discussing cases in which we granted motions to expedite in advance of an election).

 

1                    {¶ 10} But even in those cases, we did not deny the opposing party the opportunity to respond.  And in this case, there is nothing to warrant expedited consideration of the motion for reconsideration that would justify denying the opposing party an opportunity to be heard.  Notably, the movant in this case did not even ask the court to expedite consideration of the motion for reconsideration.  And there is no suggestion that irreparable harm will result if the court waits a few days for the opposing party to respond.  There are simply no facts before us that suggest that the interests of justice warrant this court’s immediate consideration, sua sponte, of the motion for reconsideration.

2                    {¶ 11} What sets this case apart from the numerous motions for reconsideration this court has decided recently without expediting them sua sponte?  A change in the court’s membership is imminent, and the majority must believe that it would be an injustice for a different composition of this court to rule on a motion for reconsideration than decided the case on original submission.  But that fact, standing alone, does not warrant expedited review.

3                    {¶ 12} In Jezerinac v. Dioun, this court addressed what happens when a case is decided by a court of appeals and a motion for reconsideration is considered after a member of the original panel leaves the bench.  168 Ohio St.3d 286, 2022-Ohio-509, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 1.  The question was whether that judge’s successor could hear the motion when App.R. 26(A)(1)(c) provides that a motion for reconsideration “shall be considered by the panel that issued the original decision.”  Id.

4                    {¶ 13} This court’s holding that the successor could hear the motion was unanimous.  We explained that “[a] court’s identity is wholly independent from the specific individuals who make up its personnel.  Thus, a ‘court as an entity remains the same, regardless of any change in personnel.’ ” Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Cincinnati v. Alcorn, 122 Ohio St. 294, 297, 171 N.E. 330 (1930).  This court continued:

 

 

The independent existence of courts and panels separate and apart from their particular members is crucial to the continuity of the judiciary itself.  A judge exercises judicial authority only by virtue of the office he occupies during his active tenure on the bench. * * * The judicial authority belongs to the office, not the judge.

 

Id. at ¶ 19.

1                    {¶ 14} The same is true for this court and its members.  The interests of justice therefore do not warrant expediting review of the motion for reconsideration filed in this case simply because it was filed when a changeover in the court’s membership is at hand.  It is not an injustice for a court composed of different members to hear a motion for reconsideration.  It is a situation contemplated by our Constitution, which provides for six-year terms of office for justices.  See Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(A).  Despite a change in membership, the court as an entity remains the same.  And because the interests of justice require the fair and evenhanded treatment of parties before this court, the interests of justice also demand that motions for reconsideration that are filed this month be treated the same as motions for reconsideration that were filed last month.  After all, “ ‘[j]ustice is served by the consistent and methodical application of the law.’ ”  State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 64 (Donnelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting State v. Tijerina, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-02-01, 2002-Ohio-2979, ¶ 11.

2                    {¶ 15} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A) affords the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a motion for reconsideration.  This court has allowed countless other parties the opportunity to respond to motions for reconsideration without expediting consideration of their cases sua sponte.  And the interests of justice do not warrant expedited consideration here simply because a change in the membership of this court is approaching.  Consequently, we dissent from the majority’s decision today to advance and rule on the motion for reconsideration that was filed in this case without allowing the opposing party the opportunity to respond.

 

_________________

FISCHER, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 16} I fully join the joint opinion dissenting from the court’s entry denying the motion for reconsideration that was filed in this case for the reasons stated therein and for the reasons stated in my own opinion dissenting from the court’s entry denying reconsideration in State v. Haynes, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4776, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 16-26 (Fischer, J., dissenting).

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/30/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-4797.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0934.  In re D.R.

Hamilton App. No. C-190594, 2021-Ohio-1797.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4493, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent with an opinion.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 1} I agree unreservedly with the majority’s decision to deny the motion for reconsideration in this case.  I write separately, however, to express my surprise at the dissenting justices’ newfound appreciation of a party’s opportunity to file a memorandum opposing a motion for reconsideration.  Waiting for memoranda opposing motions for reconsideration is not unlike waiting for the sun to rise.  We know exactly what is going to happen: the sun is going to rise, and the parties opposing reconsideration are going to extol the virtues of the opinion that determined that their side carried the day.  If the motion for reconsideration itself does not persuade us to reconsider our decision, nothing that the party who opposes reconsideration might say is going to convince us to grant reconsideration.  (Deciding to grant reconsideration before the party opposing reconsideration has been heard is an entirely different matter.)

2                    {¶ 2} This court has a historied practice of accelerating internal timelines during election years based on the reasonable understanding that, to the extent possible, motions for reconsideration should be decided by the same court that decided the case on the merits.  For

 

1                    example, this court ruled on 31 motions for reconsideration between December 18, 2020, and the end of that year.  In some of those cases, the court considered and ruled on the motion before the time for filing a memorandum in opposition had expired.  Notably, the three justices who dissent today participated in this court’s rulings on the motions for reconsideration in all of those cases (except for two cases in which Justice Fischer recused himself).  None of the dissenting justices objected to this court’s decision at the end of 2020 to rule on those motions before the opposing party’s response time had expired, nor did any of them file a dissenting opinion in 2020 on the grounds they raise today, presumably because they agreed at that time that “the interests of justice warrant[ed] immediate consideration [of the motions] by the Supreme Court,” S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C).  The dissenters’ sudden and inconsistent concern about the injustice that may occur by ruling on motions for reconsideration before the composition of the court changes strikes me as disingenuous.

2                    {¶ 3} The motion for reconsideration filed in this case—like all the others this court has ruled on this month—is properly before us and has been properly resolved by a majority of the court.

 

_________________

KENNEDY, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 4} The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days after entry of this court’s judgment.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A).  Our rules also afford a party opposing reconsideration the same amount of time to respond to the motion.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A).  Because, under the circumstances of this specific case, nothing in the Rules of Practice gives this court the authority to deny a party opposing reconsideration the opportunity to be heard, we dissent.

2                    {¶ 5} S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01 sets forth the general rules for filing a “[m]otion for order or relief.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(B)(1) establishes the deadline for a party to file a response to such a motion: “If a party files a motion with the Supreme Court, any other party may file a response to the motion within ten days from the date the motion is filed, unless otherwise provided in these rules or by order of the Supreme Court.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C) provides that “[t]he Supreme Court may act upon a motion before the deadline for filing a response to the motion, if the interests of justice warrant immediate consideration by the Supreme Court.”

 

1                    {¶ 6} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A) provides a specific deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration, stating that “[e]xcept as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B), any motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days after the Supreme Court’s judgment entry or order is filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A) affords a party opposing reconsideration an opportunity to be heard: “Except as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B), a party opposing reconsideration may file a memorandum in response to a motion for reconsideration within ten days of the filing of the motion.”

2                    {¶ 7} The default rule, then, is that the party opposing a motion for reconsideration may file a response to the motion within the time parameters of the rule.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C) creates a limited exception to this default rule, providing that a motion may be acted upon immediately, but only if the interests of justice warrant it.

3                    {¶ 8} The “interests of justice” involve “[t]he proper view of what is fair and right in a matter in which the decision-maker has been granted discretion.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 971 (11th Ed.2019).  It has been said that “ ‘[j]ustice is even-handed and equally administered to all, irrespective of any and all considerations.’ ”  (Brackets added in Clay.)  State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner’s Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 163, 2017-Ohio-8714, 94 N.E.3d 498,  ¶ 39, quoting Koppelman v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 202 F.2d 955, 956 (3d Cir.1953) (Kalodner, J., dissenting).

4                    {¶ 9} There are few opinions from this court discussing when expedited review is warranted.  In State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts., we granted expedited consideration under former S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(4)(C), the predecessor to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C).  93 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 752 N.E.2d 854 (2001).  In that case, the party seeking expedited review had allegedly been deprived of economically viable use of property for over nine years; this court had ruled in favor of the movant in prior litigation regarding the zoning classification of the property, and the failure to act on the motion immediately could have caused irreparable harm.  Id.  In State ex rel. Taft-O’Connor ’98 v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, we expedited our consideration of a case reviewing a trial court’s restraint on campaign speech.  83 Ohio St.3d 487, 488, 700 N.E.2d 1232 (1998).  We explained: “Given the proximity of the November election and the statewide importance of the issue involved, we find that this cause merits the requested expedited consideration.”  Id.; see also State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 21, 706 N.E.2d 771 (1999) (discussing cases in which we granted motions to expedite in advance of an election).

 

1                    {¶ 10} But even in those cases, we did not deny the opposing party the opportunity to respond.  And in this case, there is nothing to warrant expedited consideration of the motion for reconsideration that would justify denying the opposing party an opportunity to be heard.  Notably, the movant in this case did not even ask the court to expedite consideration of the motion for reconsideration.  And there is no suggestion that irreparable harm will result if the court waits a few days for the opposing party to respond.  There are simply no facts before us that suggest that the interests of justice warrant this court’s immediate consideration, sua sponte, of the motion for reconsideration.

2                    {¶ 11} What sets this case apart from the numerous motions for reconsideration this court has decided recently without expediting them sua sponte?  A change in the court’s membership is imminent, and the majority must believe that it would be an injustice for a different composition of this court to rule on a motion for reconsideration than decided the case on original submission.  But that fact, standing alone, does not warrant expedited review.

3                    {¶ 12} In Jezerinac v. Dioun, this court addressed what happens when a case is decided by a court of appeals and a motion for reconsideration is considered after a member of the original panel leaves the bench.  168 Ohio St.3d 286, 2022-Ohio-509, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 1.  The question was whether that judge’s successor could hear the motion when App.R. 26(A)(1)(c) provides that a motion for reconsideration “shall be considered by the panel that issued the original decision.”  Id.

4                    {¶ 13} This court’s holding that the successor could hear the motion was unanimous.  We explained that “[a] court’s identity is wholly independent from the specific individuals who make up its personnel.  Thus, a ‘court as an entity remains the same, regardless of any change in personnel.’ ” Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Cincinnati v. Alcorn, 122 Ohio St. 294, 297, 171 N.E. 330 (1930).  This court continued:

 

 

The independent existence of courts and panels separate and apart from their particular members is crucial to the continuity of the judiciary itself.  A judge exercises judicial authority only by virtue of the office he occupies during his active tenure on the bench. * * * The judicial authority belongs to the office, not the judge.

 

Id. at ¶ 19.

1                    {¶ 14} The same is true for this court and its members.  The interests of justice therefore do not warrant expediting review of the motion for reconsideration filed in this case simply because it was filed when a changeover in the court’s membership is at hand.  It is not an injustice for a court composed of different members to hear a motion for reconsideration.  It is a situation contemplated by our Constitution, which provides for six-year terms of office for justices.  See Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(A).  Despite a change in membership, the court as an entity remains the same.  And because the interests of justice require the fair and evenhanded treatment of parties before this court, the interests of justice also demand that motions for reconsideration that are filed this month be treated the same as motions for reconsideration that were filed last month.  After all, “ ‘[j]ustice is served by the consistent and methodical application of the law.’ ”  State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 64 (Donnelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting State v. Tijerina, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-02-01, 2002-Ohio-2979, ¶ 11.

2                    {¶ 15} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A) affords the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a motion for reconsideration.  This court has allowed countless other parties the opportunity to respond to motions for reconsideration without expediting consideration of their cases sua sponte.  And the interests of justice do not warrant expedited consideration here simply because a change in the membership of this court is approaching.  Consequently, we dissent from the majority’s decision today to advance and rule on the motion for reconsideration that was filed in this case without allowing the opposing party the opportunity to respond.

 

_________________

FISCHER, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 16} I fully join the joint opinion dissenting from the court’s entry denying the motion for reconsideration that was filed in this case for the reasons stated therein and for the reasons stated in my own opinion dissenting from the court’s entry denying reconsideration in State v. Haynes, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4776, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 16-26 (Fischer, J., dissenting).

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/29/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4786.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0497.  Brandt v. Pompa.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109517, 2021-Ohio-845.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4525, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and DeWine, JJ.

_________________

FISCHER, J. dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} Appellee Roy Pompa’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s decision in Brandt v. Pompa, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4525, __ N.E.3d __, should be granted.  Because the majority opinion fails to do so, I must respectfully dissent.

 

I. By denying reconsideration today, this court denies amici curiae the opportunity to participate in the reconsideration process set forth in 

the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court

1                    {¶ 2} This court denies Pompa’s motion for reconsideration two days after it was filed and 24 hours after appellant, Amanda Brandt, filed her memorandum in opposition.  In ruling on this motion for reconsideration so quickly, the court denies amici curiae the chance to respond to the motion for reconsideration and denies the members of this court the opportunity to wholly consider the arguments before us.

2                    {¶ 3} The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days after this court’s judgment entry is filed with the clerk of this court.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A).  Our rules also afford a party opposing reconsideration the same amount of time to respond to that motion.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A).  And our rules also specifically

 

1                    allow amici curiae to file memoranda in support of or memoranda in response to reconsideration within those same time frames.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(C) and 18.03(B).

2                    {¶ 4} In this case, Pompa filed his motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2022.  Brandt filed her memorandum in response to Pompa’s motion for reconsideration on December 28.  Any amicus curiae would have until at least January 6, 2023, to file a memorandum in response to the motion for reconsideration.  Nevertheless, over the objections of the undersigned, the justices of this court were forced to vote on Pompa’s motion by December 29—eight days before amici curiae’s deadline to respond.

3                    {¶ 5} While both parties have had an opportunity to be heard by this court, this does not mean that this court should vote to issue a decision on this motion for reconsideration immediately, as it does today.  By ruling today, we deny amici curiae, our friends of the court, the full opportunity to participate in the process as set forth in our rules.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(C) and 18.03(B).  Amici curiae serve an important role in our system—they may provide insight into issues in a case that are not identified by the parties.  As noted above, our rules allow for amici curiae to weigh in on Pompa’s motion for reconsideration. S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02 and 18.03.  Depriving them of this opportunity to respond harms the public and deprives this court of relevant information.  And in this case, that is not insignificant.

4                    {¶ 6} There were numerous amici curiae in this case.  There were eight amici curiae urging reversal: (1) Child USA, (2) Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center, (3) Coalition for Children, (4) Crime Victims Center, Inc., (5) American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, (6) Ohio Association for Justice, (7) American Association for Justice, and (8) Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence.  And there were ten amici curiae urging affirmance: (1) Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, (2) NFIB Small Business Legal Center, (3) American Tort Reform Association, (4) Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., (5) American Property Casualty Insurance Association, (6) Product Liability Advisory Counsel, Inc., (7) Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, (8) David Goodman, former chairman of the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee for Civil Justice, (9) Ohio Alliance for Civil Justice, and (10) Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys.  By denying Pompa’s motion for reconsideration today, we deprive 18 amici curiae of the opportunity to respond to Pompa’s motion and participate in the reconsideration process.

 

1                    {¶ 7} Additionally, we also arbitrarily deny ourselves the time for thorough, full, and fair deliberation of Pompa’s motion for reconsideration and Brandt’s memorandum in opposition.  We make our decision within 48 hours after the motion for reconsideration was filed and within 24 hours after the memorandum in opposition to reconsideration was filed.  This early activity is improper as it insults the parties and the judicial system, and it denies the nearly 12 million Ohioans the full and fair consideration due to all participants in this process.

2                    {¶ 8} There is no need for this type of rushed decision.  This case is not expedited.  And the change in the membership of the court will not deprive Pompa or Brandt of full and fair consideration should this court decide to wait for the entire period allotted by our rules to pass before issuing a decision on the motion for reconsideration.  Justice demands that motions for reconsideration that are filed this month be treated the same as motions for reconsideration that were filed in the previous months.  After all, “ ‘[j]ustice is served by the consistent and methodical application of the law.’ ”  State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 64 (Donnelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting State v. Tijerina, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-02-01, 2002-Ohio-2979, ¶ 11.

3                    {¶ 9} The parties deserve the consideration that our rules demand and the same consideration that this court has provided to other litigants.  And to the extent that a pattern of not following our reconsideration rules in prior election years somehow justifies the court’s reconsideration decision today, that practice should be stopped.  We have these rules for a reason, and we should follow them.  We should stop acting as though a change in the membership of this court is now a valid reason to shortchange the parties in the consideration of the motions filed in this court.

 

II. This court should grant Pompa’s motion for reconsideration

1                    {¶ 10} But since a majority of this court demands that we consider Pompa’s motion for reconsideration today, I believe that it should be granted, even without the benefit of amici curiae briefs.

2                    {¶ 11} It is not often that I vote to grant a motion for reconsideration.  I have done so in only a handful of cases.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Maxcy v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 154 Ohio St.3d 1401, 2018-Ohio-4419, 111 N.E.3d 1; State v. D.B., 150 Ohio St.3d 452, 2017-Ohio-6952, 82 N.E.3d 1162.  But I believe that the procedural history of this case and the constitutional

 

1                    issues at play, given the majority opinion’s flawed constitutional analysis, demand that we grant reconsideration.

2                    {¶ 12} This court has the authority to grant motions for reconsideration to “correct decisions which, upon reflection, are deemed to have been made in error.”  State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council, 75 Ohio St.3d 381, 383, 662 N.E.2d 339 (1995).  In this case, Pompa argues that we should grant reconsideration due to this court’s failure to follow its procedural rules and the majority opinion’s flawed as-applied constitutional analysis.  Pompa does not reargue his case, but rather, he raises significant issues with the analysis in the majority opinion.

3                    {¶ 13} While Brandt argues that the issues were “fully ventilated and considered by the entire Court,” this could not be further from the truth (which is apparent when one reads the majority opinion).  The majority opinion considered only one of at least four constitutional arguments raised by Brandt and only one of her two propositions of law.  It is baffling to me how anyone can argue that this is full consideration of Brandt’s case.

4                    {¶ 14} Brandt also argues that this court had nine months to consider this decision, which should be plenty of time.  This would be true if the process allowed for a linear consideration of a majority opinion.  However, this court did not handle this opinion consistently with its internal rules.  One only needs to read the majority opinion and consider why there is such little response to the nearly 36 pages occupied by the two dissenting opinions to understand the type of consideration that went into this decision.

5                    {¶ 15} The analysis of the majority opinion was flawed.  This court should grant reconsideration.

 

KENNEDY and DEWINE, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/29/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-4785.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0670.  State v. Barnes.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109442, 2021-Ohio-842.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4486, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Donnelly, J.

__________________

FISCHER, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 1} I believe that the majority opinion was wrongly decided, as I noted in my dissenting opinion.  See State v. Barnes, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4486, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 43-70 (Fischer, J., dissenting).  However, I agree that the motion for reconsideration filed by appellee, the state of Ohio, should be denied.  Thus, I concur in the decision to deny the motion for reconsideration.  I write separately to emphasize that I have a significant problem with the way these motions for reconsideration are being handled by this court at this time.

2                    {¶ 2} The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days after entry of this court’s judgment.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A).  Our rules also afford a party opposing reconsideration the same amount of time to respond to that motion.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A).  And our rules also specifically allow amici curiae to file memoranda in support of or memoranda in response to reconsideration within those same time frames.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(C) and 18.03(B).

 

1                    {¶ 3} In this case, the state filed its motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2022.  Appellant, Terry Barnes Sr., filed his memorandum in opposition to reconsideration on December 28.  Any amicus curiae, like Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, would have until January 6, 2023, to file a memorandum in response to reconsideration.  Nevertheless, over the objections of the undersigned, the justices of this court were forced to vote on this motion by December 29, 2022—eight days before the amici curiae’s deadline to respond.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(B).

2                    {¶ 4} While both parties have had an opportunity to be heard by this court, that does not mean that this court should issue a decision on this motion for reconsideration immediately, as it does today.  Doing so not only denies the amicus curiae the opportunity to participate in the reconsideration process that is guaranteed by our rules, but we also arbitrarily deny ourselves the time for a thorough, full, and fair deliberation of the state’s motion for reconsideration and Barnes’s memorandum in opposition to reconsideration.  The court makes this decision within 48 hours after the motion for reconsideration was filed and within 24 hours after the memorandum in opposition to reconsideration was filed.  This early activity is improper because it insults the parties and the judicial system, and it denies the nearly 12 million Ohioans the full and fair consideration due to all participants in this process.

3                    {¶ 5} There is no need for this type of rushed decision.  This case is not expedited.  And the change in the membership of the court will not deprive the state or Barnes of full and fair consideration should this court decide to wait for the entire period allotted by our rules to pass before issuing a decision on the motion for reconsideration.  Justice demands that motions for reconsideration that are filed this month be treated the same as motions for reconsideration that were filed in the previous months.  After all, “ ‘[j]ustice is served by the consistent and methodical application of the law.’ ”  State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 64 (Donnelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting State v. Tijerina, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-02-01, 2002-Ohio-2979, ¶ 11.

4                    {¶ 6} The parties in this case deserve the same consideration that this court has provided to other litigants, which our rules demand.  And to the extent that a pattern of not following our reconsideration rules in prior election years somehow justifies the court’s reconsideration decision today, that practice should be stopped.  We have these rules for a reason.  And we

 

1                    should stop acting as though a change in the membership of this court is now a valid reason to shortchange the parties in our consideration of motions filed in this court.

2                    {¶ 7} Nevertheless, after reviewing the state’s motion for reconsideration and Barnes’s memorandum in opposition to reconsideration, but without consideration of any responsive amicus brief, I agree that the state’s motion should be denied.  Therefore, I respectfully concur.

 

__________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/30/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-4776.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0215.  State v. Haynes.

Wood App. No. WD-19-035, 2020-Ohio-6977.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4473, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent with an opinion.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 1} I agree unreservedly with the majority’s decision to deny the motion for reconsideration in this case.  I write separately, however, to express my surprise at the dissenting justices’ newfound appreciation of a party’s opportunity to file a memorandum opposing a motion for reconsideration.  Waiting for memoranda opposing motions for reconsideration is not unlike waiting for the sun to rise.  We know exactly what is going to happen: the sun is going to rise, and the parties opposing reconsideration are going to extol the virtues of the opinion that determined that their side carried the day.  If the motion for reconsideration itself does not persuade us to reconsider our decision, nothing that the party who opposes reconsideration might say is going to convince us to grant reconsideration.  (Deciding to grant reconsideration before the party opposing reconsideration has been heard is an entirely different matter.)

2                    {¶ 2} This court has a historied practice of accelerating internal timelines during election years based on the reasonable understanding that, to the extent possible, motions for reconsideration should be decided by the same court that decided the case on the merits.  For

 

1                    example, this court ruled on 31 motions for reconsideration between December 18, 2020, and the end of that year.  In some of those cases, the court considered and ruled on the motion before the time for filing a memorandum in opposition had expired.  Notably, the three justices who dissent today participated in this court’s rulings on the motions for reconsideration in all of those cases (except for two cases in which Justice Fischer recused himself).  None of the dissenting justices objected to this court’s decision at the end of 2020 to rule on those motions before the opposing party’s response time had expired, nor did any of them file a dissenting opinion in 2020 on the grounds they raise today, presumably because they agreed at that time that “the interests of justice warrant[ed] immediate consideration [of the motions] by the Supreme Court,” S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C).  The dissenters’ sudden and inconsistent concern about the injustice that may occur by ruling on motions for reconsideration before the composition of the court changes is at best disingenuous.

2                    {¶ 3} The motion for reconsideration filed in this case—like all the others this court has ruled on this month—is properly before us and has been properly resolved by a majority of the court.

 

_________________

KENNEDY, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 4} The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration within ten days after entry of this court’s judgment.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A).  Our rules also afford a party opposing reconsideration the same amount of time to respond to the motion.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A).  Because, under the circumstances of this specific case, nothing in the Rules of Practice gives this court the authority to deny a party opposing reconsideration the opportunity to be heard, we dissent.

2                    {¶ 5} S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01 sets forth the general rules for filing a “[m]otion for order or relief.”  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(B)(1) establishes the deadline for a party to file a response to such a motion: “If a party files a motion with the Supreme Court, any other party may file a response to the motion within ten days from the date the motion is filed, unless otherwise provided in these rules or by order of the Supreme Court.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C) provides that “[t]he Supreme Court may act upon a motion before the deadline for filing a response to the motion, if the interests of justice warrant immediate consideration by the Supreme Court.”

 

1                    {¶ 6} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(A) provides a specific deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration, stating that “[e]xcept as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B), any motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days after the Supreme Court’s judgment entry or order is filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.”  And S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A) affords a party opposing reconsideration an opportunity to be heard: “Except as provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(B), a party opposing reconsideration may file a memorandum in response to a motion for reconsideration within ten days of the filing of the motion.”

2                    {¶ 7} The default rule, then, is that the party opposing a motion for reconsideration may file a response to the motion within the time parameters of the rule.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C) creates a limited exception to this default rule, providing that a motion may be acted upon immediately, but only if the interests of justice warrant it.

3                    {¶ 8} The “interests of justice” involve “[t]he proper view of what is fair and right in a matter in which the decision-maker has been granted discretion.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 971 (11th Ed.2019).  It has been said that “ ‘[j]ustice is even-handed and equally administered to all, irrespective of any and all considerations.’ ”  (Brackets added in Clay.)  State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner’s Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 163, 2017-Ohio-8714, 94 N.E.3d 498,  ¶ 39, quoting Koppelman v. Commr. of Internal Revenue, 202 F.2d 955, 956 (3d Cir.1953) (Kalodner, J., dissenting).

4                    {¶ 9} There are few opinions from this court discussing when expedited review is warranted.  In State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts., we granted expedited consideration under former S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(4)(C), the predecessor to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(C).  93 Ohio St.3d 1, 4, 752 N.E.2d 854 (2001).  In that case, the party seeking expedited review had allegedly been deprived of economically viable use of property for over nine years; this court had ruled in favor of the movant in prior litigation regarding the zoning classification of the property, and the failure to act on the motion immediately could have caused irreparable harm.  Id.  In State ex rel. Taft-O’Connor ’98 v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, we expedited our consideration of a case reviewing a trial court’s restraint on campaign speech.  83 Ohio St.3d 487, 488, 700 N.E.2d 1232 (1998).  We explained: “Given the proximity of the November election and the statewide importance of the issue involved, we find that this cause merits the requested expedited consideration.”  Id.; see also State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 21, 706 N.E.2d 771 (1999) (discussing cases in which we granted motions to expedite in advance of an election).

 

1                    {¶ 10} But even in those cases, we did not deny the opposing party the opportunity to respond.  And in this case, there is nothing to warrant expedited consideration of the motion for reconsideration that would justify denying the opposing party an opportunity to be heard.  Notably, the movant in this case did not even ask the court to expedite consideration of the motion for reconsideration.  And there is no suggestion that irreparable harm will result if the court waits a few days for the opposing party to respond.  There are simply no facts before us that suggest that the interests of justice warrant this court’s immediate consideration, sua sponte, of the motion for reconsideration.

2                    {¶ 11} What sets this case apart from the numerous motions for reconsideration this court has decided recently without expediting them sua sponte?  A change in the court’s membership is imminent, and the majority must believe that it would be an injustice for a different composition of this court to rule on a motion for reconsideration than decided the case on original submission.  But that fact, standing alone, does not warrant expedited review.

3                    {¶ 12} In Jezerinac v. Dioun, this court addressed what happens when a case is decided by a court of appeals and a motion for reconsideration is considered after a member of the original panel leaves the bench.  168 Ohio St.3d 286, 2022-Ohio-509, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 1.  The question was whether that judge’s successor could hear the motion when App.R. 26(A)(1)(c) provides that a motion for reconsideration “shall be considered by the panel that issued the original decision.”  Id.

4                    {¶ 13} This court’s holding that the successor could hear the motion was unanimous.  We explained that “[a] court’s identity is wholly independent from the specific individuals who make up its personnel.  Thus, a ‘court as an entity remains the same, regardless of any change in personnel.’ ” Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Cincinnati v. Alcorn, 122 Ohio St. 294, 297, 171 N.E. 330 (1930).  This court continued:

 

 

The independent existence of courts and panels separate and apart from their particular members is crucial to the continuity of the judiciary itself.  A judge exercises judicial authority only by virtue of the office he occupies during his active tenure on the bench. * * * The judicial authority belongs to the office, not the judge.

 

Id. at ¶ 19.

1                    {¶ 14} The same is true for this court and its members.  The interests of justice therefore do not warrant expediting review of the motion for reconsideration filed in this case simply because it was filed when a changeover in the court’s membership is at hand.  It is not an injustice for a court composed of different members to hear a motion for reconsideration.  It is a situation contemplated by our Constitution, which provides for six-year terms of office for justices.  See Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(A).  Despite a change in membership, the court as an entity remains the same.  And because the interests of justice require the fair and evenhanded treatment of parties before this court, the interests of justice also demand that motions for reconsideration that are filed this month be treated the same as motions for reconsideration that were filed last month.  After all, “ ‘[j]ustice is served by the consistent and methodical application of the law.’ ”  State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 64 (Donnelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting State v. Tijerina, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-02-01, 2002-Ohio-2979, ¶ 11.

2                    {¶ 15} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03(A) affords the opposing party an opportunity to respond to a motion for reconsideration.  This court has allowed countless other parties the opportunity to respond to motions for reconsideration without expediting consideration of their cases sua sponte.  And the interests of justice do not warrant expedited consideration here simply because a change in the membership of this court is approaching.  Consequently, we dissent from the majority’s decision today to advance and rule on the motion for reconsideration that was filed in this case without allowing the opposing party the opportunity to respond.

 

_________________

FISCHER, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 16} I fully join the joint dissent.  I write separately to detail my personal position regarding motions for reconsideration.

2                    {¶ 17} S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.03 provides that parties and amici curiae have ten days after a motion for reconsideration is filed in which to file a memorandum in response to the motion.  The court is issuing a decision in this case before that time has run.  Disposing of this motion prematurely is a disservice to the parties involved in this case and to the public.  Any interest in disposing of the motion before a change in this court’s composition must yield to the fair and equal administration of this court’s own rules.  This is especially so since S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.04(A)

 

1                    provides that when a motion for reconsideration has been filed in a case, no mandate shall issue in that case until the motion has been disposed of.

2                    {¶ 18} In State v. Gonzales, 150 Ohio St.3d 276, 2017-Ohio-777, 81 N.E.3d 419, I detailed the unusual position that justices find themselves in when they are faced with voting on a motion for reconsideration that has been filed in a case in which they did not previously participate.  Id. at ¶ 24 (Fischer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see also State v. Aalim, 150 Ohio St.3d 489, 2017-Ohio-2956, 83 N.E.3d 883, ¶ 51 (Fischer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).  As stated in my separate opinion in Gonzales, my practice upon joining this court was to deny such motions for reconsideration.  Id. at ¶ 24; see also Aalim at ¶ 51.

3                    {¶ 19} To my knowledge, no other justice has adopted my position, either when Gonzales and Aalim were decided or any time thereafter.  Because my view has not been adopted by this court, I have abided by the majority’s view of allowing new justices to participate in ruling on motions for reconsideration that are filed in cases that were decided before the new justices joined the court.  The justices who have joined the court after me have routinely participated in deciding such motions for reconsideration, with those justices having voted on such motions in more than 50 cases.

4                    {¶ 20} Justice Brunner voted on motions for reconsideration in at least 13 cases that were decided before she joined the court.  See Siltstone Servs., L.L.C. v. Guernsey Cty. Community Dev. Corp., 161 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2021-Ohio-375, 162 N.E.3d 826 (Supreme Court case No. 2020-1092); Siltstone Servs., L.L.C. v. Guernsey Cty. Community Dev. Corp., 161 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2021-Ohio-375, 162 N.E.3d 826 (Supreme Court case No. 2020-1099); Wilson v. Durrani, 161 Ohio St.3d 1453, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 580; Scott v. Durrani, 161 Ohio St.3d 1453, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 586; Carr v. Durrani, 161 Ohio St.3d 1453, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 586; Schuster v. Durrani, 161 Ohio St.3d 1453, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 587; Deck v. Durrani, 161 Ohio St.3d 1453, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 588; State ex rel. Townsend v. Kilbane, 161 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 588; State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 161 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 589; State v. Hrytsyak, 161 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 580; State ex rel. Ames v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 161 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 596; State v. Moore, 161 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 597; State v. McDaniel, 161 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2021-Ohio-534, 163 N.E.3d 590.

 

1                    {¶ 21} Justices Donnelly and Stewart voted on motions to reconsider in at least 11 cases that were decided before they joined the court.  See State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 154 Ohio St.3d 1512, 2019-Ohio-601, 116 N.E.3d 1290 (Supreme Court case No. 2016-0615); State ex rel. Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., 154 Ohio St.3d 1512, 2019-Ohio-601, 116 N.E.3d 1290 (Supreme Court case No. 2016-1123); Satterfield v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc., 154 Ohio St.3d 1512, 2019-Ohio-601, 116 N.E.3d 1290; Parker v. Keener, 154 Ohio St.3d 1512, 2019-Ohio-601, 116 N.E.3d 1290; State v. Tench, 154 Ohio St.3d 1522, 2019-Ohio-769, 118 N.E.3d 259; State v. Heiney, 154 Ohio St.3d 1522, 2019-Ohio-769, 118 N.E.3d 259; State v. Ervin, 154 Ohio St.3d 1522, 2019-Ohio-769, 118 N.E.3d 259; State v. Martin, 154 Ohio St.3d 1522, 2019-Ohio-769, 118 N.E.3d 259; Lowder v. Kantak, 154 Ohio St.3d 1522, 2019-Ohio-769, 118 N.E.3d 259; In re A.P., 154 Ohio St.3d 1523, 2019-Ohio-769, 118 N.E.3d 259; RRL Holding Co. of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Stewart, 154 Ohio St.3d 1523, 2019-Ohio-769, 118 N.E.3d 259.

2                    {¶ 22} Justice DeGenaro voted on motions for reconsideration in at least 28 cases that were decided before she joined the court.  See State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner’s Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 1411, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 881; State ex rel. Martin v. Buchanan, 152 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 881; Zidron v. Metts, 152 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 881; State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 152 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 881; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Eversole, 152 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 881; Moore v. Cleveland, 152 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 881; Bank of Am., N.A. v. Brown, 152 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 881; State v. Neil, 152 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2018-Ohio-723, 92 N.E.3d 881; Notestine Manor, Inc. v. Logan Cty. Bd. of Revision, 152 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2018-Ohio-923, 93 N.E.3d 1005; In re Rev. of Alternative Energy Rider Contained in Tariffs of Ohio Edison Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 302; State ex rel. Singer v. Fairland Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 152 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 302; Koprivec v. Rails-to-Trails of Wayne Cty., 152 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 302; State ex rel. GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc. v. Pike Cty. Coroner’s Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 302; Capital Care Network of Toledo v. Dept. of Health, 152 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 302; State ex rel. Richland Cty. Children Servs. v. Richland Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 152 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 302; State v. Parsons, 152 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 302; Dibert v. Carpenter, 152 Ohio

 

1                    St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 302; Park View Fed. Savs. Bank v. Nader, 152 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 302; Clarkwestern Dietrich Bldg. Sys., L.L.C. v. Certified Steel Stud Assn., Inc., 152 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 302; State v. Stewart, 152 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 303; State v. Whites Landing Fisheries, L.L.C., 152 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 303; State v. Filip, 152 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 303; Martens v. Findlay, 152 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 303; Hillman v. O’Shaughnessy, 152 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 303; Cleveland v. Brown, 152 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 303; State ex rel. Thomas v. Disanto, 152 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 303; State v. Pelmear, 152 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2018-Ohio-1600, 96 N.E.3d 303; State v. Beasley, 152 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2018-Ohio-1796, 97 N.E.3d 503.

2                    {¶ 23} I agree with the aspiration set forth in the concurring opinion that, to the extent possible, motions for reconsideration should be decided by the same court that decided the case on the merits.  See concurring opinion, ¶ 2.  However, this court’s failure to decide a number of cases within a time frame that would allow motions for reconsideration and any responses to those motions to be filed before the end of the year does not mean that the court should bend its own rules in order to issue a decision on the motions for reconsideration that are filed before there is a change in the court’s membership.  The fact that this court did so in 2020 is regrettable, and perhaps I should have made public the private concerns I then had with the court’s deciding those motions before they were ripe for review (notably, the concurring opinion cites no instances of this court’s doing so before 2020, and the time constraints I have been forced to work within in drafting this opinion have prevented me from conducting research to determine whether the court’s violation of its own rules is indeed a “historied practice” as implied in the concurring opinion, id. at ¶ 2.

3                    {¶ 24} This court should have taken the opportunity today to realign itself with its own rules by waiting to rule on this and other pending motions for reconsideration until those motions are ripe for review.  While the concurring opinion discounts the effect that any response might have on this court’s disposition of unripe motions for reconsideration, that argument overlooks the fact that a justice or justices may wish to grant reconsideration in cases like this but would prefer to hold off on making a final decision until any responses by opposing parties or amici curiae have been filed.  Put simply, this court should issue a decision only when it has had an

 

1                    opportunity to fully consider an issue, and justice demands that this court follow its own rules of practice.  We have not had an opportunity to fully consider the motion for reconsideration filed in this case, as our rules still provide time for opposing parties and amici curiae to be heard by weighing in on the motion for reconsideration.

2                    {¶ 25} Because the now-standard practice of this court is to allow all sitting justices to participate in deciding motions for reconsideration, regardless of whether a particular justice participated in the court’s original decision in the case, and for the reasons outlined in the joint dissent, I am convinced that any motions for reconsideration that are now pending before the court should be reviewed and decided as outlined in this court’s rules, i.e., after we have received any responsive filing (or filings) or after the time for such response has expired.

3                    {¶ 26} I accordingly dissent from the court’s decision to dispose of motions for reconsideration before those motions are ripe for review.

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/29/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4728.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0341.  Lycan v. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4676.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 107700 and 107737, 2019-Ohio-3510.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur. 

Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only. 

O’Connor, C.J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Brunner, JJ.

 

2021-0579.  State v. Bunch, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4723.

Mahoning App. No. 18 MA 0022, 2021-Ohio-1244.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded to the trial court.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Beatty Blunt, J., concurs and would adopt proposition of law No. II as well as proposition of law No. I.

O’Connor, C.J., dissents.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

Laurel Beatty Blunt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

 

2021-0718.  McClain v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4722.

Hamilton App. No. C-200195, 2021-Ohio-1423 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and Fischer, JJ.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

  

2021-1168.  Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4713.

Washington App. Nos. 20CA19 through 20CA22, 2021-Ohio-2714.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and cause remanded to the trial court. 

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur. 

Brunner, J., dissents as to proposition of law No. III but otherwise concurs.

 

2021-1440.  TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4677.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200411 and C-210125, 2021-Ohio-3665.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 

Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur. 

O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 

2022-1036.  Cleveland v. Rudolph, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4682.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111128, 2022-Ohio-2363.  Judgment affirmed as to proposition of law Nos. I and III on the authority of State v. Brasher, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4703, ___ N.E.3d ___, and proposition of law No. II dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. 

O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only in part and dissents in part and would not dismiss the cause as to proposition of law No. II.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would order briefing on proposition of law Nos. I and III.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-140.  In re Disqualification of Ondrey, 2022-Ohio-4714 (decided Dec. 1, 2022).

 

22-AP-148.  In re Disqualification of Allen, 2022-Ohio-4715 (decided Dec. 14, 2022).

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1047.  State v. Bertram.

Scioto App. No. 21CA3950, 2022-Ohio-2488.  On appellant’s motion for the appointment of the Office of the Ohio Public Defender.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

2022-1475.  State v. Berk.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-121, 2022-Ohio-2297.  On appellant’s motion to introduce a corrected affidavit of indigence.  Motion denied.  

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-0164.  State v. Polizzi.

Lake App. Nos. 2020-L-016 and 2020-L-017, 2021-Ohio-244.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1504, 2022-Ohio-1606, 187 N.E.3d 552.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion granted.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I through IV, judgment reversed, and cause remanded to the court of appeals for application of State v. Gwynne, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4607, __ N.E.3d __.

 Kennedy, J., dissents and if reaching the merits would affirm the court of appeals’ judgment for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in Gwynne.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/28/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-4704.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1053.  State v. Williams.

Hamilton App. No. C-210384, 2022-Ohio-2022.  Sua sponte, cause no longer held for the decision in 2020-1126, State v. Burns, and stay of briefing schedule lifted.  The clerk of the court shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals of Hamilton County, and the parties shall brief this case in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 O’Connor, C.J., dissents and would remand the cause to the court of appeals for application of State v. Burns, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4606, __ N.E.3d __.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0800.  Bliss v. Johns Manville.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1091, 2021-Ohio-1673  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4366, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Stewart, J., dissents.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/28/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4702.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-130.  In re Disqualification of Miller, 2022-Ohio-4674 (decided Nov. 28, 2022).

 

22-AP-139.  In re Disqualification of Howard, 2022-Ohio-4675 (decided Dec. 9, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1285.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Cocroft. 

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion in default judgment.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/27/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4671.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF DECEMBER 27, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, have been published in the December 26, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0743.  Jezerinac v. Dioun, 168 Ohio St.3d 286, 2022-Ohio-509.

 

2020-1266.  State v. Maddox, 168 Ohio St.3d 292, 2022-Ohio-764.

 

2021-1055.  State ex rel. Parker v. Black, 168 Ohio St.3d 368, 2022-Ohio-1730.

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2022-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 168 Ohio St.3d 309, 2022-Ohio-789.

 

22-AP-064.  In re Disqualification of Mackey, 168 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2022-Ohio-2837.

 

22-AP-066.  In re Disqualification of Betleski, 168 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2022-Ohio-2838.

 

22-AP-075.  In re Disqualification of O’Malley, 168 Ohio St.3d 1230, 2022-Ohio-3477.

 

22-AP-077.  In re Disqualification of Dankof, 168 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2022-Ohio-2855.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1093.  Siltstone Servs., L.L.C. v. Guernsey Cty. Community Dev. Corp., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4659.

Guernsey App. No. 19CA000047, 2020-Ohio-3877.  Judgment affirmed on the authority of Siltstone Resources, L.L.C. v. Ohio Pub. Works Comm., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-483, __ N.E.3d __, and Ohio Pub. Works Comm. v. Barnesville, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4603, __ N.E.3d __.  Appellant Guernsey County Community Development Corporation’s proposition of law No. III dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents and for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in Barnesville, would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and would reinstate the trial court’s judgment.

DeWine, J., dissents and would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and would reinstate the trial court’s judgment.

 

2021-1153.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4663.

Portage App. Nos. 2020-P-0088 and 2020-P-0089, 2021-Ohio-3178.  Judgment affirmed on the authority of Ames v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trustees, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4605, __ N.E.3d __.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents for the reasons set forth in Part I(B) of her dissenting opinion in Rootstown.

 

2021-1529.  EMOI Servs., L.L.C. v. Owners Ins. Co., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4649.

Montgomery App. No. 29128, 2021-Ohio-3942.  Judgment reversed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2022-0930.  Ames v. Portage Cty. Budget Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4666.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0074, 2022-Ohio-1905.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1554.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Upper Sandusky Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-1197.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Maxfield.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for reference to mediation.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/28/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4670.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0980.  Doe v. Greenville City Schools, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4618.

Darke App. No. 2020-CA-4, 2021-Ohio-2127 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine and Donnelly, JJ.

 

2021-1060.  State v. Brasher, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4703.

Butler App. No. CA-2020-08-094, 2021-Ohio-1688 .  Judgment affirmed.

Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 

2022-0107.  In re N.D., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4672.

Licking App. Nos. 21 CA 0040 and 21 CA 0041, 2021-Ohio-4506.  Judgment reversed on the authority of In re D.R., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4493, __ N.E.3d __, and cause remanded to the juvenile court to conduct a new completion-of-disposition hearing that takes into account the holding in D.R.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent and would order briefing.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would dismiss the cause as having been improvidently accepted.

 

 

2022-0136.  State v. Carlock, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4673.

Jefferson App. No. 19 JE 0017, 2021-Ohio-4550.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 DeWine and Stewart, JJ., dissent and would order briefing and schedule oral argument.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0866.  State ex rel. Marcellino v. Geauga Cty. Humane Soc., Inc.

In Mandamus.  Cause dismissed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0876.  State ex rel. Harding v. Costello.

In Procedendo.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as moot.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0977.  State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relators shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relators’ brief, and relators may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  Relators’ motion to supplement exhibits attached to complaint granted.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1145.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Marion Corr. Inst.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1150.  State ex rel. Reese v. Trumbull Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1173.  State ex rel. Gauthier v. Luebbers.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1176.  State ex rel. Hughes v. Lakota Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-1177.  Chapman v. Richland Cty. Sheriff’s Dept.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to certify a conflict.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed. 

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1181.  Weatherford v. DeWine.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s “cause for action” denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2022-1184.  State v. Tate.

In Mandamus.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Cincinnati Police Department (district No. 4) and Hamilton County Clerk of Courts.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Clyde Bennett II.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1198.  Dameh v. Williams.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1213.  Chapman v. Mansfield.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1216.  State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1218.  State ex rel. Clemons v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. Bd. of Dirs.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1228.  Combs v. Cincinnati.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., concur and would sua sponte declare relator to be a vexatious litigator.

 

 

2022-1233.  Knox v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1260.  State ex rel. Urbina v. Defiance Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1263.  Lamont v. State.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relators’ motion to grant petition and motion to strike motion to dismiss denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1273.  Whitacre v. Riddle.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1291.  Whitacre v. Trouten.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for permission to add included information and documents in support of the complaint denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0326.  Robinson v. Schweitzer.

Madison App. No. CA2021-08-015, 2022-Ohio-568.  On appellant’s demand for order of immediate release, “motion in arrest,” and motion for new trial.  Demand and motions denied.

 

2022-0732.  McCarthy v. Lee.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-426, 2022-Ohio-1413.  On appellees’ motion to strike/clarify portions of appellant’s merit brief.  Motion denied.

 DeWine and Brunner, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would strike proposition of law No. I.

 

2022-1237.  State v. Lewis.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0034, 2022-Ohio-3006.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated on page 5 of the court of appeals’ September 26, 2022 entry:  “When a police officer conducts a valid vehicle stop due to the legal status of the registered owner but learns upon approach that the driver is not the registered owner, may the officer continue detention of the vehicle and its occupants to ask the driver for identification?”  The conflict case is State v. Graves, 9th Dist. Medina No. 2202, 1993 WL 261562 (July 14, 1993).  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-1229, State v. Lewis; 2022-1227, State v. Dunlap; and 2022-1238, State v. Dunlap.

 

2022-1238.  State v. Dunlap.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0037, 2022-Ohio-3007 .  On review of order certifying a

conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated on page 6 of the court of appeals’ September 26, 2022 entry:  “When a police officer conducts a valid vehicle stop due to the legal status of the registered owner but learns upon approach that the driver is not the registered owner, may the officer continue detention of the vehicle and its occupants to ask the driver for identification?”  The conflict case is State v. Graves, 9th Dist. Medina No. 2202, 1993 WL 261562 (July 14, 1993).  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-1227, State v. Dunlap; 2022-1229, State v. Lewis; and 2022-1237, State v. Lewis.

 

2022-1255.  State v. Maxcy-Tipton.

Wood App. No. WD-22-003, 2022-Ohio-3502.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause held for the

decision in 2022-0603, State v. Daniel, and briefing schedule stayed.

  

2022-1331.  Seid v. Roberts.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-22.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

2022-1344.  Bashein v. Laurels of Chagrin Falls, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111914.  On appellants’ motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1347.  State ex rel. Boyle v. Fifth Dist. Court of Appeals Judges.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s emergency motion for stay of judgment.  Motion denied.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1227.  State v. Dunlap.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0037, 2022-Ohio-3007.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-1238, State v. Dunlap; 2022-1229, State v. Lewis; and 2022-1237, State v. Lewis.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2022-1229.  State v. Lewis.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0034, 2022-Ohio-3006.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-1237, State v. Lewis; 2022-1227, State v. Dunlap; and 2022-1238, State v. Dunlap.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1116.  Helfrich v. Clerk of Courts.

Licking App. No. 22CA0056.  On appellees’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Appellant’s request to retitle or recaption action and motion to stay briefing denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-1252.  Helfrich v. Hall.

Licking App. No. 22CA0042.  On appellees’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Appellant’s request for permission to refile denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/23/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4652.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2019-1381.  State v. Garrett.

Franklin C.P. No. 18CR168.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4218, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Duhart, JJ., dissent.

 Myron C. Duhart, J., of the Sixth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

2021-1352.  Elliot v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-180555, 2021-Ohio-3055.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4190, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, J., dissents.

 W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

 William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

2022-0409.  State ex rel. Andrews v. Lake Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Prohibition, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4189, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2022-1132.  Khamisi v. Deters.

Miscellaneous case.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/23/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4651.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1126.  State v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4606.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108468, 2020-Ohio-3966.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Fischer and DeWine, JJ.

 

2021-1033.  State v. Gwynne, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4607.

Delaware App. No. 16 CAA12 0056, 2021-Ohio-2378.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Trapp, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer and DeWine, JJ.

 Mary Jane Trapp, J., of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, sitting for Donnelly, J.

 

2021-1158.  State v. Morris, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4609.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-015, 2021-Ohio-2646.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and DeWine, JJ.

 

 

 

 

 

2021-1355.  State v. Thompson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4610.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200388 and C-200400, 2021-Ohio-3184.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would order briefing.

 

2021-1491.  State v. Ashcraft, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4611.

Knox App. No. 21CA000002, 2021-Ohio-3842 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2022-0536 and 2022-0688.  State v. Blackburn, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4612.

Logan App. No. 8-21-25, 2022-Ohio-988.  Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Bollar, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4370, __ N.E.3d __.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in Justice Donnelly’s dissenting opinion in Bollar.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/27/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4617.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1323.  State v. Mizicko.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0017, 2022-Ohio-262.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1324.  State v. Moss.

Summit App. No. 30005, 2022-Ohio-1833.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

Kennedy and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1338.  State v. Branco.

Stark App. No. 2020CA00153, 2021-Ohio-385.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1069.  State v. Taylor.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-396, 2022-Ohio-2877 .

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

2022-1257.  State v. Degahson.

Clark App. No. 2021-CA-35, 2022-Ohio-2972 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine and Stewart, JJ., would hold the cause for the decision in 2022-1037, State v. Hurt.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1266.  State v. Dowdell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111026, 2022-Ohio-2956.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1293.  State v. Harper.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111193, 2022-Ohio-3329.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 DeWine, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. II through V only.

 

2022-1345.  State v. Dixon.

Hamilton App. No. C-210502, 2022-Ohio-3654.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1366.  State v. Reffitt.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-129, 2022-Ohio-3371.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1383.  State v. Bacon.

Hamilton App. No. C-210161.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1077.  Ijakoli v. Alungbe.

Hamilton App. No. C-210366, 2022-Ohio-2423 .

 

 

 

 

 

2022-1092.  In re S. Children.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210672, C-210680, C-220005, and C-220006, 2022-Ohio-2941 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent and would summarily reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and would remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with In re K.K., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-3888, __ N.E.3d __.

Kennedy, J., dissents.

 

2022-1097.  State v. Searles.

Van Wert App. No. 15-19-05, 2020-Ohio-973 .

 

2022-1188.  State v. Froman.

Warren App. No. CA 2020-12-080.

 

2022-1206.  State v. Fetherolf.

Union App. No. 14-21-11.

 

2022-1212.  State v. Lockhart.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAA 07 0056, 2022-Ohio-3192 .

 

2022-1214.  State v. Griffy.

Medina App. No. 21CA0028-M, 2022-Ohio-2814 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1219.  Woods v. Sharkin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110567, 2022-Ohio-1949 .

 

2022-1221.  Bromall v. Select Specialty Hosp. Akron, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110914, 2022-Ohio-2496 .

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1222.  Tipton v. Costello.

Madison App. No. CA2022-04-005.

 

2022-1223.  In re J.L.

Hamilton App. No. C-210586, 2022-Ohio-2885 .

 

2022-1224.  State v. Messenger.

Columbiana App. No. 21 CO 0017, 2022-Ohio-3120 .

 DeWine and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1225.  Blassingame v. Pureval.

Hamilton App. No. C-210495.

 

2022-1226.  State v. Philpotts.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110607, 2022-Ohio-2865 .

 

2022-1232.  State v. Struckman.

Hamilton App. No. C-210640, 2022-Ohio-2848 .

 Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2022-1241.  State v. Brown.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110342, 110498, and 110499, 2022-Ohio-3032 .

 

2022-1245.  State v. Stoutamire.

Trumbull App. No. 2019-T-0033, 2022-Ohio-2926 .

 

2022-1246.  State v. Cleavenger.

Summit App. No. 29711, 2022-Ohio-1041 .

 

2022-1247.  Found. Medici v. Butler Inst. of Am. Art.

Trumbull App. No. 2020-T-0042, 2022-Ohio-2923 .

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1258.  In re S. Children.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-220193 and C-220202.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1259.  State v. Gamble.

Columbiana App. No. 2021-CO-00006, 2022-Ohio-2964 .

 

2022-1261.  State v. Boyle.

Richland App. No. 22AC19.

 

2022-1265.  Lok Home v. Robbins Co.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110544, 2022-Ohio-304 .

 

2022-1278.  Gillig v. Flenner.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0078, 2022-Ohio-2635 .

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-1280.  State v. Smith.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0037, 2022-Ohio-3374 .

 

2022-1294.  In re A.R.

Mahoning App. No. 22 MA 0019, 2022-Ohio-3323 .

 

2022-1309.  State v. Miller.

Montgomery App. No. 29542.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1322.  State v. Hughes.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1046.

 

2022-1343.  State v. Singh.

Butler App. No. CA2021-12-158, 2022-Ohio-3385 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2020-0652.  State v. Drain.

Warren C.P. No. 19CR35870.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-3697, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2020-1294.  State v. Irvin.

Montgomery App. No. 28495, 2020-Ohio-4847.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-3587, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2020-1420.  State v. Irvin.

Montgomery App. No. 28495, 2020-Ohio-4847.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-3587, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2020-1429.  State v. Nicholas.

Champaign App. No. 2018-CA-25, 2020-Ohio-3478.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4276, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1062.  State ex rel. Bowling v. DeWine.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-380, 2021-Ohio-2902.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4122, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

Emmanuella D. Groves, J., of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

2022-0895.  State ex rel. Brown v. First Dist. Court of Appeals Judges.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2022-Ohio-3636, 196 N.E.3d 841.  On motion for reconsideration and clarification.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion to strike memo opposing motion for reconsideration denied.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0945.  State ex rel. McCarley v. Ohio Am. Water Co.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1462, 2022-Ohio-4268, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0994.  State ex. rel. Rucci v. Schiavoni.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2022-Ohio-3903, 198 N.E.3d 105.  On motion to reconsider or in the alternative for leave to amend.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0999.  State v. Pointer.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110918, 2022-Ohio-1942.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2022-Ohio-3752, 196 N.E.3d 860.  On motion to reconsider a decision on the merits.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion for leave to amend motion for reconsideration denied.

Fischer, J., would deny the motion to amend as moot.

 

2022-1032.  Alexander v. Davis.

Hamilton App. No. C-210461, 2022-Ohio-2345.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1447, 2022-Ohio-3909, 197 N.E.3d 585.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1123.  State v. O’Day.

In Habeas Corpus.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1417, 2022-Ohio-3752, 196 N.E.3d 851.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Petitioner’s motion to stay trial pending decision on petition for writ of habeas corpus denied as moot.

 Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., would deny the motion to stay.

 

2022-1149.  Suhay v. Fade.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0008, 2022-Ohio-1368.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2022-Ohio-3909, 197 N.E.3d 593.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/21/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4582.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0944.  State v. Messenger, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4562.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-879, 2021-Ohio-2044 .  Judgment affirmed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Robb, JJ., concur.

 Carol Ann Robb, J., of the Seventh District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0226.  United States Monarchy v. Graham.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this cause should not be dismissed due to failure to respond to this court’s December 1, 2022 order.

 

2022-1340.  State v. Carver.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111292, 2022-Ohio-3238.  On appellee’s motion to strike.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/16/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4546.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0497.  Brandt v. Pompa, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4525.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109517, 2021-Ohio-845 .  Judgment reversed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent, with an opinion.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/16/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4541.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0934.  In re D.R., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4493.

Hamilton App. No. C-190594, 2021-Ohio-1797.  Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, J.

 

2021-1299.  State v. Ramsden, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4483.

Clinton App. No. CA2020-11-016, 2021-Ohio-3071.  Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Nicholas, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4276, __ N.E.3d __.

O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and Donnelly, JJ., would dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently accepted.

 

2022-0085.  State v. L.A.B., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4484.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-120, 2021-Ohio-4323.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.  The decision of the court of appeals may not be cited as authority with regard to the issue raised in proposition of law No. I except by the parties inter se.

 Donnelly, J., concurs.

 Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., concur but would not order that the opinion of the court of appeals not be cited.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would affirm the court of appeals’ judgment as to proposition of law Nos.

II, III, and IV.

 DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would order oral argument on proposition of law No. I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/15/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4501.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0993.  In re E.S.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110378, 2021-Ohio-4606.  On appellant’s amended motion to stay lower-court proceedings.  Motion granted.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2022-1286.  State ex rel. Yost v. FirstEnergy Corp.

Franklin App. Nos. 21AP-443, 21AP-444, and 21AP-445, 2022-Ohio-3400.  On appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal.  Motion granted.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, J., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1172.  State v. Hilliard.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0024, 2022-Ohio-2849 .

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/15/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4500.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0485 and 2020-0826.  State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4485.

Harrison App. No. 19 HA 0003, 2020-Ohio-762  and 2020-Ohio-3607.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and cause remanded to the trial court.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Fischer and DeWine, JJ.

 

2021-0215.  State v. Haynes, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4473.

Wood App. No. WD-19-035, 2020-Ohio-6977.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, J.

 

2021-0670.  State v. Barnes, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4486.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109442, 2021-Ohio-842.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart, J., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Gwin, J.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., as to Parts II and III.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Donnelly, J.

 

 

2021-1482.  State ex rel. Ware v. Wine, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4472.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted in part and denied in part.  Relator awarded $3,000.00 in statutory damages.  Costs assessed to respondents.

Fischer and Stewart, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in part and concurs in judgment only in part, with an opinion joined by O’Connor, C.J., except that she would not award statutory damages.

Kennedy, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant the writ in full and would award $4,000 in statutory damages.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-121.  In re Disqualification of Baker Ross, 2022-Ohio-4488 (decided Oct. 5, 2022).

 

22-AP-122.  In re Disqualification of Kelsey, 2022-Ohio-4489 (decided Oct. 7, 2022).

 

22-AP-123.  In re Disqualification of Robinson, 2022-Ohio-4490 (decided Oct. 18, 2022).

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/14/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4481.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1432.  State v. Bailey, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4407.

Hamilton App. No. C-200386, 2021-Ohio-3664 .  Judgment reversed.

 DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by O’Connor, C.J.

 Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 

2022-0264.  State ex rel. Swopes v. McCormick, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4408.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110860, 2022-Ohio-306 .  Judgment affirmed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs in judgment only and would decide the case on its merits instead of dismissing it based on a procedural defect.

 Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-107.  In re Disqualification of Mackey, 2022-Ohio-4432 (decided Oct. 5, 2022).

 

22-AP-108.  In re Disqualification of Fleegle, 2022-Ohio-4433 (decided Sept.

30, 2022).

 

22-AP-115.  In re Disqualification of Luebbers, 2022-Ohio-4434 (decided Oct. 18, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Bozsik.

On motion for leave to institute a legal proceeding.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0106.  State v. Zarlengo.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0036, 2021-Ohio-4631.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2022-1102.  Lamont v. State.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to quash and motion to overturn convictions.  Motions denied as moot.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-0802.  State ex rel. Youngstown Civ. Serv. Comm. v. Sweeney.

In Prohibition.  On respondent Michael R. Cox’s motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Respondent Michael R. Cox’s emergency motion to stay November 30, 2022 entries pending disposition of motion for reconsideration denied as moot.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/13/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4456.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0998.  State v. Hough, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4436.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-682, 2021-Ohio-2198.  Judgment reversed, convictions vacated, and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

 

2021-1047.  State v. Fisk, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4435.

Montgomery App. No. 28798, 2021-Ohio-1973.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-097.  In re Disqualification of Saffold, 2022-Ohio-4429 (decided Sept. 26, 2022).

 

22-AP-100.  In re Disqualification of Searcy, 2022-Ohio-4430 (decided Sept. 23, 2022).

 

22-AP-105.  In re Disqualification of Melnick, 2022-Ohio-4431 (decided Sept. 27, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1044.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson.

Miscellaneous case.  Sua sponte, respondent’s motion for leave to file answer to relator’s amended complaint and respondent’s answer to amended complaint stricken pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.02(B) (clerk of the court shall refuse to file a document not timely received).

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 12, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/12/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4410.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF DECEMBER 12, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the December 12, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

 

2020-0599.  State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250, 2022-Ohio-1878.

 

2020-1163.  In re Adoption of A.K., 168 Ohio St.3d 225, 2022-Ohio-350.

 

2021-0691.  State v. Lewis, 168 Ohio St.3d 245, 2022-Ohio-1570.

 

2021-0995.  State ex rel. Davis v. Sheldon, 168 Ohio St.3d 279, 2022-Ohio-2789.

 

2021-0997 and 2021-1343.  Santomauro v. McLaughlin, 168 Ohio St.3d 272, 2022-Ohio-2441.

 

2021-1272.  Rance v. Watson, 168 Ohio St.3d 246, 2022-Ohio-1822.

 

2021-1427.  State ex rel. Anderson v. Chambers-Smith, 168 Ohio St.3d 283, 2022-Ohio-2844.

 

2022-0149.  Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Blauvelt, 168 Ohio St.3d 268, 2022-Ohio-2108.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0130.  Neuro-Communication Servs., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4379.

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 4:20-CV-1275.  Certified state-law question answered in the negative.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0993.  In re E.S.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110378, 2021-Ohio-4606.  On appellee’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellee.

 

2022-1330.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for the clerk of the court to send complaint by regular U.S. mail.  Motion denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2020-1520.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Morton.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, John Alex Morton, Attorney Registration No. 0028021, last known business address in Richmond Heights, Ohio.  Application granted.  John Alex Morton reinstated to the practice of law.

 

2022-1142.  In re Fusco.

Anthony James Fusco, Attorney Registration No. 0093904, last known business address in Youngstown, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 21, 2022.

 

 

 

2022-1185.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. D’Atri.

Edward Langenbach D’Atri, Attorney Registration No. 0019237, last known business address in Canton, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 27, 2022.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 9, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/09/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4384.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

In re Cases Held for the Decision in Elliot v. Durrani, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4378.

The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are affirmed on the authority of Elliot v. Durrani, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4190, ___ N.E.3d ___: 2021-1483, Wilson v. Durrani; 2021-1484, Scott v. Durrani; 2021-1485, Schuster v. Durrani; 2021-1486, Carr v. Durrani; 2021-1487, Roark v. Durrani; 2021-1488, Jones v. Durrani; 2021-1489, Robbinson-Woods v. Durrani; 2021-1490, Bentley v. Durrani; 2022-0022, Deck v. Durrani; and 2022-0023, Sand v. Durrani.

O’Connor, C.J., and Gwin, Klatt, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents for the reasons stated in her dissenting opinion in Elliot.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

2019-0912.  State v. Grevious, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4361.

Butler App. No. CA2018-05-093, 2019-Ohio-1932.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and cause remanded.  

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, J., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

2019-1215.  State v. Philpotts, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4362.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107374, 2019-Ohio-2911.  Judgment vacated and cause remanded to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, ___ U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022).

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 Stewart, J., dissents.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2021-0066.  Bunta v. Superior VacuPress, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4363.

Holmes App. No. 20CA006, 2020-Ohio-5500 .  Judgment reversed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and DeWine, JJ.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2021-0756 and 2021-0769.  State v. Bollar, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4370.

Stark App. No. 2020 CA 00077, 2021-Ohio-1578 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

 

2021-1087.  Willow Grove, Ltd. v. Olmsted Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4364.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109319, 2021-Ohio-2510.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0742.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Heller.

On respondent’s motion to extend time for ruling on application for reinstatement and motion to accept continuing-legal-education courses taken to satisfy reinstatement requirements.  Motion to extend time for ruling on application for reinstatement granted.  Respondent shall have until January 6, 2023, to supplement his application for reinstatement and demonstrate compliance with this court’s

orders.  Motion to accept continuing-legal-education courses taken to satisfy reinstatement requirements denied.

 

 

 

2022-0993.  In re E.S.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110378, 2021-Ohio-4606.  Sua sponte, clerk of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals ordered to supplement the record and submit the following exhibits, properly marked, within 20 days: exhibit Nos. 1 through 132, 201 through 240, 301 through 383, 369 through 376, 400, 403, 404, 409, 411, 412, 418, 420 through 424, 431, 506, 509, 512, 513, and 543.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/13/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4380.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0926.  McNutt v. Kiggans.

In Habeas Corpus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Respondent Brandon Waltenbaugh’s motion to dismiss granted.  Petitioners’ emergency motion for return of child denied.  Petitioners’ motion for comment, motion for review, request for evidentiary hearing, request to set precedent, request to prove that petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration in case Nos. 2022-0783 and 2022-0426, motion to review the pleadings in case No. 2022-0426, motion to strike, motion to schedule trial, motion to grant habeas corpus relief, motion to review new evidence, motion for subpoena, request to move for new evidence, request to move for a challenge, motion for review of perjury, complaint for replevin, and motion for order of possession of property denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., would deny petitioners’ motion for comment, motion for review, request for evidentiary hearing, request to set precedent, request to prove that petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration in case Nos. 2022-0783 and 2022-0426, motion to review the pleadings in case No. 2022-0426, motion to strike, motion to schedule trial, motion to grant habeas corpus relief, motion to review new evidence, motion for subpoena, request to move for new evidence, request to move for a challenge, motion for review of perjury, complaint for replevin, and motion for order of possession of property.

 Fischer, J., would deny petitioners’ motion to strike.

Stewart, J., would deny petitioners’ motion for comment, motion for review, request for evidentiary hearing, request to set precedent, request to prove that

petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration in case Nos. 2022-0783 and 2022-0426, motion to review the pleadings in case No. 2022-0426, and motion to strike.

Brunner, J., would deny petitioners’ emergency motion for return of child as moot and would deny petitioners’ complaint for replevin and motion for order of possession of property. 

 

2022-1285.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Cocroft.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1300.  Foster v. Foley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1303.  Crockett v. O’Malley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1304.  Redic v. Warden.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1308.  Crockett v. O’Malley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1318.  Hopkins v. O’Malley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1137.  State v. Clark.

Fairfield App. No. 2021 CA 00025, 2022-Ohio-2693.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1144.  State v. Waters.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110821, 2022-Ohio-2667.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1146.  State v. Harrison.

Logan App. No. 8-22-05, 2022-Ohio-2537.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. V.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Donnelly, J., would also accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1162.  State v. Brown.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111148, 2022-Ohio-2686.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1167.  State v. Crawford.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110986, 2022-Ohio-2673.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. IV through VII.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Stewart, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2022-1182.  State v. Brown.

Hamilton App. No. C-210355, 2022-Ohio-2752 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1200.  State v. R.W.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110858, 2022-Ohio-2771.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. II, III, and IV.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1203.  State v. Toran.

Hamilton App. No. C-210431, 2022-Ohio-2796 .

O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

Sean C. Gallagher, J., of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

 

2022-1231.  State v. Carano.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111248, 2022-Ohio-2872.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0822.  State v. Ford.

Union App. No. 14-21-10, 2022-Ohio-161.  Appellant’s request for service by certified or express mail denied.

 Fischer, J., would deny the request as moot.

 

2022-1005.  State v. Perkins.

Mahoning App. No. 2021 MA 0073.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1028.  Hamm v. Lorain Coal & Dock Co.

Belmont App. No. 20 BE 0030, 2022-Ohio-2644.  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.  Appellants/cross-appellees’ motion to dismiss cross-appeal denied.

 Fischer, J., would grant the motion.

 

2022-1099.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-437.  Appellant’s petition to stay trial and petition for order of release from imprisonment denied.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss appeal denied as moot.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would grant appellee’s motion.

Kennedy, J., would deny appellee’s motion.

 

2022-1129.  State v. Osterman.

Hamilton App. No. C-200415, 2022-Ohio-2751 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-1130.  Fikes v. Estate of Fikes.

Hamilton App. No. C-210515, 2022-Ohio-2075 .

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-1136.  Wicks v. Lover’s Lane Mkt.

Summit App. No. 30019, 2022-Ohio-2652 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1138.  Ricksecker v. Thomson.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0095, 2022-Ohio-2628 .

 

2022-1140.  Momotaz v. Sattar.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111034, 2022-Ohio-2676 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1147.  State v. Bowman.

Darke App. No. 2021-CA-14, 2022-Ohio-2705 .

 

2022-1152.  State v. Thomas.

Hamilton App. No. C-150581, 2017-Ohio-4403 .

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-1153.  State v. Flenner.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0003, 2022-Ohio-2831 .

 

2022-1156.  Buehner v. Cheselka.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111165, 2022-Ohio-2687 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1160.  State v. Read-Bates.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111136, 2022-Ohio-2684 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1161.  State v. Staken.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111088, 2022-Ohio-2680 .

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

2022-1163.  State v. McVean.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210459 and C-210460, 2022-Ohio-2753 .

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1164.  State v. Hecox.

Van Wert App. No. 15-21-09, 2022-Ohio-2325 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

 

2022-1168.  Solon v. Solon.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00143.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions denied.

 Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., would deny the motion to dismiss as moot.

Donnelly, J., would grant the motions.

 

2022-1169.  Solon v. Solon.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00013.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss and for sanctions denied.

 Donnelly, J., would grant the motion.

 

2022-1170.  Solon v. Solon.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00017.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions denied.

 Kennedy, J., would deny the motion to dismiss as moot.

Fischer, J., would deny the motion to dismiss as moot and would grant the motion for sanctions.

Donnelly, J., would grant the motions.

 

2022-1171.  State v. Wolfe.

Athens App. No. 21CA5, 2022-Ohio-2921 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1175.  State v. Welch.

Coshocton App. No. 22CA0021.

 

2022-1179.  State v. Jewell.

Warren App. No. CA2021-09-080, 2022-Ohio-2727 .

 

 

2022-1180.  State v. Chute.

Union App. No. 14-22-02, 2022-Ohio-2722 .

Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2022-1189.  Sunset Cove Community Assn., Inc. v. Whetzel.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-123, 2022-Ohio-2738 .

 

2022-1192.  State v. Peterson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109306, 2022-Ohio-2766 .

 

2022-1193.  Raymont v. Raymont.

Coshocton App. No. 2021CA0029, 2022-Ohio-2389 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1194.  State v. El-Amin.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1175, 2022-Ohio-2905 .

 

2022-1201.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111040, 2022-Ohio-2773 .

 Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1204.  State v. Wilson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110763, 2022-Ohio-2769 .

 

2022-1230.  State v. Dennis.

Montgomery App. No. 29266, 2022-Ohio-2888 .

 

2022-1279.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0015, 2022-Ohio-3003 .

 

2022-1282.  State v. DeVore.

Ashland App. No. 2022-COA-024, 2022-Ohio-3314.  Appellant’s motion to report violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3 denied.

 

2022-1295.  State v. Black.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-180, 2022-Ohio-3119 .

 

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0573.  State v. Stiltner.

Scioto App. No. 19CA3882, 2021-Ohio-959.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-3589, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2021-0836.  State ex rel. DeMarco v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-227, 2021-Ohio-1937.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1408, 2022-Ohio-3591, 195 N.E.3d 1048.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

Brunner, J., dissents and would stay briefing and order an update in 60 days.

 

2022-0954.  State v. Russaw.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111315, 2022-Ohio-2145.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1528, 2022-Ohio-3322, 195 N.E.3d 171.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1049.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110833 and 111020, 2022-Ohio-2133.  Reported at 168 Ohio St.3d 1408, 2022-Ohio-3591, 195 N.E.3d 1049.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion granted.  The case shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 Kennedy and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/08/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4377.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0452.  State v. Jackson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4365.

Hamilton App. No. C-190676, 2021-Ohio-517 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2021-0622.  State v. Weaver, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4371.

Muskingum App. No. CT2019-0034, 2021-Ohio-1025.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and Fischer, JJ.

 

2021-0800.  Bliss v. Johns Manville, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4366.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1091, 2021-Ohio-1673 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., would dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently accepted because the majority opinion merely reaffirms well-settled law.

Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

2022-0159.  In re Adoption of H.P., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4369.

Van Wert App. No. 15-21-03, 2021-Ohio-4567.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4356.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0191.  State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4345.

Licking App. No. 2019 CA 00039, 2020-Ohio-276.  Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2021-0392.  State v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4347.

Hamilton App. No. C-190399, 2021-Ohio-597.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Smith, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

Jason P. Smith, J., of the Fourth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2021-1374.  In re Establishing the Solar Generation Fund Rider, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4348.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 21-447-EL-UNC.  Order affirmed in part and reversed in part and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Kilbane, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, J.

 Mary Eileen Kilbane, J., of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 6, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/06/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4337.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1112.  State v. Galinari.

Hamilton App. No. C-210149, 2022-Ohio-2559 .

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., concurring.

                        {¶ 1} We don’t have much to go on in this case; appellant Devin Galinari’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction was filed pro se, and the state did not file a memorandum in response.  But what we do have is troubling.  This court has declined to accept this appeal—properly so given that the only proposition of law addresses whether the imposition of consecutive sentences was an abuse of discretion.  Nevertheless, I believe that we should appoint counsel to assist Galinari.  I am concerned that we are missing an opportunity to consider the profoundly unsettling issue that underlies this case. a mental-health crisis.  If true, then this case demonstrates how easily mentally ill people can enter the prison system.

                        {¶ 3} The court of appeals’ opinion states that Galinari was initially found incompetent to stand trial but that he had been “restored to competency.”  Id. at ¶ 3.  It is beyond question that his being restored to competency cannot relate back to the time of the assaults, yet Galinari appears to have been sentenced as if he had been competent at the time the offenses were committed.

                        {¶ 4} Given that Galinari’s proposition of law addresses only the imposition of  consecutive sentences, the underlying issue is beyond our contemplation in this appeal as it has been presented to us.  But I would appoint defense counsel to see whether there is a path that would allow us to address the underlying issue, which is a matter of great public importance.

 

{¶ 2} The third sentence of the court of appeals’ opinion states, “In the midst of a mental-health crisis, Galinari used an aluminum bat to damage the windows of a church and car windshields in a nearby dealership parking lot.”  2022-Ohio-2559, ¶ 2.  He went on to assault two people.  The key phrase is “[i]n the midst of a mental-health crisis.”  If Galinari committed the crimes while in a mental-health crisis, then the law requires that he be treated differently than if he had acted while not in a mental-health crisis.  Nothing that I have read in the court of appeals’ opinion or Galinari’s brief indicates that he was not acting while in a mental-health crisis, but he appears to have been treated no differently than a defendant who acted while not in

 

BRUNNER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 6, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/06/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4335.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2019-1298.  State v. Bourn, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4321.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107525, 2019-Ohio-2327.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Fischer, J., concurs.

O’Connor, C.J., concurs, with an opinion.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Stewart, JJ.

 

2021-1352.  Elliot v. Durrani, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4190.

Hamilton App. No. C-180555, 2021-Ohio-3055 .  Judgment affirmed.

Gwin, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., dissents.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Klatt, J.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/02/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4320.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0802.  State ex rel. Youngstown Civ. Serv. Comm. v.  Sweeney.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file a response, if any, to respondent Michael R. Cox’s motion for reconsideration and his emergency motion to stay November 30, 2022 entries no later than Tuesday, December 6, 2022.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 5, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/05/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4302.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1392.  State v. Yerkey, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4298.

Columbiana App. No. 19 CO 0044, 2020-Ohio-4822 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and Fischer, JJ.

 

2020-1505.  State v. Brunson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4299.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107683, 2020-Ohio-5078 .  Judgment affirmed.

Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, J., concur in judgment only.

DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1186.  Schnakel v. Medas.

Medina App. No. 21CA0058-M, 2022-Ohio-2818.  On appellants’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/02/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4297.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1429.  State v. Nicholas, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4276.

Champaign App. No. 2018-CA-25, 2020-Ohio-3478.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer and DeWine, JJ.

 

2020-1583.  State v. Scott, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4277.

Butler App. No. CA2020-01-007, 2020-Ohio-5302.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and Fischer, JJ.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0824.  State ex rel. Gilreath v. Cuyahoga Job & Family Servs.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted as to respondents Cuyahoga County Job and Family Services, Kevin Gowan, Office of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, and Michael O’Malley.  This cause remains pending on the claims against respondents Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and Matt Damschroder.  The remaining respondents may file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 12/01/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4275.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0241.  Walling v. Brenya, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4265.

Lucas App. No. L-19-1264, 2021-Ohio-29 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2021-0611.  State ex rel. Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4237.

Clermont App. No. CA2020-06-032, 2021-Ohio-998.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Sutton, J.

 Betty S. Sutton, J., of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Kennedy, J.

 

2021-0860.  State v. Lloyd, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4259.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109128, 2021-Ohio-1808 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0226.  United States Monarchy v. Graham.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file a notice within 14 days indicating whether the proceedings in federal court are still ongoing or have been completed such that the stay in this case may be lifted.

 

2022-1330.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s emergency motion for mediation.  Motion denied.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-1187.  State ex rel. Levitin v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-495, 2022-Ohio-2750.  On joint motion to refer dispute to mediation.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/30/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4268.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2019-1381.  State v. Garrett, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4218.

Franklin C.P. No. 18CR168.  Judgment affirmed and cause remanded. Sentence ordered to be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the deputy warden on Wednesday, January 27, 2027.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

 Duhart, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Stewart, JJ.

 Myron C. Duhart, J., of the Sixth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

2021-0864.  Maple Hts. v. Netflix, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4174.

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 1:20-CV-01872.  Certified state-law questions answered in the negative.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Fischer and DeWine, JJ.

 

2021-1479.  State ex rel. Walmart, Inc. v. Hixon, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4187.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-323, 2021-Ohio-3802.  Judgment reversed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

 

2022-0409.  State ex rel. Andrews v. Lake Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4189.

In Prohibition, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto.  Writs of prohibition and mandamus granted and writ of quo warranto denied as moot.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss first amended complaint denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs with respect to the majority’s denial of the writ of quo warranto and its conclusion that Lake County is not a proper party and otherwise dissents.

 

2022-0715.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferfolia, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4220.

On Certified Report of the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-028.  Donald Bryan Ferfolia Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0082049, last known business address in Brecksville, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on conditions.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1469.  State ex rel. Balunek v. Marchbanks.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs and would sua sponte order the parties to inform the court as to the status of the probate case in Cuyahoga C.P. No. 2016-ADV-214882, and to include in their briefing what, if any, impact that matter has on relator’s claim.

 

 

 

 

2022-0344.  State ex rel. Martens v. Findlay.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for default judgment.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion to strike memo opposing motion for default judgment denied.  Respondents’ motion to strike relator’s motion to strike denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0802.  State ex rel. Youngstown Civ. Serv. Comm. v. Sweeney.

In Prohibition.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Judge Maureen A. Sweeney and Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas.  Motion granted as to Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas.  Motion denied as to Judge Maureen A. Sweeney and sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relators shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relators’ brief, and relators may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  Respondent Michael R. Cox’s amended motion to dismiss granted.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., would grant the motions to dismiss as to all respondents. 

 

2022-0870.  State ex rel. Pointer v. Byrd

In Mandamus.  On respondent Nailah K. Byrd’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondent James Bradford’s motion to dismiss granted.  Relator’s motion to strike motion to dismiss denied.  Respondent Maryellen O’Shaughnessy’s motion to dismiss denied.  See, e.g., State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 155 Ohio St.3d 216, 2018-Ohio-4200, 120 N.E.3d 216, ¶ 8 (the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 do not apply to original actions filed in the Supreme Court).  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Maryellen O’Shaughnessy.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0875.  State ex rel. Harding v. Costello.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

2022-0933.  State ex. rel. Carroll Cty. Republican PAC v. Donofrio.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0945.  State ex rel. McCarley v. Ohio Am. Water Co.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss original action and amended complaint.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for default judgment and motion to strike respondents’ motion to dismiss denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2022-1002.  State ex rel. Givens v. Newhart.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.    Relator’s motion to strike motion to dismiss, motion to amend complaint, and motion to amend petition denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1056.  Griffin-Dudley v. Howe.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike and motion for default judgment denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1066.  State ex rel. Ware v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1067.  State ex rel. Blachere v. Brown.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

2022-1087.  McNutt v. Kiggans.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondent Brandon Waltenbaugh’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Jeffrey Kiggans.  Relators’ motion Nos. 1 through 5, complaint for replevin, and motion for order of possession of property denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1094.  State ex rel. Mallory v. Spatny.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for default judgment denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2022-1102.  Lamont v. State.

In Mandamus.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office and Ohio Attorney General.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.  Relator’s “motion to strike/deny memorandum,” “motion to strike/deny,” and “motion to strike/deny for mistake” denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1132.  Khamisi v. Deters.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss original common-law action.  Motion granted.  Relator’s “motion to vacate void judgments, jury demand and order” denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2022-1154.  State ex rel. Howard v. Turner.

In Mandamus.  On motion for leave to file omnibus complaint in mandamus and alternative/peremptory writ of mandamus.  Relator permitted to file amended complaint within 21 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0725.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for order of contempt of court and motion for postjudgment interest.  Respondent ordered to show cause within 14 days why it should not be held in contempt of this court’s June 1, 2022 judgment and why the court should not grant an award of postjudgment interest to be added to relator’s award of statutory damages.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0322.  Krewina v. United Specialty Ins. Co.

Hamilton App. No. C-210163, 2021-Ohio-4425.  On appellee’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0592.  Waterhouse v. Summit Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s motion to enter facts.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0773.  State v. Marshall.

Wood App. No. WD-21-043, 2022-Ohio-1533.  On appellant’s motion to dismiss and vacate or, in the alternative, for substitution of parties.  Motion to dismiss and vacate granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1082.  State v. Randolph.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1140, 2022-Ohio-2909.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issues as stated in State v. Randolph, 2022-Ohio-2909, 194 N.E.3d 476, ¶ 41 (12th Dist.): “Can a rental property owner, or the owner’s agent (landlord or agent), prohibit a person from entering onto the property such that a tenant of that property is prohibited from inviting that person to the tenant’s residence or apartment?  Must the owner of rental property, or an agent (landlord or agent), sacrifice possessory interests in the property to a tenant so the tenant can invite a banned or

‘trespassed’ person to the tenant’s residence or apartment?”  The conflict cases are State v. Smith, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25048, 2012-Ohio-4861, and State v. Scott, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19902, 2004-Ohio-271.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

2022-1166.  Ewing v. UC Health.

Hamilton App. No. C-210390, 2022-Ohio-2560.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0407 and 2022-0424, Everhart v. Coshocton; cause consolidated with 2022-1121, Ewing v. UC Health; and briefing schedule stayed.

 

2022-1247.  Found. Medici v. Butler Inst. of Am. Art.

Trumbull App. No. 2020-T-0042, 2022-Ohio-2923.  On appellant’s motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1121.  Ewing v. UC Health.

Hamilton App. No. C-210390, 2022-Ohio-2560.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0407 and 2022-0424, Everhart v. Coshocton; cause consolidated with 2022-1166, Ewing v. UC Health; and briefing schedule stayed.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent.  

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/30/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4258.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0396.  Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas v. Waterhouse.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion to enter evidence and second motion to enter evidence.  Motions denied as moot.

 

2022-0633.  Waterhouse v. AMHA.

In Procedendo.  Sua sponte, pursuant to Civ.R. 4(E), relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service as to respondents Jeremy Nixon and Andrew Templeman (Templeman Management).

 

2022-1025.  State ex rel. Givens v. Shadyside.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s motion to amend petition.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1148.  State ex rel. Adams v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  On the order of the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, issued November 22, 2022, remanding this case to this court.  The stay in this case is lifted, and the case shall proceed before this court.  Respondents may file a response to the complaint, if any, within 21 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/29/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4238.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0372.  Moore v. Mt. Carmel Health Sys., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2022-Ohio-4200.

Franklin App. No. 17AP-754, 2020-Ohio-6695.  Judgment affirmed on the authority of Clawson v. Hts. Chiropractic Physicians, L.L.C., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4154, __ N.E.3d __.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in Justice Brunner’s dissenting opinion in Clawson.

 

2021-0967.  State v. Martin, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2022-Ohio-4175.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108996, 2021-Ohio-1096 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1018.  In re T.A., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4173.

Medina App. No. 19CA0025-M, 2020-Ohio-3613 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2021-1380.  State v. Ramunas, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4199.

Delaware App. No. 20 CAA 12 0054, 2021-Ohio-3191.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently certified.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, J., as to Part I.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0757.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Repp.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Judge Mark Edward Repp, Attorney Registration No. 0058853, last known business address in Tiffin, Ohio.  Application granted.  Judge Mark Edward Repp reinstated to the practice of law.

 

2022-1327.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rogalinski.

On certified order of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, No. 2022-SC-0144-KB.  Clara Elizabeth Rogalinski, Attorney Registration No. 0100241, last known business address in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, publicly reprimanded.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to the following case have reached a settlement. The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2022-0824.  State ex rel. Gilreath v. Cuyahoga Job & Family Servs.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/29/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4201.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1268.  In re Lower Tribunal Cause No. B-1307027.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0969.  State v. Giancaterino.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110983, 2022-Ohio-2142.  Appeal and cross-appeal accepted.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Stewart, JJ., would not accept the cross-appeal.

 

2022-1037.  State v. Hurt.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110732, 2022-Ohio-2039 .

 O’Connor, C.J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I only.

 DeWine, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II only.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

 

2022-1122.  State v. Kimes.

Delaware App. No. 21 CAA 10 0055, 2022-Ohio-2759.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1139.  State v. Torres.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111047, 2022-Ohio-2678.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1158.  State v. Gettings.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111176, 2022-Ohio-2691.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1159.  State v. Shepard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111162, 2022-Ohio-2776.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1234.  State v. Edwards.

Hamilton App. No. C-200101, 2022-Ohio-3408.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1250.  State v. Johnson.

Hamilton App. No. C-200233.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1346.  McKitrick v. LaRose.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-582, 2022-Ohio-3800.  Appellants’ motion to expedite granted.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1078.  State v. Dell.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00079, 2022-Ohio-2483 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

2022-1084.  State v. Biggs.

Delaware App. No. 21 CAA 09 0048, 2022-Ohio-2481 .

 

2022-1085.  State v. Struckman.

Hamilton App. No. C-210640, 2022-Ohio-2848 .

 

2022-1086.  State v. Dudas.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110573, 2022-Ohio-2494 .

 

2022-1100.  In re Adoption of A.O.P.

Clermont App. No. CA2022-04-013, 2022-Ohio-2532 .

 

2022-1105.  State v. Sanders.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109598, 2022-Ohio-2261 .

 

2022-1106.  State v. James.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110812, 2022-Ohio-2040 .

 DeWine, J., dissents.  

 

2022-1108.  Marshall v. Franklin Cty. Treasurer.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-45, 2022-Ohio-2880 .

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-1109.  Vaughn v. Vaughn.

Warren App. No. CA2021-08-078, 2022-Ohio-2533 .

 

2022-1114.  State v. Wiley.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110753, 2022-Ohio-2131 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1115.  State v. Dixon.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110972, 2022-Ohio-2582 .

 

2022-1120.  Niederst v. Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz, L.L.P.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110913, 2022-Ohio-2579 .

 

2022-1124.  Hometown Apts., L.L.C. v. Hoffa.

Greene App. No. 2021-CA-43, 2022-Ohio-2707 .

 DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1127.  State v. Lopez-Olmedo.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011745, 2022-Ohio-2817 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2022-1133.  State v. Fritz.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-002, 2022-Ohio-2739 .

 

2022-1191.  State v. Ahreshien.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1243, 2022-Ohio-2809 .

 

2022-1202.  State v. Phelps.

Fairfield App. No. 21CA12, 2022-Ohio-3025 .

 

2022-1239.  State v. McKnight.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-595, 2022-Ohio-591 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0310.  State ex rel. Randlett v. Lynch.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-489, 2021-Ohio-221.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __ , 2022-Ohio-3260, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0760.  V.C. v. O.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111118, 2022-Ohio-1506.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1511, 2022-Ohio-3135, 194 N.E.3d 376.  On amended motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0806.  Besman v. Stafford.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111475.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1512, 2022-Ohio-3135, 194 N.E.3d 379.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0808.  State ex rel. Pishok v. Shuff.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1515, 2022-Ohio-3214, 195 N.E.3d 140.  On motion for reconsideration and the granting of alternative writ.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0830.  Mansfield v. Chapman.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1521, 2022-Ohio-3196, 195 N.E.3d 148.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion to certify conflict denied.

 

2022-0885.  State v. Horsley.

Pickaway App. No. 99CA33.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1528, 2022-Ohio-3322 , 195 N.E.3d 167.  On amended motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0957.  Heiney v. Moore.

In Habeas Corpus.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1524, 2022-Ohio-3322, 195 N.E.3d 154.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1018.  State v. Davis.

In Habeas Corpus.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1525, 2022-Ohio-3322, 195 N.E.3d 155.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-1254.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Plummer.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2022-011.  Joyce Ann Plummer, Attorney Registration No. 0078667, last known business address in Marblehead, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year, conditionally stayed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/28/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4188.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF NOVEMBER 28, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the November 28, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1405 and 2021-0043.  State ex rel. McKenney v. Jones, 168 Ohio St.3d 180, 2022-Ohio-583.

 

2021-0229.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Whipple, 168 Ohio St.3d 1223, 2022-Ohio-3173.

 

2021-0443.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hillman, 168 Ohio St.3d 160, 2022-Ohio-447.

 

2021-0448.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 168 Ohio St.3d 196, 2022-Ohio-840.

 

2021-0605.  State ex rel. Burkons v. Beachwood, 168 Ohio St.3d 191, 2022-Ohio-748.

 

2022-0255.  State ex rel. Brubaker v. Lawrence Cty. Bd. of Elections, 168 Ohio St.3d 211, 2022-Ohio-1087.

 

2022-0397.  Pope v. Bracy, 168 Ohio St.3d 216, 2022-Ohio-3190.

 

2022-0716.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Arkow, 168 Ohio St.3d 218, 2022-Ohio-3209.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Harris.

On motion for leave to institute a legal proceeding.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0420.  Bennett v. State.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, pursuant to Ohio Civ.R. 4(E), relators ordered to show cause within 14 days why this cause should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service as to respondents Suzie Shea, University Hospital Saint John’s Medical, Lisa Ford, Foster home, National Youth Advocate Program–Services for Xy’khye McKinney, Neil Argawal for Xaniyah Holland et Xy’Khye McKinney, India Moore, and Guardian ad litem Benjamin Ayers.

 2022-0996.  State v. Jaeger.

Medina App. No. 20CA0053-M, 2022-Ohio-2183.  On appellant’s motion to strike/deny appellee’s memorandum in opposition to jurisdiction.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-1240.  State ex rel. Tradesmen Internatl., L.L.C. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-572, 2022-Ohio-2935.  On joint motion of Tradesmen International, L.L.C., Linda Crow, and Matthew Crow to refer case to mediation.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/23/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4165.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0415.  State v. Bond, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4150.

Richland App. No. 2019 CA 0033, 2020-Ohio-398.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and Fischer, JJ.

 

2020-0700.  State v. P.J.F., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4152.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-147, 2020-Ohio-1522.  Judgment reversed and trial court’s judgment reinstated.

 Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., concurs in judgment only.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2020-1158.  Sinley v. Safety Controls Technology, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4153.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109065, 2020-Ohio-4068 .  Judgment affirmed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer and DeWine, JJ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2020-1574.  Clawson v. Hts. Chiropractic Physicians, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4154.

Montgomery App. No. 28632, 2020-Ohio-5351.  Judgment reversed and trial court’s  entry of summary judgment in favor of appellant reinstated.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Stewart, JJ.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 22, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/22/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4164.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0578.  NASCAR Holdings, Inc. v. McClain, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4131.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2015-263.  Decision reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Brunner, JJ.

 

2021-0831.  Goudy v. Tuscarawas Cty. Pub. Defender, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4121.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2020 AP 10 0023, 2021-Ohio-1754.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1062.  State ex rel. Bowling v. DeWine, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4122.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-380, 2021-Ohio-2902.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, Groves, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

Emanuella D. Groves, J., of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-099.  In re Disqualification of Gaul, 2022-Ohio-4127 (decided Sept. 21, 2022).

 

22-AP-112.  In re Disqualification of Haupt, 2022-Ohio-4128 (decided Sept. 21, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0996.  State v. Jaeger.

Medina App. No. 20CA0053-M, 2022-Ohio-2183.  Sua sponte, appellee’s memorandum in response stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.03(A)(1).

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following cases to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for each case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in these cases until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-1400.  State ex rel. Evans v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.

 

2022-1401.  State ex rel. Evans v. Olentangy Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/18/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-4112.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1350.  State ex rel. Ohio State Univ. v. Pratt, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4111.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-603, 2021-Ohio-3420 .  Judgment reversed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/18/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4109.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-1249.  In re Resignation of D’Atri.

On application for retirement or resignation of Edward Langenbach D’Atri, Attorney Registration No. 0019237, last known business address in Canton, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 17, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/17/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4078.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1482.  State v. Whitaker.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-614021-A.  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion granted.  Timothy F. Sweeney and Kort Gatterdam appointed to represent appellant for the purposes of filing an application for reopening.

 

2022-0359.  In re T.D.S.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110471, 2022-Ohio-525.  On appellant’s motion to appoint the Office of Ohio Public Defender as counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

2022-1195.  State ex rel. Brame Estate v. Hamilton Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion to strike amended petition.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., may file an answer to the amended complaint or a motion to dismiss within 14 days.

 

2022-1242.  State ex rel. Mather v. Oda.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint within seven days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0363.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fitz.

Sua sponte, Robert Edward Fitz, Attorney Registration No. 0024277, last known business address in Westlake, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before October 11, 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/16/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4070.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0996.  State v. Jaeger.

Medina App. No. 20CA0053-M, 2022-Ohio-2183.  Sua sponte, stay lifted and case ordered to proceed before this court.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1321.  State v. Kerr.

Wood App. No. {87}WD-13-047.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/14/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4027.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF NOVEMBER 14, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the November 14, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2012-0764.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Golden, 168 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2022-Ohio-1865.

 

2016-1913.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Pro-Net Fin., Inc., 168 Ohio St.3d 115, 2022-Ohio-726.

 

2021-0064.  Cincinnati Fed. S. & L. Co. v. McClain, 168 Ohio St.3d 123, 2022-Ohio-725.

 

2021-0228.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson, 168 Ohio St.3d 1218, 2022-Ohio-2509.

 

2021-0229.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Whipple, 168 Ohio St.3d 101, 2022-Ohio-510.

 

2021-0796.  State ex rel. Harris v. Hamilton Cty. Clerk of Courts, 168 Ohio St.3d 99, 2022-Ohio-477.

 

2021-0971.  Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Diam, 168 Ohio St.3d 137, 2022-Ohio-1370.

 

2021-1159.  State ex rel. Grendell v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 168 Ohio St.3d 154, 2022-Ohio-2833.

 

2021-1199.  Morey v. Campbell, 168 Ohio St.3d 153, 2022-Ohio-2213.

 

2022-0419.  In re Resignation of Dougherty, 168 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2022-Ohio-1623.

 

2022-0563.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Duff, 168 Ohio St.3d 1215, 2022-Ohio-1890.

 

2022-0834.  In re Resignation of Salmen, 168 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2022-Ohio-2713.

 

22-AP-021.  In re Disqualification of Clark, 168 Ohio St.3d 1207, 2022-Ohio-2120.

 

22-AP-057.  In re Disqualification of Buckwalter, 168 Ohio St.3d 1209, 2022-Ohio-2214.

 

22-AP-062.  In re Disqualification of Coss, 168 Ohio St.3d 1213, 2022-Ohio-2269.

 

In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Gedeon, 168 Ohio St.3d 1219, 2022-Ohio-2639.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-1517.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoover.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Robert T. Hoover, Attorney Registration No. 0039610, last known address in Portsmouth, Ohio.  Application granted.  Robert T. Hoover reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1035.  State ex rel. Adena Health Sys. v. Wolaver.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/10/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-4001.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0172.  State v. Blanton, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3985.

Adams App. Nos. 19CA1096 and 19CA1097, 2020-Ohio-7018.  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart, J., concur in judgment only.

 

2021-0704.  State v. Hatton, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3991.

Pickaway App. No. 19CA34, 2021-Ohio-1416.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

2022-0170.  State ex rel. Ames v. Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3990.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0046.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

22-AP-092.  In re Disqualification of Selmon, 2022-Ohio-3999 (decided Sept. 8, 2022).

 

22-AP-095.  In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 2022-Ohio-4000 (decided Sept. 9, 2022).

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 9, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/09/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3998.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1482.  State v. Whitaker.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-614021-A.  On appellant’s motion to stay execution of death sentence pending disposition of state remedies.  Motion granted.  The stay shall remain in effect until exhaustion of all state postconviction proceedings, including any appeals.

 

2022-1072.  State v. Thompson.

Lucas App. No. {48}L-21-1015, 2022-Ohio-2438.  On amended joint motion for stay and remand for 30 days.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2022-1131.  State v. Tipton.

Madison App. No. CA2022-04-006.  On appellant’s motion for leave to exceed the page limitation of S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 23 of appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

2022-1150.  State ex rel. Reese v. Trumbull Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s request to strike.  Request denied as moot.

 2022-1274.  Molai v. Standing Rock Cemetery Bd. of Trustees.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0117, 2022-Ohio-3004.  On appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 9, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/09/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3903.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1579.  Blair v. Hamilton Cty. 

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion of default.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0914.  State ex rel. WTOL Television, L.L.C. v. Cedar Fair, L.P.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted and parties ordered to brief and submit evidence on whether the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, applies to respondents.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relators shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relators’ brief, and relators may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0966.  State ex rel. Harm Reduction Ohio v. One Ohio Recovery Found.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted and parties ordered to brief and submit evidence on whether the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, applies to respondent.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after

the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0994.  State ex rel. Rucci v. Schiavoni.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents and would deny respondent’s motion and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2022-0997.  State ex rel. Harris v. Sutula.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1023.  Fipps v. Gallagher.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1025.  State ex rel. Givens v. Shadyside.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Respondents’ motions to declare relator a vexatious litigator denied.  Relator’s motion to amend petition and motions to strike respondents’ motions to dismiss and respondent Judge John A. Vavra’s motion to declare relator a vexatious litigator denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., would grant the motions to declare relator a vexatious litigator.

  

 

 

 

 

2022-1033.  Hampton-Spears v. Trumbull Corr. Inst.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-1038.  State ex rel. McCorkle v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Kennedy and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.

 

2022-1044.  State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson.

Miscellaneous case.  On state of Ohio’s and respondent’s motions to dismiss.  Motions denied.  The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 do not apply to original actions filed in the Supreme Court.  E.g., State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 155 Ohio St.3d 216, 2018-Ohio-4200, 120 N.E.3d 216, ¶ 8.  Relator’s motion for leave to amend complaint granted.  Relator may file amended complaint with 14 days.  Any response to the amended complaint is due within 14 days of the filing of the amended complaint.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1045.  State ex rel. Howard v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s request for leave to file omnibus complaint for writ of mandamus and peremptory writ of mandamus.  Request denied.  Respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would grant respondent’s motion.

 

 

 

 

 

2022-1054.  State ex rel. Kozak v. Calabrese.

In Procedendo.  On respondent Judge Deena R. Calabrese’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1060.  State ex rel. Clemons v. McCloud.

In Mandamus.  On respondent Stephanie McCloud’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Kenco Logistic Services, L.L.C.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1070.  State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 do not apply to original actions filed in the Supreme Court.  E.g., State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 155 Ohio St.3d 216, 2018-Ohio-4200, 120 N.E.3d 216, ¶ 8.  Respondent may file an answer to the complaint within 21 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1323.  State v. Knuff.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-618285-A.  On appellant’s motion for leave to file supplemental brief with additional issues identified by new counsel.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1077.  Ijakoli v. Alungbe.

Hamilton App. No. C-210366, 2022-Ohio-2423.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0858.  State v. Clausing.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110776, 2022-Ohio-1762.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0987.  State v. Palmer.

Clermont App. No. CA2021-07-035, 2022-Ohio-2181 .

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1020.  In re C.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110651, 2022-Ohio-2264 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1047.  State v. Bertram.

Scioto App. No. 21CA3950, 2022-Ohio-2488 .

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1006.  State v. McBride.

Ashland App. No. 21-COA-024, 2022-Ohio-2240 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/08/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3984.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1216.  State ex rel. Gray v. Kimbler, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3937.

Medina App. No. 20CA0077-M, 2021-Ohio-2868.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion for stay denied as moot.  Appellant’s request for oral argument denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0366.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Jarvis, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3936.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-020.  Timothy Paul Jarvis, Attorney Registration No. 0076067, last known business address in Lancaster, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for 18 months, stayed on conditions.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine and Stewart, JJ., concur in judgment only.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2022-0646.  McDonald v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3938.

In Habeas Corpus.  Writ denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., concurs and notes that petitioner is not precluded from refiling.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/08/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3909.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1135.  State v. Baker.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1196.  State v. Miller.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1296.  Roberson v. Davis.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1093.  State v. Ball.

Allen App. No. 1-21-16, 2022-Ohio-1549.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

2022-1143.  State v. Whitt.

Coshocton App. No. {16}22CA0012.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1155.  State v. Lovingshimer.

Muskingum App. No. CT2020-0058, 2021-Ohio-3339.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-1024.  State v. Beatty.

Muskingum App. No. CT2020-0015, 2022-Ohio-2394.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1036.  Cleveland v. Rudolph.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111128, 2022-Ohio-2363.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1060, State v. Brasher.

 Kennedy and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1053.  State v. Williams.

Hamilton App. No. C-210384, 2022-Ohio-2022.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-1126, State v. Burns

 Kennedy, J., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law and would not hold the cause.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law.

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-1065.  State v. Thompson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111059, 2022-Ohio-2413.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1096.  State v. Fields.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111066, 2022-Ohio-2499.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0911.  State v. Cannon.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1083, 2021-Ohio-4620 .

 

2022-0975.  Sherritt v. Leath.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00094, 2022-Ohio-3545 .

 

2022-1022.  In re J.D.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-126, 2022-Ohio-2334 .

 

2022-1026.  State v. Howard.

Logan App. No. 8-17-01, 2017-Ohio-8020 .  

 

2022-1032.  Alexander v. Davis.

Hamilton App. No. C-210461, 2022-Ohio-2345 .  

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1034.  Musial Offices, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110974, 2022-Ohio-1944 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1039.  Harvest Land Co-Op, Inc. v. Hora.

Montgomery App. Nos. 26218 and 26227, 2022-Ohio-2375 .

 

2022-1040.  State v. Lockhart.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAA 06 0047, 2022-Ohio-2654 .

 

2022-1046.  Meehan v. Smith.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110976, 2022-Ohio-2359 .

 

2022-1057.  State v. Payton.

Fayette App. No. CA2022-01-001, 2022-Ohio-2829 .

 

2022-1062.  State v. Ullrich.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00065, 2022-Ohio-2392 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1064.  State v. Runion.

Warren App. No. CA2021-10-095, 2022-Ohio-2461 .

 

2022-1068.  State v. Young.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111177, 2022-Ohio-2777 .

 

2022-1071.  State v. Reed.

Seneca App. No. 13-22-02, 2022-Ohio-2538 .

 

2022-1072.  State v. Thompson.

Lucas App. No. {48}L-21-1015, 2022-Ohio-2438 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1074.  In re E.M.

Hancock App. No. 05-21-35.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1075.  A.H. v. W.E.H.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111085, 2022-Ohio-2501 .

 

2022-1076.  State v. Ludwick.

Highland App. No. 21CA0017.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent and would accept the appeal and would hold the cause for the decision in 2022-0099, State v. Ali

 

2022-1081.  Brooks v. Baldauf.

Union App. No. 14-22-06.

 

2022-1110.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0112, 2022-Ohio-2543 .

 

2022-1113.  State v. Yatson.

Lorain App. No. 20CA011658, 2022-Ohio-2621 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1149.  Suhay v. Fade.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0008, 2022-Ohio-1368 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2020-1326.  Beachwood City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Warrensville Hts. City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108253, 2020-Ohio-4459.  Reported at ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-3071, ___ N.E.3d ___.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0556.  State v. McCrory.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110202, 2022-Ohio-942.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1502, 2022-Ohio-3029, 194 N.E.3d 366.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied. Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0708.  RevoLaze, L.L.C. v. Dentons US, L.L.P.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109742, 2022-Ohio-1392.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1498, 2022-Ohio-2953, 193 N.E.3d 577.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would grant the motion as to proposition of law Nos. I and II. 

 

2022-0883.  State v. Parker.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-527, 2021-Ohio-3422.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1496, 2022-Ohio-2953, 193 N.E.3d 578.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/07/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3966.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1346.  McKitrick v. LaRose.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-582, 2022-Ohio-3800.  On appellants’ motion to expedite.  Motion granted in part.  Appellees shall file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 10, 2022.  Appellants’ motion for interim order to seal election results pending decision on the merits denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3950.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1222.  Tipton v. Costello.

Madison App. No. CA2022-04-005.  On appellant’s motion for leave to exceed the page limitation of S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02.  Motion denied.  Pages 16 through 21 of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-1350.  In re Andrews.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Amanda Ann-Carmen Andrews, Attorney Registration No. 0088814, last known business address in Port Clinton, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1306.  State ex rel. Columbus v. McIntosh.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 3, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/03/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3908.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0822 and 2021-0857.  In re K.K., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3888.

Butler App. Nos. CA2020-12-130, CA2021-01-002, and CA2021-01-033, 2021-Ohio-1689.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., concurs in judgment only.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2021-1254.  State v. Bortree, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3890.

Logan App. No. 8-20-67, 2021-Ohio-2873.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Stewart, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 

2022-0080.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Toledo, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3889.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s request for statutory damages and motion to strike denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in part and concurs in judgment only in part, with an opinion.

Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would award statutory damages.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/02/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3904.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1346.  McKitrick v. LaRose.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-582, 2022-Ohio-3800.  Sua sponte, appellees ordered to file responses, if any, to appellants’ motion to expedite and motion for an interim order to seal election results pending decision on the merits no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 4, 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

November 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/02/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3898.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0483.  State v. Belville, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3879.

Lawrence App. No. 19CA27, 2021-Ohio-820 .  Judgment affirmed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-102.  In re Disqualification of Keller, 2022-Ohio-3881 (decided Aug. 31, 2022).

 

22-AP-103.  In re Disqualification of DeWeese and Naumoff, 2022-Ohio-3882 (decided Sept. 1, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0974.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Petracci.

On respondent’s motion to vacate contempt order.  Motion granted.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0939.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick.

Sua sponte, Gary Allen Vick Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0071495, last known business address in Parma, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before September 26, 2022.

 

2022-0940.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Moody.

Sua sponte, Steven Jerome Moody, Attorney Registration No. 0074731, last known address in Cleveland, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before September 26, 2022.

 

2022-1048.  In re Nolan.

Sua sponte, Timothy Lee Nolan, Attorney Registration No. 0028071, last known address in California, Kentucky, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before September 26, 2022.

 

2022-1243.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fleming.

On certification of default.  Esmeralda Fleming, Attorney Registration No. 0066287, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

2022-1256.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Adams.

On certification of default.  Dennis Lee Adams, Attorney Registration No. 0068481, last known business address in Hamilton, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

November 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 11/1/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3886.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0025.  Schlegel v. Sweeney, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3841.

In Prohibition.  Writ denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 31, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/31/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3860.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the October 31, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1349.  State ex rel. Target Auto Repair v. Morales, 168 Ohio St.3d 88, 2022-Ohio-2062.

 

2021-0533.  In re J.H., 168 Ohio St.3d 87, 2022-Ohio-1767.

 

2021-0871.  State ex rel. Guthrie v. Fender, 168 Ohio St.3d 75, 2022-Ohio-767.

 

2021-0975.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox, 168 Ohio St.3d 78, 2022-Ohio-784.

 

2021-1163.  Stewart v. Solutions Community Counseling & Recovery Ctrs., Inc., 168 Ohio St.3d 96, 2022-Ohio-2522.

 

2021-1189.  State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, 168 Ohio St.3d 93, 2022-Ohio-2427.

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 168 Ohio St.3d 28, 2022-Ohio-342.

 

2021-1403.  Dubose v. Guffey, 168 Ohio St.3d 1, 2022-Ohio-8.

 

2022-0128.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Owens, 168 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2022-Ohio-606.

 

2022-0230.  In re Romer, 168 Ohio St.3d 1203, 2022-Ohio-641.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2010-0735.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson.

On application for termination of probation by respondent, Stanley Jackson Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0077011, last known business address in Beachwood, Ohio.  Respondent has complied with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D) and with this court’s order dated April 29, 2019, reinstating respondent to the practice of law and ordering him to serve one year of monitored probation.  Probation of Stanley Jackson Jr. terminated.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1095.  State v. Perry.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110764 and 110954, 2022-Ohio-2132.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/28/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3827.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1119.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110673, 2022-Ohio-2577.  On appellee’s motion to strike.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0571.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. State Hwy. Patrol.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to return case to mediation.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/28/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3829.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0534.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chambers.

On certification of default.  Richard Francis Chambers II, Attorney Registration No. 0081139, last known address in Columbus, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

 

2022-0535.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmons.

On certification of default.  Andrew Simmons, last known address in Middletown, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and ordered to make restitution in the amount of $10,344.63 to Christopher Gallenstein within 90 days.

 

2022-0563.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Duff.

On certification of default.  Michael James Duff, Attorney Registration No. 0015329, last known address in Lorain, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

 

2022-1215.  In re Resignation of Simmons.

On application for retirement or resignation of Frank James Simmons Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0058498, last known business address in Toledo, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

 

 

 

2022-1248.  In re Resignation of Porter.

On application for retirement or resignation of Sean Richard Porter, Attorney Registration No. 0096622, last known business address in Chagrin Falls, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/28/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-3853.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1270.  State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3852.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/27/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3809.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL HEARINGS

 

2022-0666.  Morgan v. Natale.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0038, 2022-Ohio-1281.  On appellant’s motion to strike the memorandum of appellees Judge Sandra Harwood, Retired Judge Joseph Giulitto, Retired Magistrate Raymond Delost, Magistrate Anthony Natale, Magistrate Deborah Smith, and Attorney David Boker in response to appellant’s motion to reconsider.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0724.  Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110816, 2022-Ohio-1403.  Sua sponte, due date for appellant’s merit set as November 29, 2022, and parties ordered to brief this case in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 

2022-1117.  State ex rel. McCarley v. Aramark.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s “motion to strike improviently [sic] filed pleading.”  Motion granted.  Verified amended complaint for a writ of mandamus filed on September 14, 2022, stricken.   

 

2022-1253.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Nowicki.  

Sua sponte, character letter filed on October 24, 2022, stricken.

 2022-1310.  Leaf v. Leaf.

Delaware App. No. 22 CAF 03 0016, 2022-Ohio-3301.  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 18 of appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (requiring that a memorandum “not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and the

certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, all documents in appendix of appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction except for the date-stamped copy of the court of appeals’ opinion and judgment entry being appealed stricken for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(D) (a memorandum shall not include attachments other than judgment entries or opinions issued in the case).

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 26, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/26/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3794.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1058.  Washington v. Adult Parole Auth.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion to proceed.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1244.  State ex rel. Tingler v. Junk.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/25/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3752.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0937.  Cook v. Hancock Cty.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-1079.  Daniels v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1123.  State v. O’Day.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur

 

2022-1207.  Williams v. Perez.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0155.  State v. Harris.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1022, 2020-Ohio-4699.  On motion for delayed appeal due to COVID-19.  Motion denied.  Motion for evidentiary hearing and oral argument denied.

 

2022-1059.  State v. Gause.

Montgomery App. No. 29162, 2022-Ohio-2168.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent. 

 

2022-1080.  State v. Newton.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107200, 2019-Ohio-3653.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0967.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110904, 2022-Ohio-2136.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0971.  State v. Colon.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110931, 2022-Ohio-2137.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. III through VII.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Brunner, J., would also accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2022-0981.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110840, 2022-Ohio-2270.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. III through VII.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

2022-0988.  State ex rel. Internatl. Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 1536, AFL-CIO v. Barbish.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-103, 2022-Ohio-2201 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I only.

 

2022-0993.  In re E.S.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110378, 2021-Ohio-4606 .

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1013.  State v. Sharp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110944, 2022-Ohio-2274.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

O’Connor, C.J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I through V only.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1014.  State v. Darden.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111065, 2022-Ohio-2276.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-1021.  State v. Bolden.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110841, 2022-Ohio-2271.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-1088.  State v. Guyton.

Hamilton App. No. C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1089.  State v. Mosley.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200268 and C-200269.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-1090.  State v. O’Neal.

Hamilton App. No. C-190736, 2022-Ohio-3017.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0731.  State v. Brown.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00106, 2022-Ohio-981.  Appellant’s motion for the court to take judicial notice pursuant to Civ.R. 44.1 denied.

 Brunner, J., would deny appellant’s motion as moot. 

 

2022-0941.  State v. Lanham.

Coshocton App. No. 2022 CA 0003, 2022-Ohio-2014 .

 

2022-0942.  Cincinnati Ins. Co.  v. LOMC, L.L.C.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0012, 2022-Ohio-930.

Kennedy, J., dissents.

Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2022-0943.  State v. Crowthers.

Muskingum App. Nos. CT-2021-0066 and CT-2021-0067, 2022-Ohio-2206 .

 

2022-0948.  State v. Johnston.

Warren App. No. CA2021-09-0865.

 

2022-0949.  Mansfield v. Feagin.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0064, 2022-Ohio-2207 .

 

2022-0951.  State v. Parker.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110563, 2022-Ohio-2355 .

 

2022-0961.  State v. Olman.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0034, 2022-Ohio-2647 .

 

2022-0963.  State v. Converse.

Auglaize App. No. 2-22-12.

 

2022-0970.  Sal’s Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. BERS Acquisition Co., L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110685, 2022-Ohio-1756 .

 

2022-0972.  State v. Richards.

Washington App. No. 22CA1.

 

2022-0976.  State v. Casey.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0029, 2022-Ohio-2199.

 

2022-0982.  State v. Phillips.

Allen App. No. 1-22-13.

 

2022-0984.  Lima Refining Co. v. Linde Gas N. Am., L.L.C.

Allen App. No. 1-22-08, 2022-Ohio-2185 .

 

2022-0985.  State v. Lyons.

Franklin App. Nos. 21AP-156 and 21AP-157, 2022-Ohio-2224 .

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0992.  In re W.G.

Jefferson App. No. 2022 JE 0003.

 

2022-0999.  State v. Pointer.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110918, 2022-Ohio-1942 .

 

2022-1001.  Pertuset v. Hull.

Scioto App. No. 21CA3959, 2022-Ohio-2348 .

 

2022-1007.  State v. Szozda.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1026, 2022-Ohio-2294 .

 

2022-1011.  J.D.G. v. J.C.S.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00078.

 

2022-1012.  State v. Powers.

Summit App. No. 30025, 2022-Ohio-2233 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2022-1015.  Meyerson v. Fairlawn.

Summit App. Nos. 29603, 27988, 29794, and 29797, 2022-Ohio-2255 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-1017.  State ex. rel. Hemphill v. Ohio State Emp. Relations Bd.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-469, 2022-Ohio-2299 .

 

2022-1019.  In re S.P.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111081, 2022-Ohio-2277 .

 

2022-1027.  State v. Brown.

Stark App. No. 2022CA00067.

 

2022-1051.  State v. Payton.

Scioto App. No. 21CA3952, 2022-Ohio-1726 .

 

2022-1107.  Marshall v. Ginther.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-664, 2022-Ohio-2699 .

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-1118.  State v. Ridley.

Hamilton App. No. C-210458, 2022-Ohio-2561 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2019-1482.  State v. Whitaker.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-614021-A.  Reported at ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-2840, ___ N.E.3d ___.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion to stay mandate denied.

 

2022-0669.  State v. Washington.

Miami App. No. 2020-CA-18, 2022-Ohio-1426.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1483, 2022-Ohio-2765, 192 N.E.3d 508.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.   

 

2022-0672.  Pulaski v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

Montgomery App. No. 29356, 2022-Ohio-1344.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1483, 2022-Ohio-2765, 192 N.E.3d 517.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.   

 

2022-0679.  Rodriguez v. Catholic Charities Corp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110743, 2022-Ohio-1317.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1483, 2022-Ohio-2765, 192 N.E.3d 512.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0703.  Frye v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Lorain App. No. 20CA011641, 2022-Ohio-878.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1497, 2022-Ohio-2953, 193 N.E.3d 575.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0783.  In re M.M.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00159, 2022-Ohio-1569.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1483, 2022-Ohio-2765, 192 N.E.3d 513.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., would sua sponte strike the motion. 

 

2022-1103.  State ex rel. Sanduskians for Sandusky v. Sandusky.

In Mandamus.  Reported at ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-3362, ___ N.E.3d ___.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Motion of respondents city of Sandusky, Law Director Brendan Heil, Dick Brady, Dennis Murray, Blake Harris, Mike Meinzer, Steve Poggiali, Wes Poole, and Dave Waddington for removal to regular docket denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., would deny as moot respondents’ motion for removal.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would grant respondents’ motion for reconsideration.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 20, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/20/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-3745.]

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-1128.  State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Reported at ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-3613, ___ N.E.3d ___.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to strike memo opposing motion for reconsideration as untimely denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 20, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/20/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3720.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0724.  Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110816, 2022-Ohio-1403.  On memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  This court’s August 30, 2022 decision accepting appeal reaffirmed.  The stay in this case is lifted, and the parties shall brief this case in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 20, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/20/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3719.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0629.  Cleveland Botanical Garden v. Worthington Drewien, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3706.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108536, 2020-Ohio-1278 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, J.

Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 

2021-0981.  Valentine v. Cedar Fair, L.P., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3710, 2022-Ohio-3710.

Erie App. No. E-20-018, 2021-Ohio-2144.  Judgment reversed and trial court’s judgment reinstated.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1280.  State ex rel. Standifer v. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3711.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110200, 2021-Ohio-3100.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would have granted the request for oral argument so that the parties and the public would have had the

opportunity to air and to hear the parties’ arguments concerning this case involving police use of force.

 

2022-0318.  Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3714.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110151, 2021-Ohio-4604.  Court of appeals’ judgment  vacated and cause remanded for application of Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-3092, __ N.E.3d __.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0714.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Brooks, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3712.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-019.  Robert Chester Brooks II, Attorney Registration No. 0040881, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1642.  State v. Brinkman.

Stark C.P. No. 2018CR1994.  On appellant’s motion for stay of execution.  Motion granted.  The stay shall remain in effect until exhaustion of all state postconviction proceedings, including any appeals.

 

2022-1199.  State v. Dean.

Madison App. Nos. CA2021-08-013 and CA2021-08-014, 2022-Ohio-3105.  On appellants’ motion to strike.  Motion denied.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/19/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3716.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2008-1202.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt order.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an executed and notarized affidavit of compliance within ten days.

 

2020-1520.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Morton.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt.  Motion granted.

 

2021-0532.  State v. Simmons.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109476, 2021-Ohio-939.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2022-0782.  State v. Schilling.

Hamilton App. No. C-210363, 2022-Ohio-773.  On appellee’s motion for appointment and substitution of Stephen P. Hardwick as counsel.  Motion granted.  Stephen P. Hardwick appointed to represent appellee.

 

2022-1029.  In re Estate of Ohio Republic v. Hamilton Cty.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s request to strike motion to dismiss of Carpenter, Lipps & Leland, L.L.P., for lack of service and lack of due process.  Request denied.  Relator may file a response to the motion to dismiss of Carpenter, Lipps & Leland, L.L.P., within ten days.

 

 

 

2022-1056.  Griffin-Dudley v. Howe.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s amended “motion of declaration of lack of service.”  Motion denied.

 

2022-1099.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-437.  On appellant’s “petition pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(E) due to circumstances which have adversely affected the movant seeking relief/remedy” and petition for order to docket case as an appeal by right under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01(A).  Petitions denied.

 

2022-1210.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-437.  On appellant’s “petition for collateral estoppel to stay trial memorandum in support” and “petition for order for release for imprisonment pending validation of indictment sustainability facts of law.”  Petitions denied as moot.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss appeal denied as moot.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/19/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3636.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0652.  State v. Drain, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3697.

Warren C.P. No. 19CR35870.  Judgment affirmed.  Sentence ordered to be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the deputy warden on Tuesday, November 24, 2026.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 

2021-0481.  State v. Bellamy, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3698.

Delaware App. No. 19 CAA 08 0048, 2021-Ohio-40.  Judgment reversed in part and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0279.  State ex rel. Robinson v. Fender, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3701.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0048, 2022-Ohio-580.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s brief denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0712.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Sharp, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3702.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-023.  Marianne Kathleen Sharp, Attorney Registration No. 0085179, last known

business address in Columbus, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and ordered to make restitution of $2,900 to Mac Reynolds within 60 days.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2020-0508.  State v. Metz.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 107212, 107261, 107259, and 107246.  On appellee Justin Browning’s motion to dismiss as improvidently granted.  Sua sponte, cause remanded to the trial court pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 on condition that appeal shall be reinstated if the trial court’s judgment granting the petition for postconviction relief is reversed on appeal.  See R.C. 2953.21(F) and (H).  Motion denied as moot.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., would deny the motion.

 

2021-0960.  State ex rel. Palm v. McClain.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0425.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Stickrath.

In Mandamus.  On joint motion for issuance of alternative writ.  Motion granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file under seal unredacted copies of all withheld records for in camera inspection.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

2022-0844.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Dorrian.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0874.  State ex rel. Mitchell v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0895.  State ex rel. Brown v. First Dist. Court of Appeals Judges.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike denied.  Cause dismissed.  

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0896.  State ex rel. Sheppard v. Hamilton Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0917.  Ryan v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motions for production and filing of official transcripts, for immediate stay of all proceedings, and for correction of docket and appointment of special master in Franklin C.P. No. 21 DR 004418.  Motions denied.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0927.  State ex rel. Howson v. Delaware Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days

after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., dissent and would grant the motion. 

 

2022-0962.  State ex rel. McCorkle v. Young.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2022-0965.  State ex rel. Ayers v. Chambers-Smith.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.  Relator’s motion to proceed without a response denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.   

 

2022-0974.  Squires v. State.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0983.  State ex rel. Straughter v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent and would grant the motion. 

 

 

 

 

 

2022-1000.  State ex rel. Pointer v. Russo.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike the motion to dismiss denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-1498.  State ex rel. Ware v. Crawford.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(2) and (5).  Motion denied.

 

2022-0281.  Knox v. State.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s amended request for relief under Civ.R. 60(D)(3).  Request denied.

 

2022-0326.  Robinson v. Schweitzer.

Madison App. No. CA2021-08-015, 2022-Ohio-568.  On appellant’s motion to certify conflict.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0881.  McCullough v. Bennett.

Montgomery App. No. 29390, 2022-Ohio-1880.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that no conflict exists.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-1042.  Weidman v. Hildebrant.

Warren App. No. CA 2021-09-084, 2022-Ohio-1708.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issues as stated on page 3 of the court of appeals’ July 21, 2022 entry: “Does the discovery rule apply to libel actions where the publication of the defamatory statements was secretive, concealed, or otherwise unknowable such that the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she was injured by the wrongful conduct of the defendant?  Where a derivative claim is premised upon the same allegations, does the discovery rule apply to that claim as well?”  The conflict cases are Kienow v. Cincinnati Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140720, 2015-Ohio-4396; Myles v. Johnson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21600, 2007-Ohio-2963; Harvey v. Systems Effect, L.L.C., 2020-Ohio-1642, 154 N.E.3d 293 (2d Dist.); Talwar v. Kattan, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-97-58, 1998 WL 151072 (Mar. 31, 1998); Spitzer v. Knapp, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 19

CAE 01 0006, 2019-Ohio-2701; Cramer v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 182 Ohio App.3d 653, 2009-Ohio-3338, 914 N.E.2d 447 (5th Dist.); Lewis v. Delaware Cty. Joint Vocational School Dist., 161 Ohio App.3d 71, 2005-Ohio-2550, 829 N.E.2d 697 (5th Dist.); Wilson v. Gannett Co., Inc., 7th Dist. Noble No. 19 NO 0470, 2020-Ohio-3643; Reed v. Jagnow, 7th Dist Mahoning No. 12 MA 201, 2013-Ohio-2546; Sabouri v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 145 Ohio App.3d 651, 763 N.E.2d 1238 (10th Dist.2001); and Altier v. Valentic, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2003-G-2521, 2004-Ohio-5641.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-0837, Weidman v. Hildebrant, and briefing in case Nos. 2022-0837 and 2022-1042 consolidated.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0787.  Thomas v. Logue.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-385, 2022-Ohio-1603 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0837.  Weidman v. Hildebrant.

Warren App. No. CA2021-09-084, 2022-Ohio-1708.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-1042, Weidman v. Hildebrant, and briefing in case Nos. 2022-0837 and 2022-1042 consolidated.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0879.  McCullough v. Bennett.

Montgomery App. No. 29390, 2022-Ohio-1880.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I, II, and IV.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II only.

 Fischer, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and IV only.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REIVEW

 

2022-0827.  Szewczyk v. Century Fed. Credit Union.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110822, 2022-Ohio-1683 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0833.  State v. Tincher.

Medina App. No. 21CA0060-M, 2022-Ohio-1701.  Appellant’s motion to stay trial-court case denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I and would deny the motion as moot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 17, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/17/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3705.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1246.  State v. Cleavenger.

Summit App. No. 29711, 2022-Ohio-1041.  On appellant’s motion for immediate stay in advance of filing a memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.  

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 17, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/17/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3705.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1246.  State v. Cleavenger.

Summit App. No. 29711, 2022-Ohio-1041.  On appellant’s motion for immediate stay in advance of filing a memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.  

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/18/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3703.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1503.  State v. Towns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3632.

Williams App. No. WM-19-023, 2020-Ohio-5120 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

2021-1518.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Carr, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3633.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-054.  Pinkey Suzanne Carr, Attorney Registration No. 0061377, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and immediately suspended from judicial office without pay for the duration of her disciplinary suspension. 

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Myers, Sadler, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

Beth A. Myers, J., of the First District Court of Appeals, sitting for Donnelly, J.

Lisa L. Sadler, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Stewart, J.

 

2022-0196.  State ex rel. Johnson v. Foley, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3634.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011789, 2022-Ohio-36 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2022-0278.  State ex rel. Scott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3635.

Marion App. No. 9-21-38.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 17, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/17/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3679.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF OCTOBER 17, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the October 17, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1371.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoague, 167 Ohio St.3d 1254, 2022-Ohio-972.

 

2021-0170.  Davis v. Nathaniel, 167 Ohio St.3d 561, 2022-Ohio-751.

 

2021-0592.  Dayton v. State, 167 Ohio St.3d 565, 2022-Ohio-2073.

 

2021-0948.  State v. Stansell, 167 Ohio St.3d 565, 2022-Ohio-2064.

 

2021-1064.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 167 Ohio St.3d 566, 2022-Ohio-2189.

 

2021-1073.  Boler v. Hill, 167 Ohio St.3d 557, 2022-Ohio-507.

 

2021-1251.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rumes, 167 Ohio St.3d 1252, 2022-Ohio-727.

 

2021-1428 and 2021-1449.  Adams v. DeWine, 167 Ohio St.3d 499, 2022-Ohio-89.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1151.  State ex rel. Mobley v. O’Donnell.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/14/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3648.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1148.  State ex rel. Adams v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ notice of filing a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  Cause stayed pending the federal court’s determination.  The parties shall notify this court immediately upon conclusion of the federal-court proceedings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/13/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3646.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1270.  State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of the answer, evidence, and briefs: Respondent shall file an answer to the complaint no later than Friday, October 14, 2022; relator shall file her evidence and merit brief no later than Monday, October 17, 2022; respondent shall file his evidence and merit brief no later than Wednesday, October 19, 2022; and relator may file a reply brief no later than Thursday, October 20, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for

extension of time.  All documents in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/13/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3637.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0726.  State v. Leegrand, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3623.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108626, 2020-Ohio-3179.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2020-1187.  State v. Campbell, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3626.

Fairfield App. No. 2019 CA 00055, 2020-Ohio-4119 .  Judgment reversed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2022-0063.  State ex rel. Shine v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3624.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-163, 2021-Ohio-4459 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0713.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Lemons, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3625.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-040.  Judge Richard Alan Lemons, Attorney Registration No. 0030054, last known business address in Portsmouth, Ohio, publicly reprimanded.

Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., concurs, with an opinion.

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1642.  State v. Brinkman.

Stark C.P. No. 2018CR1994.  On appellant’s motion for appointment of Elizabeth A. Arrick and Timothy F. Sweeney as counsel.  Motion granted.  Elizabeth A. Arrick and Timothy F. Sweeney appointed to represent appellant for the purpose of filing an application to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.06.

 

2021-0800.  Bliss v. Johns Manville.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1091, 2021-Ohio-1673.  On appellant’s motion for substitution of party.  Motion granted.  Darlene L. Bliss as executor of the estate of Robert A. Bliss substituted for Robert Bliss as appellant.

 

2022-0773.  State v. Marshall.

Wood App. No. {87}WD-21-043, 2022-Ohio-1533.  On appellee’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion granted.  Michael H. Stahl appointed to represent appellee.

 

2022-1145.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Marion Corr. Inst.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to lift the mediation stay.  Motion granted.  Respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1111.  Lichtenwalter v. Black.

In Prohibition.  On petitioner’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 12, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/12/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3631.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1247.  Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3586.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108767, 2020-Ohio-4216 .  Judgment reversed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

 

2020-1294 and 2020-1420.  State v. Irvin, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3587.

Montgomery App. No. 28495, 2020-Ohio-4847.  Judgment vacated on the authority of State v. Brooks, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-2478, ___ N.E.3d ___, and cause remanded to the court of appeals for a harmless-error analysis.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2020-1554.  State v. Pitts, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3588.

Hamilton App. No. C-190418, 2020-Ohio-5494.  Judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Brooks, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-2478, ___ N.E.3d ___.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0573.  State v. Stiltner, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3589.

Scioto App. No. 19CA3882, 2021-Ohio-959.  Judgment vacated and cause remanded to the trial court for a new trial consistent with State v. Brooks, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-2478, ___ N.E.3d ___.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and

Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1561.  State v. Cobb, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3590.

Allen App. No. 01-20-43, 2021-Ohio-3877.  Judgment vacated and cause remanded to the trial court for a new trial consistent with State v. Brooks, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-2478, ___ N.E.3d ___.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/11/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-3614.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1128.  State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3613

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Darryl Moore’s motion to intervene denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, Fischer, and Brunner, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/11/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3591.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0203.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Forsthoefel, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3580.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Writs granted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

 

2021-1004.  Estate of Fleenor v. Ottawa Cty., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3581.

Ottawa App. No. OT-20-023, 2021-Ohio-2251.  Judgment reversed in part and cause remanded to the trial court.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

2021-1182.  State v. Troisi, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3582.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 109871, 109874, 109875, and 109876, 2021-Ohio-2678.  Judgment reversed and causes remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

2021-1187.  State ex rel. Huth v. Animal Welfare League of Trumbull Cty., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3583.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s requests for court costs, statutory damages, and attorney fees denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-0836.  State ex rel. DeMarco v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-227, 2021-Ohio-1937.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due October 3, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0749.  Wilson v. Streck.

Montgomery App. No. 29466.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due September 27, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-1049.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110833 and 111020, 2022-Ohio-2133.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due October 6, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following cases to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  The respondent in each case shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2022-0571.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. State Hwy. Patrol.

In Mandamus.

 

2022-0977.  State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/11/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3546.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-1043.  Justice v. Baldwin.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1058.  Washington v. Adult Parole Auth.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0991.  State v. Cummings.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 106261 and 106265, 2018-Ohio-3993.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0934.  In re Application for Correction of Birth Record of Adelaide.

Clark App. No. 2022-CA-1, 2022-Ohio-2053 .

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

 

2022-0935.  State v. Nicholson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110595, 2022-Ohio-2037.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. II through V.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0606.  State v. Dinger.

Stark App. No. 2020CA00177, 2022-Ohio-608 .

 

2022-0809.  Anderson v.  Bright Horizons Children’s Ctrs., L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-291, 2022-Ohio-1031.  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

Stewart, J., would accept the appeal.

Brunner, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2022-0884.  State v. Trimble.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0004, 2022-Ohio-1906 .

 

2022-0888.  State v. Gunther.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0038, 2022-Ohio-2001 .

 

2022-0893.  Yeager v. Arconic Inc.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0052, 2022-Ohio-1997 .

 

2022-0898.  RNE Ents., L.L.C. v. Imperial Kitchen Cabinet Factory, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110747, 2022-Ohio-1671 .

 

2022-0900.  State v. Simon.

Gallia App. No. 20CA14, 2021-Ohio-3090 .

 

2022-0904.  State v. Howard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111213, 2022-Ohio-2959 .

 

2022-0905.  Blue Technologies Smart Solutions, L.L.C. v. Ohio Collaborative Learning Solutions, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110501, 2022-Ohio-1935 .

 

2022-0907.  Hanak v. Kraus.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110884, 2022-Ohio-1941 .

 

2022-0909.  Conneaut v. Babcock.

Ashtabula App. No. 2021-A-0045, 2022-Ohio-2101 .

 

2022-0910.  Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wilburn.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0079, 2022-Ohio-2026 .

 

2022-0912.  State v. Claytor.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110837, 2022-Ohio-1938 .

Kennedy, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II and would hold the cause for 2021-0944, State v. Messenger

DeWine, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III.

  Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I, II, and III. 

 

2022-0913.  State v. Rider.

Champaign App. No. 2021-CA-12, 2022-Ohio-1964 .

 

2022-0924.  State v. Gillum.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00063, 2022-Ohio-2005 .

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0925.  State v. Walter.

Wayne App. No. 20 AP 0020.

 

2022-0928.  State v. Fenstermaker.

Delaware App. Nos. 21CAA090044 and 21CAA090045, 2022-Ohio-1540.

 

2022-0929.  State v. Reeder.

Allen App. No. 1-21-09, 2021-Ohio-4558 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0932.  RNE Ents., L.L.C. v. Imperial Kitchen Cabinet Factory, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111036, 2022-Ohio-1844 .

 

2022-0938.  Harbaugh v. Harbaugh.

Medina App. No. 21CA0041-M, 2022-Ohio-2085 .

 

2022-0946.  State v. Stewart.

Perry App. No. 21-CA-00014, 2022-Ohio-2306 .

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0952.  Holmok v. Burke.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110900, 2022-Ohio-2135 .

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0968.  Allstate Vehicle & Property Ins. Co. v. Inabnitt.

Warren App. Nos. CA2021-10-094 and CA2021-10-098, 2022-Ohio-2098.

 

2022-0978.  State v. Mayes.

Montgomery App. No. 29370, 2022-Ohio-2604 .

 

2022-0998.  State v. Herron.

Montgomery App. No. 29380, 2022-Ohio-2514 .

 

2022-1016.  State v. Consiglio.

Mahoning App. No. 2021 MA 0066.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-0575.  RRL Holding Co. of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Stewart.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-493, 2021-Ohio-3989.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1471, 2022-Ohio-2633, 191 N.E.3d 452.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-0666.  Morgan v. Natale.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0038, 2022-Ohio-1281.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1482, 2022-Ohio-2765, 192 N.E.3d 511.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion to strike appellee Julie Rudolph’s motion to strike appellant’s July 11, 2022 pleading, motion to strike appellee Julie Rudolph’s response in opposition to appellant’s July 21, 2022 pleading, motion to strike renewed motion to declare appellant a vexatious litigator, request for an emergency writ of prohibition, motion to strike appellee Julie Randolph’s response in opposition to appellant’s August 2, 2022 pleading, motion to strike appellee Kim Lydic’s memorandum opposing jurisdiction, and motion to strike appellee Kim

Lydic’s memorandum opposing appellant’s motion to reconsider denied.  Appellee Julie Randolph’s renewed motion to declare appellant a vexatious litigator denied.

Donnelly, J., would grant appellee Julie Randolph’s renewed motion.

 

2022-0780.  McKenna v. Coury.

In Habeas Corpus.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2022-Ohio-2633, 191 N.E.3d 448.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/10/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3585.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0816.  State ex rel. Stafford v. Fatheree.

In Habeas Corpus and Mandamus.  On petitioner’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/07/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3571.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1242.  State ex rel. Mather v. Oda.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file their response to the complaint no later than Monday, October 24, 2022.  If a motion for judgment on the pleadings or motion to dismiss is filed, relators shall file their response, if any, no later than Monday, October 31, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3563.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0228.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Yoder.

On relator’s motion for show-cause order.  Motion denied. 

 

2022-0209.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Dusing.

On respondent’s motion for dissolution of interim remedial suspension under Gov.Bar R. V(19)(C)(2) and motion for leave to file motion for dissolution of interim remedial suspension under Gov.Bar R. V(19)(C)(1) instanter.  Motion for dissolution of interim remedial suspension denied.  Motion for leave to file motion for dissolution of interim remedial suspension granted and request for dissolution denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would grant the motion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 6, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/06/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3545.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-1093.  Siltstone Servs., L.L.C. v. Guernsey Cty. Community Dev. Corp. 

Guernsey App. No. 19CA000047, 2020-Ohio-3877.  On appellee Ohio Public Works Commission’s emergency motion to hold or, in the alternative, affirm on the basis of Siltstone Resources, L.L.C. v. Ohio Pub. Works Comm., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-483, ___ N.E.3d ___.  Motion granted.  Cause held for the decision in 2020-1129, Ohio Pub. Works Comm. v. Barnesville, and briefing schedule stayed.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0975.  Sherritt v. Leath.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00094, 2022-Ohio-2367.  On appellants’ motion for stay of execution.  Motion granted.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0996.  State v. Jaeger.

Medina App. No. 20CA0053-M, 2022-Ohio-2183.  On appellant’s motion for stay of decision on jurisdictional appeal.  Motion granted.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-1069.  State v. Taylor.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-396, 2022-Ohio-2877.  On appellant’s emergency motion for stay.  Motion granted.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

2022-1091.  State ex rel. Cleveland Assn. of Rescue Emps. v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111230, 2022-Ohio-3043.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion granted.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2022-1092.  In re S. Children.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210672, C-210680, C-220005, and C-220006, 2022-Ohio-2941.  On motion of appellants C.S., N.S., and M.S. to stay First District Court of Appeals’ mandate to trial court to dismiss matter.  Motion granted.  Motion of appellant Hamilton County Job and Family Services to stay decision of the First District Court of Appeals granted.  Motion of appellant Office of the Hamilton County Public Defender for stay granted.  Emergency motion of appellant Hamilton County Job and Family Services to stay decision of the First District Court of Appeals granted.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

October 5, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/05/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3541.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-1210.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-437.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due September 30, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 4, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/04/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3532.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1220.  State ex rel. Allenbaugh v. Sezon.

Ashtabula App. No. 2022-A-0002, 2022-Ohio-1718.  On appellants’ memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  This case originated in the court of appeals and therefore should proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.01.  The clerk shall issue an order for the transmission of the record from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following cases to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for each case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in these cases until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-1208.  State ex rel. Cassens Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-93, 2022-Ohio-2936 .

 

2022-1209.  Eastside Athletics, Inc. v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2019-852.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

October 3, 2022

 

[Cite as 10/03/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3496.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF OCTOBER 3, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the October 3, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1813.  State v. Smith, 167 Ohio St.3d 423, 2022-Ohio-274.

 

2020-0348.  State ex rel. Horton v. Kilbane, 167 Ohio St.3d 413, 2022-Ohio-205.

 

2020-1337.  State v. Reed, 167 Ohio St.3d 481, 2022-Ohio-1327.

 

2020-1498.  State ex rel. Ware v. Crawford, 167 Ohio St.3d 453, 2022-Ohio-295.

 

2021-0444.  State ex rel. Shie v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 167 Ohio St.3d 450, 2022-Ohio-270.

 

2021-0804.  LG Chem., Ltd. v. Goulding, 167 Ohio St.3d 488, 2022-Ohio-2065.

 

2021-0832.  Stewart v. Collins, 167 Ohio St.3d 475, 2022-Ohio-324.

 

2021-0952.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Bowen, 167 Ohio St.3d 477, 2022-Ohio-351.

 

2021-1032.  Lundeen v. Turner, 167 Ohio St.3d 482, 2022-Ohio-1709.

 

2021-1172.  In re J.F., 167 Ohio St.3d 487, 2022-Ohio-1731.

 

2022-0155.  Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mahoney, 167 Ohio St.3d 488, 2022-Ohio-1916.

 

22-AP-038.  In re Disqualification of Holbrook, 167 Ohio St.3d 1244, 2022-Ohio-2141.

 

22-AP-055.  In re Disqualification of Mackey, 167 Ohio St.3d 1249, 2022-Ohio-2267.

 

22-AP-058.  In re Disqualification of Martin, 167 Ohio St.3d 1247, 2022-Ohio-2215.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-075.  In re Disqualification of O’Malley, 2022-Ohio-3477 (decided July 1, 2022).

 

22-AP-085.  In re Disqualification of Nist, 2022-Ohio-3482 (decided Aug. 19, 2022).

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0956.  Reid v. Montgomery Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/30/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3438.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0304.  Stingray Pressure Pumping, L.L.C. v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2015-1465 and 2015-1823.  On appellant’s motion for oral argument.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/29/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3420.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1092.  In re S. Children.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210672, C-210680, C-220005, and C-220006, 2022-Ohio-2941.  On appellant’s resubmission of emergency motion to stay decision of First District Court of Appeals.  Any response shall be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, September 30, 2022.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/28/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3419.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1199.  State v. Dean.

Madison App. Nos. CA2021-08-013 and CA2021-08-014, 2022-Ohio-3105.  On appellants’ emergency motion for stay of execution pending appeal to this court.  Motion denied.  

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/28/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3412.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-1515.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick.

Sua sponte, Gary Allen Vick Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0071495, last known business address in Parma, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his attorney-registration card and file an affidavit of compliance on or before August 26, 2022.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0931.  Harris v. State.

Noble App. No. 22 NO 0488, 2022-Ohio-2651.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due September 21, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-1174.  State ex rel. Clark v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due September 26, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.  City of Twinsburg’s motion for leave to intervene denied as moot.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/27/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-3391.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1199.  State v. Dean.

Madison App. Nos. CA2021-08-013 and CA2021-08-014, 2022-Ohio-3105.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response to appellants’ motion for stay, if any, no later than 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 28, 2022.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-1185.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. D’Atri.

On relator’s motion for an immediate interim remedial suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(19) and motion to restrict public access.  Motions granted.  Edward Langenbach D’Atri, Attorney Registration No. 0019237, last known business address in Canton, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/27/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3368.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1029.  In re Estate of Ohio Republic v. Hamilton Cty.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s notice to strike respondent Hamilton County’s motion to dismiss for lack of service and lack of due process.  Motion denied.  Relator may file a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss and request to declare relator a vexatious litigator within ten days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1322.  State ex rel. Brinkman v. Cincinnati.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal. Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-1145.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Marion Corr. Inst.

In Mandamus. 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/27/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3322.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0957.  Heiney v. Moore.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0973.  Squires v. State.

On motion for delayed writ of habeas corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0979.  State ex rel. Lemasters v. Sheldon.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1009.  Spears v. Columbus.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-1018.  State v. Davis.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0944.  State v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109852, 2021-Ohio-2676.  On motion for delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0820.  State v. Alexander.

Adams App. No. 21CA1144, 2022-Ohio-1812.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. V.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0856.  State v. Hope.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110611, 110612, and 110613, 2022-Ohio-1753. Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. III.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law and would also hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0579, State v. Bunch.

 Stewart, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 

2022-0863.  Acuity, A Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0001, 2022-Ohio-1816 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0869.  State v. Doughty.

Perry App. No. 20 CA 00001, 2021-Ohio-651.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons

 

2022-0873.  State v. McNary.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110924, 2022-Ohio-1842.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

 

2022-0887.  State v. Davis.

Auglaize App. No. 2-21-10, 2022-Ohio-1900.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Donnelly, J., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0930.  Ames v. Portage Cty. Budget Comm.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0074, 2022-Ohio-1905.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-0706, Ames v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

 Stewart, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Brunner, J., would also accept the appeal on proposition of law No. VI.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and Donnelly, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0990.  State v. Heard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110722, 2022-Ohio-2266.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. VII and VIII.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0036.  Fontain v. Sandhu.

Hamilton App. No. C-200011, 2021-Ohio-2750.  Appellant’s motion to strike memorandum in response to jurisdiction denied.

 DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0443.  State v. Jones.

Jackson App. No. 20CA9, 2022-Ohio-561 .

Stewart, J., dissents.

Brunner, J., dissents and would appoint counsel. 

 

2022-0652.  State v. Fitch.

Licking App. Nos. 2020 CA 00020 and 2020 CA 00060, 2021-Ohio-1150 .

 

2022-0739.  Butorac v. Osmic.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-010, 2022-Ohio-1722 .

 

2022-0817.  State v. Russell.

Ross App. No. 21CA3750, 2022-Ohio-1746 .

 

2022-0819.  State v. Fields.

Muskingum App. No. CT2021-0071.

 

2022-0825.  Clay v. Clay.

Scioto App. No. 21-CA-3944.

 

2022-0826.  Marshall v. Snider-Blake Business Serv., Inc.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-700, 2022-Ohio-1869 .

 

2022-0829.  State v. Watters.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110697, 2022-Ohio-1670 .

 

2022-0832.  State ex rel. Ames v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0039, 2022-Ohio-2281 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0835.  State v. Nurein.

Union App. No. 14-21-18, 2022-Ohio-1711 .

 

2022-0839.  State v. Liles.

Allen App. No. 1-21-60, 2022-Ohio-1713 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0845.  Phillips v. Acacia on the Green Condominium Assn.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110636, 2021-Ohio-4521 .

 

2022-0846.  State v. Doss.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111187, 2022-Ohio-1507 .

 

2022-0851.  State ex rel. DeWine v. ARCO Recycling, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110703, 2022-Ohio-1758 .

 

2022-0852.  State v. Bruce.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-376, 2022-Ohio-909 .

 

2022-0853.  State v. Gray.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111098, 2022-Ohio-1945 .

2022-0854.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110750, 2022-Ohio-1839 .

 Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

2022-0855.  State v. Smith.

Clark App. No. 2021-CA-56, 2022-Ohio-1783 .

 

2022-0861.  State v. Johnson.

Hamilton App. No. C-210381, 2022-Ohio-1739 .

 Fischer, J., dissents.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0862.  Bank of New York Mellon v. Mitchell.

Hamilton App. No. C-210354

 DeWine and Brunner, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-0867.  State v. Ruggles.

Warren App. No. CA2021-03-023, 2022-Ohio-1804 .

 

2022-0868.  Vitek v. Ward.

Medina App. No. 21CA0004-M, 2022-Ohio-1797 .

 

2022-0872.  State v. Wright.

Lake App. Nos. 2021-L-107 and 2021-L108, 2022-Ohio-1815 .

 

2022-0878.  Simon v. Larreategui.

Miami App. No. 2021-CA-41, 2022-Ohio-1881 .

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0882.  State v. Davis.

Montgomery App. No. 29243, 2022-Ohio-1875 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0885.  State v. Horsley.

Pickaway App. No. 99CA33.

 

 

 

 

 

2022-0886.  State v. Ayers.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00134, 2022-Ohio-1910 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on propositions of law Nos. III, IV, and V. 

Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0901.  State v. Ralls.

Hamilton App. No. C-210410, 2022-Ohio-2110 .

 

2022-0908.  State v. Bugno.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0030, 2022-Ohio-2008 .

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-0916.  State v. Hetrick.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0022, 2022-Ohio-1993 .

 

2022-0919.  State v. West.

Greene App. No. 2021-CA-17, 2022-Ohio-2060 .

 

2022-0921.  State v. Fikes.

Hamilton App. No. C-060581.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-0923.  State v. Simpson.

Greene App. No. 2020-CA-38, 2021-Ohio-2700 .

 

2022-0947.  State v. Russell.

Montgomery App. No. 29177, 2022-Ohio-285 .

 

2022-0950.  State v. Somerset.

Montgomery App. No. 29249, 2022-Ohio-2170 .

 

2022-0954.  State v. Russaw.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111315, 2022-Ohio-2145 .

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0959.  State v. Palmer.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0052, 2022-Ohio-2339 .

 

 

2022-0960.  State v. Rojas.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-348.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0980.  Stern v. Rob Oldham Properties, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110940, 2022-Ohio-2273 .

 

2022-0986.  Barrett v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-532, 2022-Ohio-2152 .

 

2022-0989.  State v. Marchak.

Morrow App. No. 2021CA0010, 2022-Ohio-2611 .

 

2022-1010.  State v. Mathis.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1184, 2022-Ohio-2291 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2019-1642.  State v. Brinkman.

Stark App. No. 2018CR1994.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-2550, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Sentence ordered to be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the deputy warden on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, in accordance with the statutes so provided.

 

2021-1463.  State ex rel. M.D. v. Kelsey.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110720, 2021-Ohio-4171.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-2556, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0390.  Quesinberry v. Quesinberry.

Montgomery App. No. 29192, 2022-Ohio-635.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1467, 2022-Ohio-2490, 191 N.E.3d 437.  On joint motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0462. Greer v. State.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1465, 2022-Ohio-2490, 191 N.E.3d 434.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

2022-0562.  State v. Harrison.

Logan App. No. 8-21-31, 2022-Ohio-741.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1460, 2022-Ohio-2446, 190 N.E.3d 649.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0604.  Lipin v. Brogan.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1466, 2022-Ohio-2490, 191 N.E.3d 441.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0643.  Tayse v. Erdos.

In Habeas Corpus.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1456, 2022-Ohio-2446, 191 N.E.3d 633.  On motion for reconsideration with hearing.  Motion denied.  Petitioner’s request for judicial notice and hearing denied.

 

2022-0864.  Helfrich v. Hall.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00077, 2022-Ohio-1852.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1463, 2022-Ohio-2545, 191 N.E.3d 432.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/23/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-3361.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1128.  State ex rel. King v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for alternative or peremptory writ of prohibition.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/23/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-3342.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1174.  State ex rel. Clark v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to file a response to the motion to intervene no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, September 26, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/23/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3336.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-1233.  Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buzzelli.

Sua sponte, Russell Anthony Buzzelli, Attorney Registration No. 0038165, last known business address in Wadsworth, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his attorney-registration card and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before August 19, 2022.

 

2022-0128.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Owens.

Sua sponte, Robert Morris Owens, Attorney Registration No. 0069866, last known address in Delaware, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before August 18, 2022.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1349.  Patituce & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Summit Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 22, 2021

 

[Cite as 09/22/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3321.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1061.  State ex rel. Ungaro v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3318.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.  Relator’s request for attorney fees denied.  Respondent’s motion to strike relator’s evidence denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent, with an opinion.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 22, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/22/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3317.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1104.  State v. Thompson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109253, 2021-Ohio-376.  On appellant’s motion for delayed appeal due to COVID-19.  Motion denied as moot.  On June 7, 2022, in 2022-0203, State v. Thompson, this court declined to accept an appeal from the same judgment, dated February 11, 2021, currently being appealed.  Accordingly, cause dismissed.  No further motions for delayed appeal from the February 11, 2021 judgment entry of the Eighth District Court of Appeals shall be accepted for filing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/21/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3299.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Bloodworth.

On motion for leave to institute a legal proceeding.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0425.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Stickrath.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondent’s first amended answer filed on September 16, 2022, stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.13(B)(1).

 

2022-0635.  State v. Chapman.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion to certify a conflict.  Motion denied.

 

2022-1174.  State ex rel. Clark v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint no later than Friday, September 23, 2022.  This case shall otherwise proceed as an expedited election case pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents filed in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-1142.  In re Fusco.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Anthony James Fusco, Attorney Registration No. 0093904, last known address in Youngstown, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 20, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/20/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3296.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1083.  State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3295.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J.

Kennedy, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/21/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3196.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0307.  State ex rel. Pointer v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3261.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-412, 2022-Ohio-358.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0830.  Mansfield v. Chapman.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s amended motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0875.  State ex rel. Harding v. Costello.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 do not apply to original actions filed in the Supreme Court.  E.g., State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene, 155 Ohio St.3d 216, 2018-Ohio-4200, 120 N.E.3d 216, ¶ 8.  Respondent shall file an answer to the complaint within 21 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

2022-0889.  Burns v. State.

In Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

1990-0177.  State v. Hill.

Trumbull App. Nos. 3745 and 3720.  On appellee’s motion to set execution date.  Motion granted.  Sentence ordered to be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the deputy warden on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, in accordance with the statutes so provided.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2020-0608.  State v. CSX Transp., Inc.

Union App. Nos. 14-19-07 through 14-19-11, 2022-Ohio-2665.  On appellee’s motion to stay mandate.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0180.  Byrd v. Newark.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00052, 2021-Ohio-3886.  On appellant’s “objection and motion for findings to the July 27, 2022 entry.”  Motion denied.

 

2022-0281.  Knox v. State.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s August 5, 2022 requests for relief.  Requests denied. 

 

2022-1005.  State v. Perkins.

Mahoning App. No. 2021 MA 0073.  On appellant’s motion for stay court of appeals’ decision.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 20, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/20/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3285.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0310.  State ex rel. Randlett v. Lynch, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3260.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-489, 2021-Ohio-221 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSSALS

 

2022-0766.  State ex rel. McCorkle v. O’Shaughnessy.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due September 16, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following cases to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for each case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in these cases until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-1125.  State ex rel. Patituce & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Lucas Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

In Mandamus.

 

 

2022-1126.  State ex rel. Patituce & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Toledo Police Dept.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/19/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3262.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the September 19, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0705.  Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 167 Ohio St.3d 390, 2021-Ohio-4096.

 

2020-1131.  M.R. v. Niesen, 167 Ohio St.3d 404, 2022-Ohio-1130.

 

2021-0166.  French v. Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C., 167 Ohio St.3d 398, 2022-Ohio-869.

 

2021-1336.  State v. Gapen, 167 Ohio St.3d 408, 2022-Ohio-1328.

 

21-AP-165.  In re Disqualification of Ferenc, 167 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2022-Ohio-1334.

 

22-AP-007.  In re Disqualification of Wallace and Capizzi, 167 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2022-Ohio-1330.

 

22-AP-034.  In re Disqualification of Tucker, 167 Ohio St.3d 1237, 2022-Ohio-2139.

 

22-AP-035.  In re Disqualification of Leach, 167 Ohio St.3d 1239, 2022-Ohio-2140.

 

In re Cases Held for the Decision in State v. Maddox, 167 Ohio St.3d 409, 2022-Ohio-1352.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0228.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Yoder.

On relator’s motion for issuance of show-cause order and motion to restrict public access.  Respondent, Thomas Alan Yoder, ordered to show cause by filing with the clerk of this court within ten days a written response explaining why he should not be held in contempt, the stay of his suspension should not be revoked, and he should not be suspended for failure to comply with this court’s October 6, 2020 order.  Relator’s motion to restrict public access granted.

 

2022-1141.  State ex rel. Conrath v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file an answer to the complaint no later than Wednesday, September 21, 2022.  This case shall otherwise proceed as an expedited election case pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents filed in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/16/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3269.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1055.  State ex rel. Trumbull Cty. Republican Cent. Commt. v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3268.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in Parts I, II(A), II(B), II(D), and III of the opinion and concurs in the judgment.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/15/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3224.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0859.  State v. O’Malley, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3207.

Medina App. No. 19CA0032-M, 2020-Ohio-3141.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

2022-0716.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Arkow, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3209.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-033.  Seth Walter Arkow, Attorney Registration No. 0069103, last known business address in Canton, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year stayed on conditions.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0724.  Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110816, 2022-Ohio-1403.  On appellee’s motion to strike pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(E).  Motion denied.  Appellee permitted to file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days.  Briefing schedule stayed pending further order of this court.

 

 

 

2022-1111.  Lichtenwalter v. Black.

In Prohibition.  On petitioner’s motion for reduction of time to answer.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/14/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-3210.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-080.  In re Disqualification of Serrott, 2022-Ohio-3203 (decided July 26, 2022).

 

22-AP-086.  In re Disqualification of Ondrey, 2022-Ohio-3204 (decided Aug. 5, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1217.  PCM, Inc. v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2020-477.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Adam P. Beckerink.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0458.  In re Application of E. Ohio Gas Co.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 19-468-GA-ALT.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Robert W. Loftin.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/14/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-3215.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1061.  State ex rel. Ungaro v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to file a response, if any, to respondent’s motion to strike relator’s evidence no later than Thursday, September 15, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/14/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3145.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0897.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Baldwin.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J. 

_________________

 KENNEDY, J., dissenting.

                        {¶ 1} Relator, Alphonso Mobley Jr., seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Franklin County Sheriff Dallas Baldwin, to comply with Mobley’s public-record request for a copy of the “execution of warrant to convey” relating to Eriq R. McCorkle.  Because the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim for relief and Sheriff Baldwin’s motion to dismiss does not present a meritorious reason to dismiss this action, I would grant an alternative writ and order briefing and the presentation of evidence.  The majority decides otherwise.  I dissent. to “[a] public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution,” as required by R.C. 149.43(B)(8); (2) Mobley has an adequate remedy at law by moving the trial court for the release of the record; (3) Mobley failed to file an affidavit describing all civil litigation he brought in the last five years as required by R.C. 2969.25(A); and (4) Mobley’s affidavit of indigency does not state the balance of his inmate account for each of the preceding six months as required by R.C. 2969.25(C).  None of these arguments are well taken.

                        {¶ 4} First, Sheriff Baldwin’s argument that R.C. 149.43(B)(8) precluded release of the record goes beyond the allegations of the complaint and would require this court to assume both that Mobley is an inmate and that he failed to obtain the approval of the sentencing judge before seeking the record.  Neither fact is apparent on the face of the complaint, and we must draw all reasonable inferences from the complaint in favor of Mobley, not against him.  See Connor at 113.  Second, “[r]elators in public-records mandamus cases need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”  State ex rel. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ohio, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 128 Ohio St.3d 256, 2011-Ohio-625, 943 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 24.  Third, the affidavit requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) (affidavit of prior litigation) and (C) (affidavit of indigency) do not apply to original actions commenced in this court.  See R.C. 2969.21(B)(2); DeVore v. Black, 166 Ohio St.3d 311, 2021-Ohio-3153, 185 N.E.3d 1025, ¶ 12 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment only).

                        {¶ 5} Assuming the truth of the allegations in Mobley’s complaint, as we must, it cannot be said that it is beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief.  For this reason, I would deny Sheriff Baldwin’s motion to dismiss and would issue an alternative writ.  Because the majority does not, I dissent.

 

{¶ 2} In considering a motion to dismiss, we assume the truth of all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the relator.  State ex rel. Williams Ford Sales, Inc. v. Connor, 72 Ohio St.3d 111, 113, 647 N.E.2d 804 (1995).  We may dismiss for the failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted only if it appears beyond doubt that the relator can prove no set of facts entitling him or her to relief.  Id.

{¶ 3} Sheriff Baldwin argues that Mobley’s complaint should be dismissed for four reasons: (1) Mobley failed to obtain the approval of the sentencing judge before seeking access

 

BRUNNER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/13/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3135.]

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0768.  State v. Bond.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110022, 2022-Ohio-1487.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0769.  State v. Philpot.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110828, 2022-Ohio-1499.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0782.  State v. Schilling.

Hamilton App. No. C-210363, 2022-Ohio-1773 .

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0784.  Harris v. Hilderbrand.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0013, 2022-Ohio-1555 .

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0815.  State v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110691, 2022-Ohio-1669.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. II through VI.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0300.  State v. Barron.

Warren App. No. CA2020-12-088, 2022-Ohio-102 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. IV and V and would hold the cause for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0644.  State v. Nye.

Wood App. No. WD-20-058, 2021-Ohio-2557 .

 

2022-0759.  Payson v. Phipps.

Miami App. No. 2021-CA-36, 2022-Ohio-1525 .

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0760.  V.C. v. O.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111118, 2022-Ohio-1506 .

 

2022-0762.  Ziegler v. Ziegler.

Greene App. No. 2021-CA-18, 2022-Ohio-1527 .

 

2022-0763.  State v. Perez.

Butler App. No. CA2022-04-033.

 

2022-0775.  Michael v. Miller.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110537, 2022-Ohio-1493 .

 

2022-0790.  Homeless Charity v. Akron Bd. of Zoning Appeals.

Summit App. No. 30075, 2022-Ohio-1578 .

 

2022-0794.  State v. Copeland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111539.

 

2022-0796.  State v. Heard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111479.

 

 

 

 

2022-0798.  State v. Henson.

Hamilton App. No. C-210244, 2022-Ohio-1571 .

 Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent. 

DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0799.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110855, 2022-Ohio-1674 .

 Donnelly, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0806.  Besman v. Stafford.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111475.

 

2022-0810.  Buckeye Wellness Consultants, L.L.C. v. Hall.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-380, 2022-Ohio-1602 .

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0812.  State v. York.

Union App. No. 14-21-14, 2022-Ohio-1626 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III and would hold the cause for the decision in 2022-0099, State v. Ali

 

2022-0821.  Arnoff v. PAJ Ents., L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110714, 2022-Ohio-1759.  Appellant’s motion for evidentiary hearing denied.

 

2022-0828.  Brundage v. Craig.

Marion App. No. 9-21-42.

 

2022-0838.  State v. Thames.

Lake App. Nos. 2021-L-094 through 2021-L-099, 2022-Ohio-1715 .

 Kennedy and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0841.  State v. Wright.

Miami App. No. 2021-CA-17, 2022-Ohio-1786 .

 

2022-0847.  Hall v. Dasher.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00111, 2022-Ohio-1735 .

 

2022-0871.  State v. Ryan.

Ottawa App. Nos. 21-OT-027 and 21-OT-028.

 

2022-0877.  State v. Collica.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0026, 2022-Ohio-2000 .

 

2022-0899.  State v. Feaster.

Summit App. No. 30277.

 

2022-0902.  State v. Gutierrez.

Wayne App. No. 21AP0033, 2022-Ohio-2252 .

 

2022-0903.  State v. Jordan.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-421, 2022-Ohio-2033 .

 

2022-0915.  State v. Gravely.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-17 and 22AP-18, 2022-Ohio-2153 .

 

2022-0920.  State v. Gipson.

Ottawa App. Nos. OT-21-001, OT-21-002, and OT-21-003, 2022-Ohio-2069 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-0403.  Duncan v. Bartone.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0018, 2022-Ohio-755.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2022-Ohio-2246, 189 N.E.3d 829.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/13/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3193.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0190 and 2021-0191.  Portage Cty. Educators Assn. for Dev. Disabilities-Unit B, OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3167.

Portage App. No. 2019-P-0055, 2020-Ohio-7004 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Fischer and DeWine, JJ.

 

2022-0186.  State ex rel. Foster v. Foley, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3168.

Lorain App. No. 21-CA-011812, 2022-Ohio-35.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion seeking consequences for not filing a brief denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0338.  In re Application of Richmond, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3169.

On Report by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, No. 811.  Pending registration and bar-exam applications of applicant, ReeJade Jenice-Diamon Richmond, of Westerville, Ohio, disapproved and applicant permitted to reapply for admission to the Ohio bar no earlier than March 2025.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0870.  State ex rel. Pointer v. Byrd.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s affidavit for service by publication.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to supplement the affidavit, averring all his efforts to ascertain the address of respondent James Bradford, as required by Civ.R. 4.4(A)(1).

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0711.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Swencki.

On filing by Board of Professional Conduct of a suggestion of death of respondent.  Matter dismissed.

 

2022-0922.  State v. Holt.

Lucas App. No. L-19-1226, 2020-Ohio-6649.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due September 9, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/13/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3135.]

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0768.  State v. Bond.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110022, 2022-Ohio-1487.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0769.  State v. Philpot.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110828, 2022-Ohio-1499.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0782.  State v. Schilling.

Hamilton App. No. C-210363, 2022-Ohio-1773 .

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0784.  Harris v. Hilderbrand.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0013, 2022-Ohio-1555 .

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0815.  State v. Scott.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110691, 2022-Ohio-1669.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. II through VI.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0300.  State v. Barron.

Warren App. No. CA2020-12-088, 2022-Ohio-102 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. IV and V and would hold the cause for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0644.  State v. Nye.

Wood App. No. WD-20-058, 2021-Ohio-2557 .

 

2022-0759.  Payson v. Phipps.

Miami App. No. 2021-CA-36, 2022-Ohio-1525 .

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0760.  V.C. v. O.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111118, 2022-Ohio-1506 .

 

2022-0762.  Ziegler v. Ziegler.

Greene App. No. 2021-CA-18, 2022-Ohio-1527 .

 

2022-0763.  State v. Perez.

Butler App. No. CA2022-04-033.

 

2022-0775.  Michael v. Miller.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110537, 2022-Ohio-1493 .

 

2022-0790.  Homeless Charity v. Akron Bd. of Zoning Appeals.

Summit App. No. 30075, 2022-Ohio-1578 .

 

2022-0794.  State v. Copeland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111539.

 

2022-0796.  State v. Heard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111479.

 

 

 

 

2022-0798.  State v. Henson.

Hamilton App. No. C-210244, 2022-Ohio-1571 .

 Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent. 

DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0799.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110855, 2022-Ohio-1674 .

 Donnelly, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0806.  Besman v. Stafford.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111475.

 

2022-0810.  Buckeye Wellness Consultants, L.L.C. v. Hall.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-380, 2022-Ohio-1602 .

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0812.  State v. York.

Union App. No. 14-21-14, 2022-Ohio-1626 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III and would hold the cause for the decision in 2022-0099, State v. Ali

 

2022-0821.  Arnoff v. PAJ Ents., L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110714, 2022-Ohio-1759.  Appellant’s motion for evidentiary hearing denied.

 

2022-0828.  Brundage v. Craig.

Marion App. No. 9-21-42.

 

2022-0838.  State v. Thames.

Lake App. Nos. 2021-L-094 through 2021-L-099, 2022-Ohio-1715 .

 Kennedy and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0841.  State v. Wright.

Miami App. No. 2021-CA-17, 2022-Ohio-1786 .

 

2022-0847.  Hall v. Dasher.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00111, 2022-Ohio-1735 .

 

2022-0871.  State v. Ryan.

Ottawa App. Nos. 21-OT-027 and 21-OT-028.

 

2022-0877.  State v. Collica.

Portage App. No. 2022-P-0026, 2022-Ohio-2000 .

 

2022-0899.  State v. Feaster.

Summit App. No. 30277.

 

2022-0902.  State v. Gutierrez.

Wayne App. No. 21AP0033, 2022-Ohio-2252 .

 

2022-0903.  State v. Jordan.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-421, 2022-Ohio-2033 .

 

2022-0915.  State v. Gravely.

Franklin App. Nos. 22AP-17 and 22AP-18, 2022-Ohio-2153 .

 

2022-0920.  State v. Gipson.

Ottawa App. Nos. OT-21-001, OT-21-002, and OT-21-003, 2022-Ohio-2069 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-0403.  Duncan v. Bartone.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0018, 2022-Ohio-755.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2022-Ohio-2246, 189 N.E.3d 829.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 9, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/09/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3151.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1579.  Blair v. Hamilton Cty. Jail.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, pursuant to Ohio Civ.R. 4(E), relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this cause should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service.

 

2022-0231.  Freeman v. Spencer.

In Procedendo.  Sua sponte, pursuant to Ohio Civ.R. 4(E), relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this cause should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service.

 

2022-0382.  State v. Swazey.

Medina App. No. 21CA0031-M, 2022-Ohio-993.  On motion of Kimberly Stout-Sherrer to withdraw as counsel.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 12, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/12/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3174.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0803.  State ex rel. Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/08/2022 Case Announcements #5, 2022-Ohio-3155.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1215.  State v. Philpotts.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107374, 2019-Ohio-2911.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file supplemental briefs addressing the impact, if any, of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, ___ U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022).  Supplemental briefs are not to exceed 20 pages, and each side’s brief shall be filed within 14 days.  No reply briefs, stipulations, or requests for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any stipulations or requests for extension of time.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion.

_________________

BRUNNER, J., dissenting.

                        {¶ 1} I dissent from this procedural order directing additional briefing based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, ___ U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022).  I dissent because even considering whether to apply Bruen at this juncture implicates determining the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation in relation to Ohio’s gun laws.  This will require the presentation of evidence that should not be examined in the first instance at the appellate level on an order for supplemental briefing.  Determining what the historical record shows in relation to Ohio’s gun laws involves determining facts, and the facts should be developed in and determined by a trial court, not an appellate court, especially when the parties have not made relevant arguments to support this examination nor requested that we make it. {¶ 2} Further, I have concerns about how “history” or historiology can become part of a legal analysis, as this court embarks on the legal equivalent of asking whether a modern translation of the Bible accurately conveys the teachings of the original texts.

                        {¶ 3} History changes over time as historians uncover and analyze new information learned through the finding of artifacts, writings, photographs, and new methods of  historical analysis.  The National Council on Public History, headquartered on the campus of Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis, writes:

                        {¶ 4} Determining what is “history” often starts with an examination of what are termed “primary sources.”  Primary sources are similar to what is typically demonstrative evidence in a trial.  Primary sources of history may be items such as letters, reports, photographs, artifacts, maps, posters, cartoons, videos, sound recordings, and artwork.  See National Archives, “Understanding Perspective in Primary Sources,”  https://www.archives.gov/files/education/lessons/worksheets /understanding-perspective-worksheet.pdf (accessed Sept. 8, 2022) [https://perma.cc/7TXT-HD6Q].

                        {¶ 5} Primary sources are “the documents or artifacts closest to the topic of investigation.  Often they are created during the time period which is being studied * * * but they can also be produced later” by eyewitnesses or participants through memoirs or oral histories.  Georgia State University Library, https://research.library.gsu.edu/primaryhistory#:~:text=Primary%20sources %20are%20the%20raw%20materials%20of%20historical,or%20artifacts%20closest%20to%20the%20topic%20of%20investigation (accessed Sept. 8, 2022) [https://perma.cc/UD5T-C4MU]; see also National Archives, “Understanding Perspective in Primary Sources,” https://www.archives.gov/files/education/lessons/worksheets/understanding-perspective-worksheet.pdf (accessed Sept. 8, 2022) [https://perma.cc/7TXT-HD6Q].1

                        {¶ 6} It is doubtful that this court would examine primary sources in this case in determining the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation as it relates to gun regulation in Ohio.  If we were to do so, our examination of these primary sources for history would require us to draw inferences, as a fact-finder must, and then use them to establish facts upon which to base law.  Such an examination would result in our opinion in and of itself becoming a secondary source of history.  See Georgia State University Library [https://perma.cc/UD5T-C4MU].

                        {¶ 7} But by declining to examine primary sources for history, our review would be relegated to secondary sources, which are “interpretations of events written after an examination of primary sources and usually other secondary sources, such as books and journal articles.”  Id.  Reviewing only secondary sources of the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation

 

 

 

People who are not professional historians sometimes assume that historical research is a once-and-for-all process that will eventually produce a single, final version of what happened in the past.  We often hear charges of “revisionism” when a familiar history seems to be challenged or changed.  But revisiting and often revising earlier interpretations is actually at the very core of what historians do.  And that’s because the present is continually changing.

The kinds of people “doing history,” the kinds of questions they ask, and the tools and materials available to them are anything but static.  It’s not simply that new facts come to light, but that the shape and meaning of historical events look quite different from different vantage points and time periods.

Historians recognize that individual facts and stories only give us part of the picture.  Drawing on their existing knowledge of a time period and on previous scholarship about it, they continually reevaluate the facts and weigh them in relation to other kinds of information, questions and sources.  This is inescapably a task of interpreting rather than simply collecting data.  Just as with any important shared body of knowledge, then, history is always undergoing reexamination and reconsideration.

 

(Emphasis and boldface sic.)  National Council on Public History, https://ncph.org/what-is-public-history/how-historians-work/the-changing-past/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2022) [https://perma.cc/L5LS-GVV4].

1.  The National Archives instructs that primary sources require fact-checking, which includes analyzing whether “other sources support or contradict” what is understood from the source.  National Archives [https://perma.cc/7TXT-HD6Q].  The National Archives also instructs that the researcher should take care to understand what other perspectives should be obtained and engage in honest self-observation of the researcher’s perspective, including the researcher’s background and the time in which the research takes place.  Id.

                        will still require that we factually judge whether inferences drawn by one expert from primary and secondary sources of history are superior to inferences drawn by another, recognizing that expert opinions often differ.  Fundamentally, no appellate court should be the fact-finder in determining the tradition of gun regulations during different eras of our nation’s history, including how and why guns may have been regulated. {¶ 11} To the extent that Bruen may implicate this case, it would be more appropriate to remand it for an evidentiary hearing by a trial court, which could then be followed by appropriate appellate review, would facilitate a more thorough and accurate decision concerning the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  For the reasons stated above, I respectfully dissent from the order of the majority that directs gratuitous, ill-advised, and unnecessary briefing in this matter at this juncture.

 

{¶ 8} Importantly, the glaring flaw in any analysis of the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation in relation to Ohio’s gun laws is that no such analysis could account for what the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation would have been if women and nonwhite people had been able to vote for the representatives who determined these regulations.  How would this problem be addressed in any modern analysis of historical gun regulations?  It cannot simply be ignored.  And even if a court tries to take the views of women and nonwhite people into account, are there sufficient materials on their views available to enable reliable conclusions to be made?  

{¶ 9} Further complicating the issue is the fact that, in his opinion for the United States Supreme Court in Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia opined, based on the “ ‘necessity of self-protection to the person,’ ” that any such regulation was not even necessary and that the Second Amendment has been understood as securing an individual right unconnected with militia service.  554 U.S. 570, 619, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), quoting Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation in the United States 241-242 (1891).

{¶ 10} And most troubling is that in Heller, Justice Scalia seemed to scorn history or the application of a textualist analysis:

 

 

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.  We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.  Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

(Citations omitted.)  Id. at 582.

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/08/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-3153.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1103.  State ex rel. Sanduskians for Sandusky v. Sandusky.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of the answer, evidence, and briefs: Respondents shall file an answer to the complaint no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, September 9, 2022; relators shall file their evidence and merit brief no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, September 12, 2022; respondents shall file their evidence and merit brief no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 15, 2022; and relators may file a reply brief no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, September 16, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/08/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-3139.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-1003.  State ex rel. Moscow v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3138.

In Prohibition and Mandamus.  Writ of prohibition granted and writ of mandamus denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/08/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3128.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0350.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Purola.

On respondent’s objections to this court’s order to show cause why the interim default suspension should not be converted into an indefinite suspension.  Matter remanded to the Board of Professional Conduct for consideration of mitigation evidence only.  The interim default suspension shall remain in place while this matter is pending before the board.  Proceedings stayed until further order of this court.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., dissent and would convert the interim default suspension into an indefinite suspension.

 

 

 

 CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/08/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3127.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0801.  State v. Sanford, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3107.

Lorain App. No. 18CA011308, 2021-Ohio-1619.  Judgment affirmed and cause remanded to the trial court.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 

2022-0363.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fitz, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3108.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-046.  Robert Edward Fitz, Attorney Registration No. 0024277, last known business address in Westlake, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years, with no credit for time served under interim felony suspension.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-0719.  Navistar, Inc. v. Dutchmaid Logistics, Inc.

Licking App. No. 2020 CA 00003, 2021-Ohio-1425.  On joint application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3118.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1134.  Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3092.

Hamilton App. No. C-190176, 2020-Ohio-3440.  Judgment reversed and trial court’s judgment reinstated.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

 

2021-1138.  State ex rel. Stevenson v. King, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3093.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110221, 2021-Ohio-1093.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2022-0866.  State ex rel. Marcellino v. Geauga Cty. Humane Soc., Inc.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 6, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/06/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3091.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the September 5, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0648.  State v. Bethel, 167 Ohio St.3d 362, 2022-Ohio-783.

 

2020-0676 and 2020-0683.  O’Neal v. State, 167 Ohio St.3d 234, 2021-Ohio-3363.

 

2021-0624.  State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Byrd, 167 Ohio St.3d 358, 2022-Ohio-476.

 

2021-0671.  State ex rel. Ohio Stands Up!, Inc. v. DeWine, 167 Ohio St.3d 248, 2021-Ohio-4382.

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 167 Ohio St.3d 255, 2022-Ohio-65.

 

2021-1232.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Darling, 167 Ohio St.3d 382, 2022-Ohio-870.

 

22-AP-011.  In re Disqualification of Carr, 167 Ohio St.3d 1230, 2022-Ohio-2118.

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1326.  Beachwood City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Warrensville Hts. City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3071.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108253, 2020-Ohio-4459.  Judgment affirmed and cause remanded to the trial court.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

 

2021-0889.  State ex rel. Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Govts. v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3058.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-56, 2021-Ohio-2001.  Judgment reversed and limited writ granted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0177.  Farmers Natl. Bank of Canfield v. Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0006, 2021-Ohio-4615. On joint motion to refer case to mediation.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0436.  In re Application of Tymcio.

On final report of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness recommending that application of Stephen Clarke Tymcio be disapproved and that he not be permitted to reapply for admission in Ohio until January 1, 2023 (i.e., for the July 2023 bar examination).  No objections were filed.  Application disapproved but applicant permitted to reapply for admission in January 2023. 

 Board’s request to seal, redact, or restrict public access to the record granted.  Record and board’s report to be maintained permanently under seal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/02/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3061.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0906.  In re Resignation of Feltis.

On application for retirement or resignation of Michael Jerome Feltis, Attorney Registration No. 0090156, last known address in Chillicothe, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 

2022-1031.  In re Resignation of Owens.

On application for retirement or resignation of Robert Morris Owens, Attorney Registration No. 0069866, last known business address in Delaware, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

September 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/02/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3059.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-079.  In re Disqualification of Gallagher, 2022-Ohio-3055 (decided July 18, 2022).

 

22-AP-082.  In re Disqualification of Brown, 2022-Ohio-3057 (decided July 14, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0719.  Navistar, Inc. v. Dutchmaid Logistics, Inc.

Licking App. No. 2020 CA 00003, 2021-Ohio-1425.  On joint motion for limited remand to vacate judgment.  Motion granted.  Matter remanded to the Licking County Court of Common Pleas for 30 days.  If the parties have not filed an application for dismissal within 30 days, this matter will be reinstated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/01/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3029.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0556.  State v. McCrory.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110202, 2022-Ohio-942 .

 Stewart, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Brunner, JJ.

_________________

STEWART, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} Appellant, James McCrory, seeks to appeal from a decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirming his ten-year prison sentence for rape.  On appeal to the Eighth District, McCrory argued that certain statements made by the trial-court judge at his plea and sentencing hearings and in the court’s journal entry show that the judge was mistaken in her belief that McCrory’s sentence did not require mandatory prison time when, in fact, it did.  It is McCrory’s position that the judge, mistaken in her belief about the applicability of mandatory prison time, sentenced him to a prison term at the higher end of what was permitted for the crime of rape because she believed that McCrory could be released from prison before he had served the full ten-year sentence.  McCrory requested that the appellate court vacate his ten-year sentence and remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing.

2                    {¶ 2} The Eighth District rejected McCrory’s argument, affirming his sentence.  In doing so, the Eighth District noted that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) authorizes appellate courts to modify a sentence, or to vacate the sentence and remand the cause for resentencing, only when the appellate court clearly and convincingly finds that (1) the record does not support the trial court’s sentencing findings under certain provisions of R.C. Chapter 2929 or (2) the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.  Determining that McCrory’s argument did not fall into either of these

 

1                    categories, the Eighth District declined to review McCrory’s arguments altogether.  The Eighth District further noted that “[r]egardless of what the trial court may have believed, it imposed a proper sentence that was not contrary to law” because the ten-year prison sentence fell within the permissible sentencing range for the crime of rape at the time the offense was committed.1  2022-Ohio-842, ¶ 14-15.  McCrory asks this court to accept his appeal to determine whether the appellate court had authority to review the merits of his argument and if so, whether the facts warrant reversal of his sentence.

2                    {¶ 3} The scope of appellate review of felony sentences is a matter of great public importance, and the courts of appeals should have this court’s further guidance in light of our recent decisions in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649; State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309, 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952; and State v. Bryant, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-1878, ___ N.E.3d ___.  In each of these decisions, we interpreted the scope of appellate review under R.C. 2953.08, but in doing so, we opened the door to some additional pressing questions that McCrory’s appeal could give us the opportunity to answer.

3                    {¶ 4} In Jones, this court held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.  Jones at ¶ 42.  After reviewing the language of R.C. 2953.08 in Patrick, we determined that R.C. 2953.08 is not the only basis by which a party may appeal a sentence, Patrick at ¶ 15; we noted that the statute explicitly states that its provisions are “ ‘[i]n addition to any other right to appeal’ ” id., quoting R.C. 2953.08, and that R.C. 2953.02 broadly grants appellate courts authority to review final orders in criminal cases, including sentencing orders, Patrick at ¶ 16.  Additionally, we determined in Patrick that R.C. 2953.08 does not prevent appellate courts from reviewing arguments in sentencing appeals that raise constitutional grounds for reversal.  Patrick at ¶ 22.  Most recently, in Bryant, we determined that our decision in Jones did not preclude appellate review of the appellant’s claim that the trial court impermissibly increased his sentence after an intemperate outburst directed at the trial court.  Bryant at ¶ 22, 32.

4                    {¶ 5} In this case, the Eighth District focused solely on its appellate-review authority under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) in determining that it was incapable of considering the merits of

 

1. This case also presents the interesting procedural question whether the Eighth District should have dismissed McCrory’s appeal rather than affirming McCrory’s sentence when it declined to answer the assignment of error entirely due to its perceived lack of authority under R.C. 2953.08.

1                    McCrory’s claim.  Notably, however, McCrory never argued that his appeal was being brought pursuant to R.C. 2953.08—or any other statutory provision.  The conclusion that McCrory brought his appeal under R.C. 2953.08 appears to be an assumption made by the Eighth District and one that appellate courts may be making routinely.  Whether courts should be making such an assumption in light of this court’s decision in Patrick, which holds that R.C. 2953.08 is not the sole basis for appealing a sentence, is a unique question presented by this case that this court could answer by accepting the appeal.

2                    {¶ 6} Additionally, the Eighth District seems to take the position that as long as a sentence is within the applicable statutory range for the offense, it does not matter what might have influenced the trial court’s decision, because that sentence is never going to be contrary to law and is thus unreviewable under R.C. 2953.08’s contrary-to-law provisions.  Our recent holding in Bryant calls this analysis into question.  See ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-1878, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 22 (acknowledging that even if a sentence falls within the applicable sentencing range for a specified crime, a trial court could still render a sentence that is contrary to law and is therefore reviewable under R.C. 2953.08).

3                    {¶ 7} Lastly, the Eighth District never questioned whether McCrory’s arguments might have raised a constitutional basis for review.  On appeal to this court however, McCrory asserts that “[w]hen a trial court sentences a defendant under a misapprehension of the sentencing laws, the defendant is denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution.”  In other words, he frames his appeal as raising a constitutional question; once framed this way, the issue is appealable.  See Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309, 2020-Ohio-6803, 172 N.E.3d 952, at ¶ 22.  Although McCrory did not explicitly state in his brief to the court of appeals that the trial court’s sentence violated his constitutional right to due process, his underlying contention on appeal to the Eighth District and on jurisdictional appeal to this court remains the same: confidence in the appropriateness of the punishment is jeopardized if the record shows that the trial court was misinformed about the nature and length of the sentence it was imposing.  Thus, McCrory’s claim arguably did then, and does now, raise due-process concerns.  See State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St. 3d 208, 217, 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000) (acknowledging that “even a sentence within the limits of a state’s sentencing laws may violate due process if the sentencing proceedings are fundamentally unfair”).

 

1                    {¶ 8} Is it error for appellate courts to assume that all felony-sentencing appeals are brought under R.C. 2953.08?  Are appellants required to explicitly state the basis by which the appellate court has authority to review their sentences, or is this a question that appellate courts can or must determine on their own?  These are pressing questions that this court should address.  Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s decision to decline to accept this appeal.

 

DONNELLY and BRUNNER, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

September 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 09/01/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-3028.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0232.  State ex rel. Davis v. Kennedy.

In Prohibition.  On relators’ motion to seal relators’ evidence.  Motion granted.

 

2022-0515.  State v. Tancak.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011725, 2022-Ohio-880.  On appellant’s motion to appoint counsel.  Motion granted.  Giovanna V. Bremke appointed to represent appellant.

 

2022-0779.  State v. Mills.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1084, 2022-Ohio-969.  On appellant’s motion to appoint Office of the Ohio Public Defender as counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

2022-0814.  Westerfield v. Bracy.

Trumbull App. No. 2022-T-0012, 2022-Ohio-1904.  On appellant’s motion to dismiss request for extension of time to file merit brief.  Motion granted.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0177.  Farmers Natl. Bank of Canfield v. Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0006, 2021-Ohio-4615.  On appellant’s second motion to refer case to mediation.  Motion granted. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/30/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2953.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0859.  Wright v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0822.  State v. Ford.

Union App. No. 14-21-10, 2022-Ohio-161.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0865.  State v. Cherry.

Summit App. No. 29732, 2021-Ohio-1473.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0883.  State v. Parker.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-527, 2021-Ohio-3422.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0724.  Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110816, 2022-Ohio-1403 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, J., dissent. 

 

2022-0725.  State v. Burris.

Guernsey App. No. 21CA000021, 2022-Ohio-1481.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0742.  State v. Brown.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110905, 2022-Ohio-1676.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0758.  State v. Boyd.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110809, 2022-Ohio-1588.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0804.  State v. Smith.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110677, 2022-Ohio-1667.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0317.  State v. Good.

Auglaize App. No. 2-21-02, 2021-Ohio-4560 .

 

2022-0464.  State v. Groves.

Scioto App. No. 20CA3904, 2022-Ohio-443 .

 

2022-0583.  Gibson Bros., Inc. v. Oberlin College.

Lorain App. Nos. 19CA011563 and 20CA011632, 2022-Ohio-1079.  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I, II, and IV and would accept the cross-appeal. 

 

2022-0691.  State v. Davis.

Allen App. No. 1-21-57.

 

2022-0700.  State v. Beeker.

Licking App. No. 2021CA00072.

 

2022-0703.  Frye v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Lorain App. No. 20CA011641, 2022-Ohio-878 .

 

2022-0704.  State v. Suarez.

Greene App. No. 2022-CA-15.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0706.  State v. Suarez.

Greene App. No. 2022-CA-16.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0708.  RevoLaze, L.L.C. V. Dentons US, L.L.P.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109742, 2022-Ohio-1392 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II. 

 

2022-0709.  State v. Crook.

Coshocton App. No. 2021 CA 21, 2022-Ohio-1475 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0719.  Fabrizi Recycling, Inc. v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110548, 2022-Ohio-1395 .

 O’Connor, C.J., dissents. 

 

2022-0721.  State v. Walker.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110733, 2022-Ohio-825 .

 

2022-0738.  Cincinnati v. State.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210343 and C-210353, 2022-Ohio-1019 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. III and IV. 

DeWine, J., not participating 

 

 

2022-0740.  Jardine v. Jardine.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110670, 2022-Ohio-1754 .

 

2022-0741.  State v. Goings.

Jefferson App. No. 21-JE-0008, 2022-Ohio-1564 .

 DeWine and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0743.  State v. Nelson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110593, 2022-Ohio-1665 .

 

2022-0745.  State v. Furmage.

Ashtabula App. No. 2020-A-0057, 2022-Ohio-1465 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0747.  Carlson v. Cincinnati.

Hamilton App. No. C-210238, 2022-Ohio-1513 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents.

DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0751.  State v. Myles.

Marion App. No. 9-22-03.

 

2022-0752.  In re A.W.

Ashtabula App. No. 2021-A-0026, 2022-Ohio-1553 .

 

2022-0753.  Summit Cty. Bd. of Health v. Helms.

Summit App. No. 30244.

 

2022-0754.  State v. Mitchell.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0062, 2022-Ohio-1009 .

 

2022-0755.  State v. Adams.

Licking App. No. 2022 CA 00005, 2022-Ohio-1645 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., dissents and would appoint counsel or sua sponte order the trial court to correct the sentencing entry for case No. 18CR862 to reflect the correct amount of jail-time credit.

 

2022-0757.  T.E. v. State Med. Bd.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-142, 2022-Ohio-1471 .

 

2022-0764.  State v. West.

Montgomery App. No. 29251, 2022-Ohio-1611 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0765.  Morrison v. Warrensville Hts.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110234, 2022-Ohio-1489 .

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0777.  State v. Talley.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0044, 2022-Ohio-1638 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-1033, State v. Gwynne

 

2022-0786.  State v. Gambino.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0018, 2022-Ohio-1554 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0788.  In re Adoption of D.W.-E.H.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110705, 2022-Ohio-528 .

 

2022-0793.  Lakefront of W. Chester, L.L.C. v. Holmes.

Butler App. No. CA2021-09-108, 2021-Ohio-3714 .

 

2022-0797.  Jodka v. Toledo.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1125.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0818.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110205, 2022-Ohio-78 .

 

2022-0840.  State v. Justice.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-213.

 

2022-0857.  State v. Knight.

Erie App. No. {22}E-21-017, 2022-Ohio-1787 .

 

2022-0860.  State v. Brodie.

Medina App. No. 21CA0048-M, 2022-Ohio-1794 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0868.  State ex rel. Reese v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. Legal Dept.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-2105, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1064.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-2189, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1269.  In re Estate of Jones v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1439, 2022-Ohio-2162, 189 N.E.3d 805.  On “affidavit of writ of error to order to dismiss filed on June 29, 2022, conflict of variance of law, notices, order for reconsideration of order to dismiss, notice of interest and order to show cause and acceptance and return of order.”  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1270.  In re Estate of Jones v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Prohibition.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1439, 2022-Ohio-2162, 189 N.E.3d 811.  On “affidavit of writ of error to order to dismiss filed on June 30, 2022, conflict of variance of law, notices, order for reconsideration of order to dismiss, notice of interest and order to show cause and acceptance and return of order.”  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS  

 

August 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/30/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-3008.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0924.  State v. Gillum.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00063, 2022-Ohio-2005.  On amended motions for admission pro hac vice of Sara L. Ainsworth, Farah Diaz-Tello, and Yveka Pierre.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following cases to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for each case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits in these cases until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0977.  State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost.

In Mandamus.

 

2022-1050.  Auto Place, L.L.C. v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2015-474, 2015-475, and 2015-479.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 26, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/26/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2965.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Harris.

On motion for leave to institute a legal proceeding.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0443.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hillman.

On respondent’s response to the show-cause order issued by this court on July 21, 2022.  No action shall be taken at this time, provided that respondent enters into a payment plan with the attorney general after this matter is referred for collection.

 

2021-1516.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Davis.

On relator’s motion for show-cause order.  Motion denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0939.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick.

On certification of default.  Gary Allen Vick Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0071495, last known business address in Parma, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

2022-0940.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Moody.

On certification of default.  Steven Jerome Moody, Attorney Registration No. 0074731, last known address in Cleveland, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0964.  State v. Perry.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110764 and 110954, 2022-Ohio-2132.  On appellant’s “motion to voluntarily dismiss pre-MISJ and notice of appeal without prejudice.”  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/25/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2949.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-0926.  State v. McAlpin.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. 17-CR-623243-A.  On motion of David L. Doughten to withdraw as counsel.  Motion granted.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0626.  In re Resignation of Donovan.

Sua sponte, John Donovan, Attorney Registration No. 0003219, last known business address in Napoleon, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his attorney-registration card, failure to surrender his certificate of admission, and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before July 22, 2022.

 

2022-1048.  In re Nolan.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Timothy Lee Nolan, Attorney Registration No. 0028071, last known address in California, Kentucky, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/24/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2938.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0508.  State v. Metz.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 107212, 107246, 107259, and 107261, 2019-Ohio-4054.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to show cause within 14 days why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 22, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/22/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2931.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-1008.  Halstead v. Jackson.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file no later than Tuesday, August 23, 2022, a response, if any, to motion of proposed intervenor, Northpoint Development, L.L.C., to intervene as a party-respondent.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motion to intervene shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/23/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2922.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0321.  State v. Miller.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110571, 2022-Ohio-378.  On appellant’s motion to supplement the record with missing exhibits.  Motion granted.  Clerk of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals ordered to supplement the record with state’s exhibit Nos. 25 and 26 within ten days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 22, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/22/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2904.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF AUGUST 22, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the August 22, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0091.  State ex rel. Yost v. Rover Pipeline, L.L.C., 167 Ohio St.3d 223, 2022-Ohio-766.

 

2020-0228.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Yoder, 167 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2022-Ohio-2116.

 

2021-0051.  State v. Smith, 167 Ohio St.3d 220, 2022-Ohio-269.

 

2021-0764.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilcoxson, 167 Ohio St.3d 1222, 2022-Ohio-1863.

 

2022-0530.  In re Resignation of Okey, 167 Ohio St.3d 1216, 2022-Ohio-1789.

 

2022-0534.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chambers, 167 Ohio St.3d 1223, 2022-Ohio-1891.

 

2022-0626.  In re Resignation of Donovan, 167 Ohio St.3d 1226, 2022-Ohio-2117.

 

2022-0660.  In re Bell, 167 Ohio St.3d 1219, 2022-Ohio-1836.

 

22-AP-020.  In re Disqualification of the Judges of the Fifth Dist. Court of Appeals, 167 Ohio St.3d 1215, 2022-Ohio-2119.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/19/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2882.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0136.  State v. Carlock.

Jefferson App. No. 19 JE 0017, 2021-Ohio-4550.  Sua sponte, cause no longer held for the decision in 2021-0794, State v. Fuell, and cause now held for the decision in 2021-1158, State v. Morris.  The briefing schedule remains stayed.

  O’Connor, C.J., dissents and would dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently accepted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/19/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2881.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0124.  State v. G.K., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2858.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109058, 2020-Ohio-5083.  Judgment reversed and trial court’s judgment reinstated.

Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Hess, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur in judgment only.

Michael D. Hess, J., of the Fourth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Donnelly, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0591.  Waterhouse v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to enter evidence.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2022-0639.  Cunningham v. Schweitzer.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion to take judicial notice.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/18/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2876.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0918.  State ex rel. Cunnane v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2875.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

DeWine and Brunner, JJ., not participating.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/18/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2859.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2019-1482.  State v. Whitaker, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2840.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-614021.  Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and

reversed in part and cause remanded.  Sentence ordered to be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the deputy warden on Tuesday, July 21, 2026.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 

2021-1427.  State ex rel. Anderson v. Chambers-Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2844.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-429, 2021-Ohio-3653 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-068.  In re Disqualification of O’Grady, 2022-Ohio-2854 (decided July 7, 2022).

 

22-AP-077.  In re Disqualification of Dankof, 2022-Ohio-2855 (decided June 22, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0749.  Wilson v. Streck.

Montgomery App. No. 29466.  Due to a change of address, appellant appears not to have received notice of the filing of the record.  Sua sponte, appellant permitted to file a merit brief within 40 days.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 17, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/17/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-2845.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-064.  In re Disqualification of Mackey, 2022-Ohio-2837 (decided June 23, 2022).

 

22-AP-066.  In re Disqualification of Betleski, 2022-Ohio-2838 (decided July 1, 2022).

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0894.  State ex rel. McCorkle v. Young.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 17, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/17/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2791.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0594.  Williams v. Kisling, Nestico, & Redick, L.L.C.

Summit App. Nos. 29630 and 29636, 2022-Ohio-1044 .

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion.

_________________

 

 

BRUNNER, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} I respectfully dissent from the denial of jurisdiction in this case.  The propositions of law raised by appellants, Kisling, Nestico & Redick, L.L.C., Robert Nestico, and Alberto Redick (“collectively, KNR”), present the following important issues warranting review by this court:

 

 

The rigorous analysis required by Civ.R. 23 necessitates consideration of the essential elements of the underlying claims and defenses raised by the parties, as well as the evidentiary proof necessary and available for each in determining predominance.

The predominance requirement of Civ.R. 23 cannot be satisfied where the purported class necessarily includes individuals who did not sustain an injury in fact.

 

1                    {¶ 2} This case was initiated in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on September 16, 2016, with a Sixth Amended Complaint having been filed in July 2019.  The trial court’s docket shows that significant amounts of time, money, and effort have been devoted to

 

1                    litigating class-certification issues against a law firm.  There is not much caselaw on this topic.  See, e.g., Hansen v. Landaker, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 99AP-1077, 99AP-1128, 99AP-1129, 2000 WL 1803932 (Dec. 7, 2000) (finding it unnecessary to address the argument that the trial court erred by finding that a class action for legal malpractice could be litigated).

2                    {¶ 3} In this case, in December 2019, the trial court certified two classes: Class A, which includes KNR’s current and former clients who had had certain fees charged by KNR from 2010 to the present, and Class C, which includes KNR’s current and former clients who had had certain fees charged by KNR from 2008 to the present.  Williams v. Kisling, Nestico & Redick, L.L.C., Summit C.P. No. CV-2016-09-3928, *5-13 (Dec. 17, 2019), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 29630 and 29636, 2022-Ohio-1044.  Progress in the case then essentially halted due to litigation in the Ninth District involving those class certifications.  Currently, this case is on the trial court’s inactive docket until this appeal is resolved.

3                    {¶ 4} This court’s denial of jurisdiction allows proceedings in the trial court to resume.  Notably, however, other gateway issues remain to be adjudicated.  The issue as to whether the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations for legal-malpractice claims still remains:

 

 

Claims arising out of an attorney’s representation, regardless of their phrasing or framing, constitute legal malpractice claims that are subject to the one-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11(A).  * * * When the gist of a complaint sounds in malpractice, other duplicative claims are subsumed within the legal malpractice claim.  * * * Indeed, “[m]alpractice by any other name still constitutes malpractice.”

 

(Brackets added in Illinois Natl. Ins. Co.Illinois Natl. Ins. Co. v. Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co., L.P.A., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-290, 2010-Ohio-5872, ¶ 15, quoting Muir v. Hadler Real Estate Mgt. Co., 4 Ohio App.3d 89, 90, 446 N.E.2d 820 (10th Dist.1982).  KNR has raised the statute-of-limitations defense in its answers.  If the claims against KNR are found to be barred by R.C. 2305.11, it is unfortunate and unacceptable that the parties have been required to spend significant amounts of time and expense litigating certification issues.  Although a trial court is free to manage its own docket, it should seek to ensure that the

proceedings before it do not result in unnecessary waste or costs.  The statute-of-limitations issue should be resolved to avoid further delay and expense for the parties and the courts.

1                    {¶ 5} For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 17, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/17/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2788.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0608.  State v. CSX Transp., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2832.

Union App. Nos. 14-19-07 through 14-19-11, 2020-Ohio-2665.  Judgment reversed.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by O’Connor, C.J.

Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only.

Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J.

 

2021-1159.  State ex rel. Grendell v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2833.

In Mandamus.  Cause dismissed.  Relator’s motion to strike notice of mootness denied.  Relator’s motion for peremptory writ denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0459.  State ex rel. Clemons v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for immediate allowance and order of alternative writ of mandamus.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss amended complaint granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0472.  State ex rel. Dates v. Hamilton Cty. Courthouse.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On motion to dismiss of Hamilton County respondents.  Motion granted.  Motion to dismiss of Carpenter Lipps & Leland, L.L.P., and Michael H. Carpenter granted.  Motion to dismiss of HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificate Holder of ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-FM2 Asset-Back Pass-Through Certificates, et al. granted.  Hamilton County respondents’ request that relator be declared a vexatious litigator denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., would grant Hamilton County respondents’ request.

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-0591.  Waterhouse v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0592.  Waterhouse v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0602.  State ex rel. Griffitts v. State.

In Procedendo.  On motion to dismiss of Medina County Court of Common Pleas.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0612.  Griffitts v. State.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0617.  State ex rel. Adkins v. Cantrell.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion for order to prevent miscarriage of justice and motion for an institutional control number denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent and would grant the motion to dismiss.

 

2022-0627.  State ex rel. Griffitts v. State.

In Procedendo.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0631.  State ex rel. Gibson v. Montgomery.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0640.  Armengau v. Miller.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, J., concur and would sua sponte declare relator a vexatious litigator.

 

2022-0655.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Supreme Court Justices.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0670.  Burns v. Lima Common Pleas Court.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0678.  Mansfield v. Chapman.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0683.  Holmes v. Caparella-Kraemer.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for leave to amend complaint denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0690.  Sanford v. Franklin Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0698.  Denson v. Lima Common Pleas Court.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Juergen A. Waldick and Judge Terri L. Kohlrieser.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Detective Todd Jennings.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0702.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to compel.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0722.  Louis v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0766.  State ex rel. McCorkle v. O’Shaughnessy.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

Fischer, J., dissents and would grant the motion. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-1498.  State ex rel. Ware v. Crawford.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for a court order to hold respondent in contempt.  Motion granted.  Respondent held in contempt and $1,000 sanction imposed, subject to purge by providing the requested records per this court’s February 8, 2022 order within 21 days.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

Miscellaneous case.  On petitioners’ motion for an order requiring respondents to explain their failure to comply with the court’s May 25, 2022 order.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

Miscellaneous case.  On petitioners’ motion to enforce the court’s May 25, 2022 order and require respondents to explain their failure to comply.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

Miscellaneous case.  On petitioners’ joinder and motion for an order directing respondents to appear in person for a hearing.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0360.  Arnoff v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Office.

Miscellaneous case.  On relator’s motion to recast original action as mandamus.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion to correct plain error denied.

 

2022-0460.  Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1095, 2022-Ohio-1266.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0407 and 2022-0424, Everhart v. Coshocton; cause consolidated with 2022-0658, Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr.; and briefing schedule stayed.

 

2022-0717.  McCarthy v. Lee.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-105, 2022-Ohio-1033.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0407 and 2022-0424, Everhart v. Coshocton; cause consolidated with 2022-0718, McCarthy v. Lee; and briefing schedule stayed.

 

2022-0762.  Ziegler v. Ziegler.

Greene App. No. 2021-CA-18, 2022-Ohio-1527.  On appellant’s motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment.  Motion denied.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0488.  State v. Johnson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110347, 2022-Ohio-81 .

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0658.  Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1095, 2022-Ohio-1266.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0407 and 2022-0424, Everhart v. Coshocton; cause consolidated with 2022-0460, Davis v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr.; and briefing schedule stayed.

 

2022-0718.  McCarthy v. Lee.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-105, 2022-Ohio-1033.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0407 and 2022-0424, Everhart v. Coshocton; cause consolidated with 2022-0717, McCarthy v. Lee; and briefing schedule stayed.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0609.  State v. Hall.

Warren App. No. CA2020-12-087, 2022-Ohio-1147 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

 

  

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/16/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2765.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0772.  State v. Smith.

Franklin App. No. 09AP-981.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0800.  State v. Wood.

Madison App. No. CA2018-07-022.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0632.  State v. Bond.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110520, 2022-Ohio-1246.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I, II, and III.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-0579, State v. Bunch.

 DeWine, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II only.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0647.  State v. D.S.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110134, 2022-Ohio-1229.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

2022-0649.  State v. Watkins.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110355, 2022-Ohio-1231.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0665.  State v. Toney.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110790, 2022-Ohio-1319.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0676.  State v. Vince.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110798, 2022-Ohio-1320.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0681.  State v. Ratliff.

Guernsey App. No. 21CA000016, 2022-Ohio-1372.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0682.  State v. Butts.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110819, 2022-Ohio-1322.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0732.  McCarthy v. Lee.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-426, 2022-Ohio-1413 .

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0779.  State v. Mills.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1084, 2022-Ohio-969 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, J., would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0998, State v. Hough.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0456.  Horvath v. Barberton Bd. of Bldg. & Zoning Appeals.

Summit App. No. CA 29921, 2022-Ohio-1302 .

 

 

 

 

2022-0576.  State v. Love.

Columbiana App. No. 21 CO 0009, 2022-Ohio-1454.  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., would accept the appeal.

 

2022-0616.  State v. Eaton.

Montgomery App. No. 29098, 2022-Ohio-1340 .

 

2022-0618.  State v. Powell.

Montgomery App. No. 29097, 2022-Ohio-1343 .

 

2022-0634.  State v. Fryer.

Perry App. No. 21-CA-00015, 2022-Ohio-1374 .

 

2022-0653.  State v. Stewart.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110547, 2022-Ohio-1312 .

 

2022-0662.  Landings at Beckett Ridge v. Holmes.

Butler App. No. CA2021-09-118, 2022-Ohio-1272 .

 

2022-0663.  Stachura v. Toledo.

Lucas App. No. L-19-1269, 2022-Ohio-345 .

 

2022-0664.  Stalder v. Gatchell.

Monroe App. No. 20 MO 0010, 2022-Ohio-1325 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0666.  Morgan v. Natale.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0038, 2022-Ohio-1281.  Appellant’s motion to strike memo opposing motion to strike of appellee Julie Randolph and Randolph’s motion to declare appellant a vexatious litigator, motion to strike appellee Linda Baer Bigley’s response and exhibits A and B, motion to estop and prohibit appellee Julie Randolph and her counsel Raymond L. Hartsough from filing frivolous, false, and harassing filings, motion for sanctions against appellee Julie Randolph and her counsel Raymond J. Hartsough, motion to vacate the June 13, 2012 journal entry, and motion for enforcement of appellant’s original dissolution and separation agreement contract denied.  Appellee Julie Randolph’s motion to strike appellant’s June 11, 2022 pleading and renewed motion to declare appellant a vexatious litigator denied.

 Brunner, J., would deny as moot appellant’s motion to strike memo, would strike appellant’s motion for enforcement, and would grant appellee Julie Randolph’s motion to strike.

 

2022-0669.  State v. Washington.

Miami App. No. 2020-CA-18, 2022-Ohio-1426 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II. 

 

2022-0672.  Pulaski v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

Montgomery App. No. 29356, 2022-Ohio-1344 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents.

 

2022-0673.  State v. Greene.

Auglaize App. No. 2-21-07, 2022-Ohio-1357 .

 

2022-0679.  Rodriguez v. Catholic Charities Corp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110743, 2022-Ohio-1317 .

 

2022-0684.  State v. Triplett.

Delaware App. No. 21 CAA 06 0031, 2022-Ohio-1371 .

 

2022-0685.  Hall v. Crawford Cty. Job & Family Servs.

Crawford App. No. 3-21-19, 2022-Ohio-1358 .

 

2022-0686.  State v. Heatherington.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0021, 2022-Ohio-1375 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0689.  State v. Carter.

Allen App. Nos. 1-21-19 and 1-21-20, 2022-Ohio-1444 .

 DeWine and Stewart, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2022-0692.  State v. Hopings.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1075, 2022-Ohio-1532 .

 

2022-0695.  In re A.P.

Gallia App. Nos. 21CA14 and 21CA15, 2022-Ohio-1577 .

 

 

2022-0701.  State v. Virostek.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110592, 2022-Ohio-1397 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2022-0783.  In re M.M.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00159, 2022-Ohio-1569.  Appellant’s motion to stay proceedings of adoption pending appeal, motion to consolidate with 2022-0426, In re Y.M., and motion for review denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., would deny the motions as moot. 

Brunner, J., would deny the motion to stay as moot.

 

2022-0792.  State v. Hyche.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110709, 2022-Ohio-1587 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0670 , State v. Barnes.

 

2022-0795.  State v. Ferguson.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-437, 2022-Ohio-1648 .

 

2022-0807.  State v. Workman.

Auglaize App. No. 2-21-23.

 

2022-0831.  State v. Cowell.

Summit App. No. 30052, 2022-Ohio-1742 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2020-0599.  State v. Bryant.

Lake App. No. 2019-L-024, 2020-Ohio-438.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1878, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2020-1469.  State ex rel. Myers v. Meyers.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1915, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-0211.  State ex rel. Myers v. Meyers.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1915, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0245.  State v. Owens.

Preble App. No. CA2021-07-007, 2022-Ohio-160.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1531, 2022-Ohio-1838, 188 N.E.3d 199.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0290.  Brady v. Youngstown State Univ.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-444, 2022-Ohio-353.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1526, 2022-Ohio-1893, 188 N.E.3d 189.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0326.  Robinson v. Schweitzer.

Madison App. No. CA2021-08-015, 2022-Ohio-568.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1526, 2022-Ohio-1893, 188 N.E.3d 192.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0426.  In re Y.M.

Tuscarawas App. Nos. 2021 AP 09 0020, 2021 AP 09 0021, 2021 AP 09 0022, and 2021 AP 09 0023.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1408, 2022-Ohio-2047, 188 N.E.3d 1102.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion to consolidate case with 2022-0783, In re M.M., and motion for review denied.

 

2022-0427.  In re J.A.

Hancock App. No. 5-21-20, 2022-Ohio-1132.  Reported at 167 Ohio St.3d 1408, 2022-Ohio-2047, 188 N.E.3d 1101.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/16/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2835.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0428.  State v. Stutler, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2792.

Stark App. No. 2020 CA 00022, 2021-Ohio-481.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0995.  State ex rel. Davis v. Sheldon, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2789.

Allen App. No. 1-21-007.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0402.  State ex rel. Lindsay v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

Marion App. No. 9-21-43.  On appellant’s motion to strike appellee’s brief.  Motion denied.  Appellant may file a reply brief within 20 days.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to the following case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  The case will be

dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2021-1322.  State ex rel. Brinkman v. Cincinnati.

In Mandamus.

_________________

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellant shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.  As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, this court may dismiss this case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.

 

2021-1217.  PCM, Inc. v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2020-477.

_________________

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0958.  State ex rel. Reed v. Northeast Ohio Med. Univ.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/15/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2834.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0936.  State ex rel. Petersen v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  Relators have not filed a merit brief, due August 12, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and have therefore failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/15/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2808.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0392.  State v. Hawkins.

Clark App. No. 2015-CA-16.  On appellant’s motion for appointment of the Office of the Ohio Public Defender as counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.  

 

2022-0910.  Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wilburn.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0079, 2022-Ohio-2026.  Sua sponte, appellant’s amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction, filed August 11, 2022, stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.13(B)(1).

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0849.  White v. Holbrook.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/11/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2764.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0382.  State v. Yontz, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2745.

Guernsey App. No. 20CA000010, 2021-Ohio-382 .  Judgment vacated.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-1093.   Siltstone Servs., L.L.C. v. Guernsey Cty. Community Dev. Corp.

Guernsey App. No. 19CA000047, 2020-Ohio-3877.  Sua sponte, cause no longer held for the decision in 2020-0031, Siltstone Resources, L.L.C. v. Ohio Pub. Works Comm., and stay of briefing schedule lifted.  The clerk of the court shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals of Guernsey County, and the parties shall brief this case in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 

2022-0036.  Fontain v. Sandhu.

Hamilton App. No. C-200011, 2021-Ohio-2750.  On order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, issued August 4, 2022, remanding this case to this court.  The stay in this case is lifted, and the case shall proceed before this court.

 

 

 

2022-0584.  Heflin v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to request leave to file a supplement and motion to request leave to provide evidence.  Motions denied as moot.  

 

2022-0803.  State ex rel. Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Melissa Cohen, Michelle Diamond, Davina Pujari, Chris Rheinheimer, Allyson Slater, and Alan Schoenfeld.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0534.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chambers.

Sua sponte, Richard Francis Chambers II, Attorney Registration No. 0081139, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before July 6, 2022.

 

2022-0535.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmons.

Sua sponte, Andrew Simmons, last known address in Middletown, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before July 6, 2022.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0805.  WSB Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Cent. Accounting Sys., Inc.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210454 and C-210467, 2022-Ohio-2160.  On appellants’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/10/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2749.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0153.  In re Application of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2742.

Power Siting Board, No. 16-1871-EL-BGN.  Order affirmed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-0926.  State v. McAlpin.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-623243.  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion granted.  Jeffrey M. Gamso and Timothy F. Sweeney appointed to represent appellant for the purpose of filing an application to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.06.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 5, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/05/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2701.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2020-1520.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Morton.

Sua sponte, John Alex Morton, Attorney Registration No. 0028021, last known business address in Richmond Heights, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his attorney-registration card on or before December 23, 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 3, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/03/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2642.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0458.  In re Application of E. Ohio Gas Co.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 19-468-GA-ALT.  On motion of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to dismiss appellants’ proposition of law No. 2.  Motion denied.  

 Fischer, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0805.  WSB Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Cent. Accounting Sys., Inc.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210454 and C-210467, 2022-Ohio-2160.  On appellants’ motion for immediate stay.  Motion granted.  

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 3, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/03/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2641.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0568.  U.S. Natl. Assn. v. Smith.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0061, 2022-Ohio-2079.  On appellants’ motion for leave of court to file amended motion in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0746.  State v. Banks.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-130, 2022-Ohio-1463.  On appellant’s motion for leave to amend memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0790.  Homeless Charity v. Akron Bd. of Zoning Appeals.

Summit App. No. 30075, 2022-Ohio-1578.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Jeffrey T. Rowes.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0931.  Harris v. State.

Noble App. No. 22 NO 0488.  On memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  This case originated in the court of appeals and therefore should proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.01.  The clerk shall issue an order for the transmission of the record from the Court of Appeals for Noble County, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.

 

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

In re Gedeon.

On recommendation by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law.  Recommendation adopted.  Respondent, Carl James Gedeon, Attorney Registration No. 0065645, reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0748.  State v. Tellis.

Wood App. No. WD-19-050, 2020-Ohio-6982.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due July 28, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

 

 

In re Report of the Commission

on Continuing Legal Education.

 

Carl James Gedeon

(#0065645),

 Respondent.

 

Case No. CLE-2004-65645

ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

 This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(6)(A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(d).  The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 2002-2003 reporting period.

 On April 8, 2005, this court adopted the recommendation of the commission, imposed a sanction fee upon respondent, and suspended respondent from the practice of law pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(3) and (5)(A)(4).  The court further ordered that respondent would not be reinstated to the practice of law in

Ohio until respondent complied with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in former Gov.Bar R. X(7), complied with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, complied with the April 8, 2005 order and all other orders of the court, and this court ordered respondent reinstated.

 On July 11, 2022, the commission filed a recommendation pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(7)(B)(2), finding that respondent has paid all fees assessed for noncompliance, has made up all deficiencies, and is now in full compliance with all requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and recommending that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio.  The commission certified that respondent had completed the credit hours of continuing legal education required during the suspension by this court’s order of suspension.  Respondent has satisfied all the requirements of this court’s order of suspension.

 Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that the recommendation of the commission is adopted and respondent, Carl James Gedeon, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

August 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/02/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2632.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0546.  Gingrich v. G&G Feed & Supply, L.L.C.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00060, 2022-Ohio-982.  On appellants’ motion for stay pending appeal.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties in the following case have reached a settlement. The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Appellant shall file either an application for dismissal or a merit brief within 60 days. The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a merit brief is not filed within 60 days.

 

2021-0836.  State ex rel. DeMarco v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-227, 2021-Ohio-1937 .

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

August 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 08/02/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2633.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0710.  Wilcox v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0767.  State v. Defendant.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0780.  McKenna v. Coury.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0785.  State ex rel. Roberts v. Sheldon.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Mallon Roberts.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

 

 

 

2022-0842.  Williams v. Huss.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0657.  State v. Wade.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-155.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0731.  State v. Brown.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00106, 2022-Ohio-981.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0573.  Hanneman Family Funeral Home & Crematorium v. Orians.

Allen App. No. 1-21-05, 2022-Ohio-984.  Appeal and cross-appeal accepted.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0577.  State v. Davis.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109359, 2022-Ohio-1056.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0595.  Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110428, 2022-Ohio-1062 .

O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0596.  Wildcat Drilling, L.L.C. v. Discovery Oil & Gas, L.L.C.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0070, 2022-Ohio-1125.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0613.  State v. Parker.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109494, 2022-Ohio-1164.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0621.  State v. Byrd.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110451, 2022-Ohio-1168.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0622.  State v. Daniel.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109583, 2022-Ohio-1165.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0623.  State v. Cloud.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110774, 2022-Ohio-1174.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0648.  State v. Thomas.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110800, 2022-Ohio-1241.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0650.  State v. Turner.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110797, 2022-Ohio-1240.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0651.  State v. Riemer.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110308, 2022-Ohio-1230.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0257.  State v. Reeder.

Allen App. Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09, and 1-21-10, 2021-Ohio-4558 .

 

2022-0564.  State v. Kline.

Champaign App. No. 2021-CA-31, 2022-Ohio-720 .

 

2022-0568.  U.S. Natl. Assn. v. Smith.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0061, 2022-Ohio-2079 .

 Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0569.  State v. Harris.

Hamilton App. No. C-210391, 2022-Ohio-1021 .

 DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0570.  State v. Bowen.

Licking App. No. 21CA0106.

 

2022-0575.  RRL Holding Co. of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Stewart.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-493, 2021-Ohio-3989 .

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-0579.  Hamm v. Lorain Coal & Dock Co.

Belmont App. No. 20 BE 0028, 2022-Ohio-1048 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0585.  Bates v. Bates.

Noble App. No. 21 NO 0482, 2022-Ohio-1055 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0586.  Tassone v. Tassone.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-33.

 

2022-0589.  Huntington Natl. Bank v. Slodov.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110113 and 111421.

 

2022-0597.  Gauthier v. Gauthier.

Hamilton App. No. C-210239, 2022-Ohio-541.  Appellees’ motion to dismiss denied as moot.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating. 

 

2022-0598.  Helton v. Fifth Third Bank.

Hamilton App. No. C-210451, 2022-Ohio-1023 .

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-0599.  Jones v. Dlugos.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110915, 2022-Ohio-1076 .

 

2022-0608.  State v. Rutan.

Franklin App. No. 22AP-202.

 

2022-0615.  State v. Fecko.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0021, 2022-Ohio-1277 .

 

2022-0620.  State v. McDuffie.

Marion App. No. 9-19-82, 2020-Ohio-5466 .

 

2022-0624.  In re R.L.

Richland App. Nos. 2021 CA 0071 and 2021 CA 0070, 2022-Ohio-1179 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0641.  Israfil v. Mgt. & Training Corp.

Marion App. No. 9-21-31, 2022-Ohio-1270 .

 DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0656.  McClendon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Sheriff’s Office.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110863, 2022-Ohio-1589.  Appellant’s request for leave to attach supporting documents denied as moot.  Appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s request denied as moot.

 O’Connor, C.J., would deny appellant’s request and would grant appellee’s motion.

Kennedy and Donnelly, JJ., would deny appellant’s request.

 

2022-0668.  In re Guardianship of E.M.

Sandusky App. No. S-21-011, 2022-Ohio-862.  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0671.  State v. Evenson.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210372 and C-210373, 2022-Ohio-1336 .

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0674.  State v. Russell.

Franklin App. No. 03AP-666, 2004-Ohio-2501 .

 

2022-0687.  State v. Hampton.

Hamilton App. No. C-210423, 2022-Ohio-1380.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

2022-0694.  In re D.A.

Defiance App. No. 4-21-15, 2022-Ohio-1359 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0697.  State v. Jackson.

Montgomery App. No. 29226, 2022-Ohio-1522 .

 

2022-0720.  State v. Villareal.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-588, 2022-Ohio-1473 .

 

2022-0735.  State v. Workman.

Auglaize App. No. 2-22-13.

 

2022-0737.  State v. Workman.

Auglaize App. No. 2-22-11.

 

2022-0746.  State v. Banks.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-130, 2022-Ohio-1463 .

 

2022-0761.  State v. Donlow.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0046, 2022-Ohio-1518 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0533.  In re J.H.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109332.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1767, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0725.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1765, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1032.  Lundeen v. Turner.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109240, 2020-Ohio-274.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1709, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

 

2021-1055.  State ex rel. Parker v. Black.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0038, 2021-Ohio-2739.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1730, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1206.  State ex rel. White v. Aveni.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-103, 2021-Ohio-3159.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1755, __ N.E.3d __.  On appellant’s “motion to correct a clerical error in the court’s June 1, 2022 decision.”  Motion fails for want of four votes.  Motion for reconsideration denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., would grant the motion to correct a clerical error.

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1386.  Jabbar v. Nagel.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1511, 2022-Ohio-1652, 187 N.E.3d 566.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0240.  State ex rel. Peaspanen v. Ashtabula Cty. Auditor’s Office

Ashtabula App. No. 2020-A-0052, 2022-Ohio-166.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1506, 2022-Ohio-1640, 187 N.E.3d 554.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellee Judi Peaspanen’s motion to strike Ashtabula County appellees’ opposition to appellant’s motion for reconsideration denied.

 

2022-0247.  Myles v. Ohio Atty. Gen.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-464.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1509, 2022-Ohio-1687, 187 N.E.3d 566.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0280.  In re S.A.

Muskingum App. No. CT2021-0034, 2022-Ohio-265.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1510, 2022-Ohio-1687, 187 N.E.3d 563.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0319.  Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Health.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-267, 2022-Ohio-357.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1533, 2022-Ohio-1922, 188 N.E.3d 207.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

Sean C. Gallagher, J., of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/27/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2558.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0708.  RevoLaze, L.L.C. v. Dentons US, L.L.P.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109742, 2022-Ohio-1392.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Kristie L. Browne.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0803.  State ex rel. Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Meagan Burrows, Janelle Lamb, and Julia Post.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0803.  State ex rel. Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Melissa Cohen, Michelle Diamond, Davina Pujari, Chris Reinheimer, Alan Schoenfeld, and Allyson Slater.  The motions do not certify that service has been made on all parties as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(B)(1)(a).  Sua sponte, movants ordered to amend their motions to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(B)(1)(a).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0611.  In re Goodman.

Sua sponte, Amber Renee Goodman, Attorney Registration No. 0096383, last known business address in Lima, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before June 23, 2022.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0791.  State ex rel. Clemmons v. Hildebrand.

Madison App. No. CA2022-03-003.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/27/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2490.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1515.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2541.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-050.  Gary Allen Vick Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0071495, last known business address in Parma, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and ordered to make restitution within 90 days of $3,500 to Joseph Dubbs, $3,385 to Sean Griffin, $3,500 to Mark and Donna Dreher, $1,025 to Maxim Loifer, and $5,000 to Alison Rerko.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0173.  State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2542.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0072, 2022-Ohio-106 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-0593.  State ex rel. Randlett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2021-1387.  State ex rel. Pool v. Sheffield Lake.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.  Respondents are ordered to submit under seal any records they believe are exempt from disclosure.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2021-1413.  Payton v. Beathard.

In Procedendo.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0232.  State ex rel. Davis v. Kennedy.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relators shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relators’ brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.  The parties are to address whether family-court orders allocating parental rights or temporarily ordering parenting time would conflict with a probate-court placement order.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents and would grant the motion.

 

2022-0372.  State ex rel. Howard v. Edwards.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

 

 

 

2022-0438.  State ex rel. Rodgers v. Deters.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0462.  Greer v. State.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0507.  State ex rel. Griffitts v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0523.  Foster v. State.

In Prohibition.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Destiny R. Caldwell and Juergen A. Waldick and respondent Matt Boss.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0571.  State ex rel. Sultaana v. State Hwy. Patrol.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion for statutory damages and motion to compel denied.  Respondent’s request for mediation and motion for reference to mediation granted.  The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2022-0584.  Heflin v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On motion to dismiss of respondent Sixth District Court of Appeals.  Motion granted.  Relator’s “motion of rebuttal” denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0593.  Arnoff v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Office.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondent’s amended motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0600.  Foster v. State.

In Procedendo.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Juergen A. Waldick and Destiny R. Caldwell and respondent Judge Jeffrey L. Reed.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Matt Boss.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0601.  Foster v. State.

In Mandamus.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Juergen A. Waldick and Destiny R. Caldwell and respondent Judge Jeffrey L. Reed.  Motions granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to respondent Matt Boss.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0604.  Lipin v. Brogan.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0607.  Black v. O’Shaughnessy.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

1996-1830.  McBroom v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections.

Franklin App. No. 96APE0153.  On appellant’s amended motion for relief from judgment, order, or proceeding.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s second motion for relief from judgment, order, or proceeding and amended motion for relief from judgment, order, or proceeding denied.

 

2018-0910.  State ex rel. Allen v. Indus. Comm.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for relief from judgment.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to strike relator’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment denied as moot.

 

2020-0748.  Griffin v. Sehlmeyer.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to hold respondent in contempt of court’s orders.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0180.  Byrd v. Newark.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00052, 2021-Ohio-3886.  On appellant’s objection and motion for clarification of court’s May 25, 2022 entry.  Objection and motion denied.

 

2022-0603.  State v. Daniel.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1104, 2022-Ohio-1348.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated in 2022-Ohio-1348, ¶ 30:  “Does R.C. 2909.15(D)(2)(b) unconstitutionally violate the doctrine of separation of powers?”  The conflict case is State v. Dingus, 2017-Ohio-2619, 81 N.E.3d 513 (4th Dist.).

 

2022-0666.  Morgan v. Natale.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0038, 2022-Ohio-1281.  On appellant’s amended motion for immediate stay of court of appeals’ judgment.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion to strike denied.  Appellee Julie Rudolph’s motion to declare appellant a vexatious litigator denied.

 Fischer, J., would grant appellee Julie Rudolph’s motion.

 

2022-0688.  State v. Blackburn.

Logan App. No. 8-21-25, 2022-Ohio-988.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision

in 2021-0756, State v. Bollar, and cause consolidated with 2022-0536, State v. Blackburn, and briefing schedule stayed.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0382.  State v. Swazey.

Medina App. No. 21CA0031-M, 2022-Ohio-993 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I only.

Stewart, J., dissents.

 

2022-0515.  State v. Tancak.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011725, 2022-Ohio-880 .

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0536.  State v. Blackburn.

Logan App. No. 8-21-25, 2022-Ohio-988.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. III.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-0756, State v. Bollar, and cause consolidated with 2022-0688, State v. Blackburn, and briefing schedule stayed.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0390.  Quesinberry v. Quesinberry.

Montgomery App. No. 29192, 2022-Ohio-635 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and IV.

 

2022-0444.  Robinson v. LaFarge N. Am., Inc.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1091, 2022-Ohio-231 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0465.  State v. Goins.

Allen App. No. 1-21-29, 2022-Ohio-985

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 26, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/26/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2557.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1463.  State ex rel. M.D. v. Kelsey, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2556.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110720, 2021-Ohio-4171.  Judgment reversed and writ granted.  Appellant’s motion for oral argument denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., concur in judgment only.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 26, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/26/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2545.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0197.  Senterra, Ltd. v. Winland, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2521.

Belmont App. No. 18 BE 0051, 2019-Ohio-4387  and 2019-Ohio-5458.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and Fischer, JJ.

 

2021-1163.  Stewart v. Solutions Community Counseling & Recovery Ctrs., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2522.

Warren App. No. CA2021-01-008, 2021-Ohio-2635.  Judgment vacated and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0675.  State ex rel. Maron v. Reali.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0864.  Helfrich v. Hall.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00077, 2022-Ohio-1852.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due July 18, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to

prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.  Appellant’s motion for stay and amended motion to proceed as a direct appeal denied as moot.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties in the following case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  This case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2021-1349.  State ex rel. Patituce & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Summit Cty. Prosecutor’s Office.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 22, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/22/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2510.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0228.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Jeanette Michele Robinson, Attorney Registration No. 0060035, last known business address in Elyria, Ohio.  Application granted.  Jeanette Michele Robinson reinstated to the practice of law.

 

2021-0978.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Family.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Christian Manning Family, Attorney Registration No. 0074728, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio.  Christian Manning Family reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/21/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2503.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0421.  State ex rel. T.B. v. Mackey, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2493.

In Procedendo.  Writ granted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/18/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2429.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0967.  State v. Martin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108996, 2021-Ohio-1096.  Sua sponte, the clerk of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals is ordered to supplement the record with exhibit Nos. 93 through 97 within ten days.

 

2022-0108.   State ex rel. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. O’Donnell.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On city of Parma’s second motion to intervene.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/19/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-2476.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0298 and 2022-0303.  Neiman v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2471.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Congressional-district plan adopted by respondent Ohio Redistricting Commission on March 2, 2022, does not comply with Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a) of the Ohio Constitution and declared invalid.  Pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3(B)(1), the General Assembly shall pass a new congressional-district plan that complies with the Ohio Constitution within 30 days.  If the General Assembly fails to do so, Article XIX, Section 3(B)(2) will require the Ohio Redistricting Commission to adopt a constitutional plan within 30 days of the General Assembly’s failure.  Costs assessed to respondents.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent, with an opinion.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/19/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2446.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0635.  State v. Chapman.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0638.  State ex rel. Bennett v. McLaughlin.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0639.  Cunningham v. Schweitzer.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0643.  Tayse v. Erdos.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0659.  Blackmon v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0699.  Wilcox v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0606.  State v. Dinger.

Stark App. No. 2020CA00177, 2022-Ohio-608.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0495.  State v. Wurtz.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110138, 2022-Ohio-810.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0496.  State v. Reed.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110532, 2022-Ohio-818.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0501.  State v. Sender.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110052, 2022-Ohio-808.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0503.  State v. Bell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110693, 2022-Ohio-823.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0516.  State v. McGlothin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109908, 2022-Ohio-940.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0520.  State v. Ransom.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110271, 2022-Ohio-1060.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0522.  State v. Bradley.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110882, 2022-Ohio-1075.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0539.  State v. Perry.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110414, 2022-Ohio-944.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0551.  State v. Holsey.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110109 and 110244, 2022-Ohio-941.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0553.  State v. Daniel.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110644, 2022-Ohio-934.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0588.  State v. Sanders.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110653, 2022-Ohio-1066.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0590.  State v. Hunter.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110738, 2022-Ohio-1072.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0185.  State v. Hill.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109727, 2021-Ohio-3028 .

 

2022-0388.  255 Fifth St. Holdings, L.L.C. v. 255 Fifth Ltd. Partnership.

Hamilton App. No. C-210325, 2022-Ohio-851 .

 Fischer, J., dissents.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

2022-0404.  State v. Yates.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109821, 2022-Ohio-76 .

 

2022-0413.  State v. Groves.

Scioto App. No. 20CA3902, 2022-Ohio-442 .

 

2022-0461.  In re Gipson.

Hamilton App. No. C-210218, 2022-Ohio-853 .

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0476.  State v. Roberts.

Guernsey App. No. 21-CA000018, 2022-Ohio-844 .

 

2022-0497.  Freedom Fund, L.L.C. v. LVREIS, Inc.

Hamilton App. No. C-210356, 2022-Ohio-786 .

 

2022-0502.  State v. Wooden.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110340, 2022-Ohio-814 .

 

2022-0504.  State v. Rarden.

Butler App. No. CA2021-07-090, 2022-Ohio-873 .

 

2022-0506.  McQuade v. Mayfield Clinic, Inc.

Hamilton App. No. C-210341, 2022-Ohio-785 .

 

2022-0511.  NWO Holdco, L.L.C. v. Hilliard Energy, Ltd.

Paulding App. No. 11-21-03, 2022-Ohio-881 .

 

2022-0512.  Hobbs v. Pickaway-Ross Career & Technology Ctr. Bd. of Edn.

Ross App. No. 21CA3746, 2022-Ohio-921 .

 

2022-0514.  Maher v. United Ohio Ins. Co.

Highland App. No. 20CA11, 2022-Ohio-1015 .

 

2022-0518.  Goebel v. Minster.

Auglaize App. No. 2-21-19, 2022-Ohio-883 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

2022-0521.  State v. Carpenter.

Monroe App. No. 21 MO 0002, 2022-Ohio-898 .

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2022-0526.  Anderson v. Fleagane.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0020, 2022-Ohio-1120 .

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal as to proposition of law No. I. 

 

2022-0528.  Grange Ins. Co. v. Riggs.

Perry App. No. 21-CA-00013, 2022-Ohio-955 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0529.  Meyer v. Pullum.

Clermont App. No. CA2021-09-054, 2022-Ohio-1205 .

 

2022-0538.  State v. Morris.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110782, 2022-Ohio-1318 .

 Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

2022-0541.  State v. Maddox.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00072, 2022-Ohio-956 .

 

2022-0546.  Gingrich v. G&G Feed & Supply, L.L.C.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00060, 2022-Ohio-982.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., would deny the motion as moot.

 

2022-0547.  Li v. Du.

Summit App. No. 29787, 2022-Ohio-917 .

 

2022-0550.  State v. Nastal.

Wood App. No. WD-21-042, 2022-Ohio-970 .

 

2022-0552.  State v. Hughley.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110309, 2022-Ohio-943 .

 Stewart, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0670, State v. Barnes.

 

 

 

2022-0554.  State ex rel. Yost v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Washington App. No. 21CA22.

 DeWine, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II. 

 

2022-0555.  State v. Wade.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-049, 2022-Ohio-1006 .

 

2022-0557.  State ex rel. Givens v. Shadyside.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0027, 2022-Ohio-1051 .

 

2022-0558.  State v. Davison.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0014, 2021-Ohio-4184 .

 

2022-0562.  State v. Harrison.

Logan App. No. 8-21-31, 2022-Ohio-741 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I through III.

 

2022-0566.  Galavich v. Hales.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0033, 2022-Ohio-1121 .

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0582.  Bogan v. Mahoning Cty. Children Servs.

Mahoning App. No. 21-MA-0002, 2021-Ohio-4665 .

 

2022-0614.  In re C.H.

Union App. No. 14-21-20, 2022-Ohio-1139 .

 

2022-0642.  State v. Huddleston.

Logan App. No. 8-21-28.

 

2022-0645.  State v. Yeager.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-008.

 

2022-0654.  State v. Liso.

Brown App. No. CA2021-11-015, 2022-Ohio-1271.  Appellant’s “motion to judicial notice Evid.R. 201, S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01” denied.

 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2019-0926.  State v. McAlpin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 17-CR-623243-A.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1567, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration and to stay the issuance of mandate.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0020.  State v. Monaco.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2021 AP 01 0002, 2021-Ohio-3888.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1497, 2022-Ohio-1485, 186 N.E.3d 831.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0098.  Cach, L.L.C. v. Young.

Mahoning App. Nos. 15 MA 0176 and 15 MA 0177, 2021-Ohio-4638.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1497, 2022-Ohio-1485, 186 N.E.3d 831.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0190.  State ex rel. Smith v. Tenth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1502, 2022-Ohio-1558, 187 N.E.3d 546.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0197.  State v. Monaco.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2021 AP 01 0002.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1497, 2022-Ohio-1485, 186 N.E.3d 832.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0223.  State v. Myers.

Wood App. No. WD-15-017.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1509, 2022-Ohio-1687, 187 N.E.3d 560.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/19/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2475.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0997 and 2021-1343.  Santomauro v. McLaughlin, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2441.

In Prohibition.  Limited writs granted.  In case No. 2021-0997, relator’s motion to supplement evidence denied.  In case No. 2021-0997, respondent’s motion to supplement evidence denied in part and granted in part.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1189.  State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2427.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0013, 2021-Ohio-2889 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0128.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Owens.

On certification of default.  Robert Morris Owens, Attorney Registration No. 0069866, last known address in Delaware, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0866.  State ex rel. Marcellino v. Geauga Cty. Humane Soc., Inc.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/15/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2420.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0637.  State ex rel. Williams v. Handwerk.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within five days; relator shall file a brief within five days of the filing of the evidence; respondent shall file a brief within five days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within three days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

  Brunner, J., dissents and would grant a peremptory writ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/14/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2407.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0680.  State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Trumbull Cty.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0023, 2022-Ohio-1817.  On joint motion to stay briefing.  Motion granted.  Briefing schedule stayed and cause held for decisions in 2021-1090, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty.; 2021-1091, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Lucas Cty.; and 2021-1181, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, N.A. v. Summit Cty.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0765.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Pertee.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Lisa Marie Pertee, Attorney Registration No. 0074915, last known address in Sunbury, Ohio.  Application granted.  Lisa Marie Pertee reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/13/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2402.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1276.  State ex rel. Hutchison v. DeWine.

In Mandamus.  On order of the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued July 5, 2022, dismissing the federal defendants and remanding the remainder of the case to this court.  The stay in this case is lifted, and the case shall proceed before this court.  Respondents may file a response to the complaint, if any, within 21 days.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0350.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Purola.

Sua sponte, Albert Linden Purola, Attorney Registration No. 0010275, last known business address in Willoughby, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before June 3, 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 12, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/12/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2388.]

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.

 

2022-0177.  Farmers Natl. Bank of Canfield v. Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0006, 2021-Ohio-4615.  Appellant shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.  As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, this court may dismiss this case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.

__________________

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0824.  State ex rel. Gilreath v. Cuyahoga Job & Family Servs.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2354.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1158.  State v. Morris.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-015, 2021-Ohio-2646.  On motion of amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General, to participate in oral argument.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2354.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1158.  State v. Morris.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-015, 2021-Ohio-2646.  On motion of amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General, to participate in oral argument.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 6, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/06/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2343.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1376.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110081, 2021-Ohio-3359.  On motion of Dean A. Colovas to withdraw as counsel.  Motion granted.

 

2022-0559.  State v. Johnson.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011732, 2022-Ohio-1084.  On appellant’s notice to file Crim.R. 45(E) motion and “notice to file motion pursuant to Crim.R. 45(E) to 26(B).”  Motions denied as moot.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 5, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/05/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2322.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Hill.

On motion for leave to institute a legal proceeding.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 5, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/05/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2246.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0625.  Wilcox v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0636.  Williams v. Bobby.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would order a return of writ.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0509.  State v. Dugas.

Montgomery App. No. 28770, 2021-Ohio-731.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0580.  State v. Gilmore.

Butler App. No. CA2018-06-118, 2019-Ohio-1046.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal due to COVID-19.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0392.  State v. Hawkins.

Clark App. No. 2015-CA-16.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0454.  State v. Polk.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109826.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0205.  State v. Green.

Summit App. No. 29770, 2021-Ohio-2912 .

 

2022-0269.  State v. Smith.

Montgomery App. No. 28339, 2020-Ohio-3901 .

 

2022-0380.  State v. Washington.

Richland App. No. 2020 CA 0066, 2022-Ohio-625 .

 

2022-0385.  Colvin v. Midland Funding, L.L.C.

Hancock App. No. 05-21-04, 2022-Ohio-572 .

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0391.  State v. Fields.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 109675 and 109680, 2022-Ohio-620 .

 

2022-0398.  Williams v. Williams.

Hamilton App. No. C-210331, 2022-Ohio-599 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II. 

 

 

 

 

2022-0401.  Franklin Dissolution, L.P. v. Athenian Fund Mgt., Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110641, 2022-Ohio-623 .

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-0403.  Duncan v. Bartone.

Geauga App. No. 2021-G-0018, 2022-Ohio-755 .

 

2022-0411.  Talmadge Crossings, L.L.C. v. Andersons, Inc.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1113, 2022-Ohio-645 .

 

2022-0412.  In re Estate of Riddle.

Wood App. No. WD-21-041, 2022-Ohio-644 .

 

2022-0430.  State v. Townsend.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110525, 2022-Ohio-692 .

 Stewart, J., not participating.

 

2022-0432.  State v. Rodenberg.

Delaware App. No. 21 CAA 05 0023, 2022-Ohio-713 .

 

2022-0437.  In re Sullivan.

Hamilton App. No. C-210217, 2022-Ohio-852 .

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0440.  In re G.T.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0066, 2022-Ohio-654 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent and would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0857, In re K.K.

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0445.  State v. Pardon.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-206, 2022-Ohio-663 .

 Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0446.  Estate of Campbell v. US Claims OPO, L.L.C.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00086, 2022-Ohio-711 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

2022-0448.  Cagle v. Cagle.

Hamilton App. No. C-210275, 2022-Ohio-671 .

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0466.  State v. Fetherolf.

Union App. No. 14-16-10, 2017-Ohio-1316 .

 

2022-0479.  State v. Brown.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110342, 110498, and 110499, 2021-Ohio-4311 .

 

2022-0482.  Shaut v. Roberts.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110528, 2022-Ohio-817 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0485.  State v. McGee.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1077, 2022-Ohio-864 .

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0505.  State v. Gales.

Summit App. No. 29316, 2022-Ohio-776 .

 

2022-0519.  State v. Basehart.

Muskingum App. No. CT2021-0010, 2022-Ohio-904 .

 

2022-0559.  State v. Johnson.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011732, 2022-Ohio-1084 .

 

2022-0572.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111396.

 

2022-0578.  State v. Beall.

Montgomery App. No. 29280, 2022-Ohio-1259 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2022-0156.  Blachere v. Franklin Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Prohibition.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1482, 2022-Ohio-1284, 186 N.E.3d 814.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion for default judgment denied.

 

2022-0199.  State ex rel. Lockhart v. Gormley.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1501, 2022-Ohio-1484, 187 N.E.3d 547.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/01/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-2323.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0813.  State ex rel. Jones v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of the answer, briefs, and evidence: Respondents shall file an answer to the complaint no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 5, 2022; relator shall file his brief and evidence no later than 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 6, 2022; respondents shall file their brief and evidence no later than 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 7, 2022; and relator may file a reply brief no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, July 8, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and that the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

July 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/01/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2317.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0803.  State ex rel. Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On relators’ motion for an emergency stay.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

July 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 07/01/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2289.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-055.  In re Disqualification of Mackey, 2022-Ohio-2267 (decided June 3, 2022).

 

22-AP-060.  In re Disqualification of Cook, 2022-Ohio-2268 (decided May 27, 2022).

 

22-AP-062.  In re Disqualification of Coss, 2022-Ohio-2269 (decided May 25, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2014-1896.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCord.

On relator’s motion to withdraw or strike two filings.  Motion granted.

 

2022-0181.  In re Resignation of Barbera.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt and affidavit of compliance.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

2022-0677.  State ex rel. Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Skelton.

Montgomery App. No. 29476.  On appellant’s motion for order to supplement record on appeal.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/30/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2242.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0312.  State v. Montgomery, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2211.

Stark App. No. 2019CA00012, 2019-Ohio-5178.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2021-1199.  Morey v. Campbell, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2213.

Summit App. No. 29742, 2021-Ohio-2670.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as moot and court of appeals’ judgment vacated.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0152.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Watson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2212.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-016.  Myron Parnell Watson, Attorney Registration No. 0058583, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on conditions.

  O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0458.  In re Application of the E. Ohio Gas Co.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 19-468-GA-ALT.  On appellee’s motion to stay briefing schedule.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/29/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-2238.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0803.  State ex rel. Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to relators’ motion for an emergency stay no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 30, 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/29/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-2221.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-057.  In re Disqualification of Buckwalter, 2022-Ohio-2214 (decided May 9, 2022).

 

22-AP-058.  In re Disqualification of Martin, 2022-Ohio-2215 (decided May 25, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0159.  In re Adoption of H.P.

Van Wert App. No. 15-21-03, 2021-Ohio-4567.  On appellants’ motion for continuance of oral argument.  Motion granted.  Oral argument scheduled for August 2, 2022, canceled.  Oral argument rescheduled for Wednesday, July 13, 2022.

 

2022-0739.  Butorac v. Osmic.

Lake App. No. 2022-L-010, 2022-Ohio-1722.  On appellants’ motion for stay in advance of filing a memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/29/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2163.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0417.  Davis v. McGuffey.

Hamilton App. No. C-220040.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

Fischer, J., dissents. 

DeWine, J., not participating.

_________________

 KENNEDY, J., dissenting.

                        {¶ 1} Lawmaking by judicial fiat is violative of the separation of powers.  A majority of this court has upset Ohio’s bail system in a recent ill-considered opinion, Mohamed v. Eckleberry, 162 Ohio St.3d 583, 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132.  In Mohamed, a majority of this court declared that appellate courts should review de novo the decisions of trial courts in setting bail, “usurp[ing] * * * the trial court's power to set bail in the disguise of an extraordinary remedy, a writ of habeas corpus.  Id. at ¶ 27 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).  Once this case is ripe for a decision on the merits, the members of the Mohamed majority will have the ability to correct their improper exercise of judicial authority.  For now, they can limit further damage and stay the application of Mohamed in this case. {¶ 3} When deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal, we ask whether the movant has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay; we also consider the interests of the other parties to the litigation and the public.

                        {¶ 4} Applying these factors here, I would grant the motion for a stay.  Because the majority does not, I dissent.

                        {¶ 5} According to the First District, the evidence at Davis’s trial indicated that she lost control of her pickup truck while exiting from I-275 in Blue Ash.  State v. Davis, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190302, 2021-Ohio-1693, ¶ 11.  The truck flipped over a cement barrier and fell from the overpass onto another vehicle traveling on I-71 South.  Id. at ¶ 4, 8.  Davis was ejected from the pickup before it fell from the overpass, and she suffered minor injuries.  Id. at ¶ 11-12.  However, her truck crushed the vehicle below, killing its two occupants instantly.  Id. at ¶ 8-9.

                        {¶ 6} The state charged Davis with four counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and two counts of aggravated possession of drugs.  Id. at ¶ 3.  The trial court initially set bail at $250,000, but it reduced the bail amount seven months later to $1,000 with the condition of electronic monitoring.  At trial, the jury acquitted Davis of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide (the counts alleging that she caused the victims’ deaths while operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs), but it convicted her of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide (finding that she had recklessly caused the deaths of the two victims) and two counts of aggravated drug possession.  Id. at ¶ 38, 55.  The court of appeals rejected Davis’s claims that her convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence or were against the manifest weight of the evidence, but it ordered a new trial because the state had not submitted an expert’s report on all the subjects on which he provided expert testimony at trial.  Id. at ¶ 62-64, 67-72, 80.

                        {¶ 7} On remand, the case was assigned to a new trial judge, who set Davis’s bail at $500,000.  Davis initially moved to reduce her bail, but she withdrew that motion and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the First District.  The court of appeals granted the writ and set bail at $50,000.  McGuffey has appealed to this court and moved to stay the court of appeals’ judgment.

                        {¶ 8} The test applied in reviewing a motion for a stay has four factors: “ ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’ ”  Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009), quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987).

                        {¶ 9} In applying the first factor, a court must undertake a limited review of the merits.  In this case, that requires a consideration of this court’s recent—and erroneous—holding in Mohamed, 162 Ohio St.3d 583, 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132.

                        {¶ 10} This court’s wayward path toward effectively rewriting Ohio’s law on bail began with Mohamed.  In Mohamed, the majority opinion started from the position that “in an original action [for the reduction of bail], an appellate court may permit a habeas petitioner to introduce evidence to prove his claim.”  Id. at ¶ 5.  From this premise, it leapt to the conclusion that the reviewing court may “exercise its own discretion in imposing an appropriate bail amount,” id., without according deference to the trial court’s determination, id. at ¶ 4-5.  In doing that, the majority opinion mistook the ability to present evidence in an original action with the ultimate issue to be decided by the court in a habeas case: whether the petitioner has shown that he or she is entitled to immediate release from confinement, Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309, 2005-Ohio-5125, 835 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 13.

                        {¶ 11} This court and other courts of last resort have recognized that determining the amount of bail is within the discretion of the trial court.  See Jenkins v. Billy, 43 Ohio St.3d 84, 85, 538 N.E.2d 1045 (1989); Bland v. Holden, 21 Ohio St.2d 238, 239, 257 N.E.2d 397 (1970); State v. Visintin, 143 Haw. 143, 162, 426 P.3d 367 (2018); State v. Pratt, 204 Vt. 282, 2017 VT 9, 166 A.3d 600, ¶ 20; State v. Brown, 2014-NMSC-038, 338 P.3d 1276, ¶ 43; Myers v. St. Lawrence, 289 Ga. 240, 241-242, 710 S.E.2d 557 (2011); Querubin v. Commonwealth, 440 Mass. 108, 120, 795 N.E.2d 534 (2003), fn. 10.  Moreover, Crim.R. 46(B) expressly acknowledges that bail conditions are within the discretion of the court.

                        {¶ 12} A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus ordering a reduction in bail therefore has the burden to show that that the trial court abused its discretion in setting bail.  “ ‘The term “abuse of discretion” * * * implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.’ ”  (Ellipsis added in White.)  State v. White, 118 Ohio St.3d 12, 2008-Ohio-1623, 885 N.E.2d 905, ¶ 46, quoting State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).  A trial court will also be found to have abused its discretion when its decision exhibits a “perversity of will, passion, prejudice, partiality, or moral delinquency.”  Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993).  Review for an abuse of discretion, therefore, does not permit a superior court to substitute its judgment for the trial court’s.

                        {¶ 13} Contrary to the holding in Mohamed, 162 Ohio St.3d 583, 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132, then, the abuse-of-discretion standard is not applied any differently simply because a habeas action is an original action.  This is demonstrated by our jurisprudence involving other extraordinary writs.  For example, we have said that “[t]o be entitled to an extraordinary remedy in mandamus, the relator must demonstrate that the administrative body abused its discretion by entering an order not supported by any evidence in the record.”  State ex rel. WFAL Constr. v. Buehrer, 144 Ohio St.3d 21, 2015-Ohio-2305, 40 N.E.3d 1079, ¶ 12.  And “[w]hen an order is adequately explained and based on some evidence, even if other evidence of record may contradict it, there is no abuse of discretion, and a reviewing court must not disturb the order.”  Id. at ¶ 13.  That is, a mandamus action does not give a relator an opportunity to make an end run around another tribunal’s valid exercise of discretion.  And even though a relator may present evidence in support of his or her claims, an abuse of discretion cannot be premised on evidence that was not presented to the lower tribunal.  See State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78, 81, 679 N.E.2d 706 (1997).

                        {¶ 14} These are settled principles that apply equally in habeas actions.

                        {¶ 15} McGuffey has demonstrated that this court should grant a stay of the court of appeals’ judgment.  Applying the first factor stated above, she has shown a likelihood of success on the merits.  The court of appeals applied the wrong standard of review when it considered the trial court’s bail decision de novo rather than for an abuse of discretion.  That provides grounds for reversal.

                        {¶ 16} Obviously, when considering likelihood of success on the merits, the precariousness of the Mohamed precedent must be considered.  As the United States Supreme Court has stated, “when governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, ‘this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent.’ ”  Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), quoting Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944).  And we should not feel constrained here.  The main problem with Mohamed, 162 Ohio St.3d 583, 2020-Ohio-4585, 166 N.E.3d 1132 is not simply that it is poorly reasoned; nor is it that it contravenes our precedent concerning bail and the text of Crim.R. 46.  The main problem is that it is plainly and dangerously wrong.

                        {¶ 17} The three remaining factors of the test—i.e., the possibility of irreparable harm to McGuffey, the potential harm to Davis if a stay is granted, and the community’s interest in whether the stay is granted or denied—also weigh in McGuffey’s favor.  All factors in favor of a stay do not necessarily have to be of equal weight: “the factors are balanced, such that a stronger showing on some of these prongs can make up for a weaker showing on others.”  Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 890 F.Supp.2d 688, 692 (S.D.W.Va.2012), citing 16A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 3954 (4th Ed.2012).  Therefore, likelihood of success on the merits can make up for a less weighty factor of irreparable harm.  So, for example, in the context of preliminary injunctions, in circumstances in which “there is a strong likelihood of success on the merits, an injunction may be granted even though there is little evidence of irreparable harm [if an injunction is not granted] and vice versa.”  Fischer Dev. Co. v. Union Twp., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA99-10-100, 2000 WL 525815, *3 (May 1, 2000); see also Southwestern Ohio Basketball, Inc. v. Himes, 2021-Ohio-415, 167 N.E.3d 1001, ¶ 33 (12th Dist.).

                        {¶ 18} One of McGuffey’s core, statutory duties as the sheriff of Hamilton County is to “preserve the public peace and cause all persons guilty of any breach of the peace, within the sheriff’s knowledge or view, to enter into recognizance with sureties to keep the peace and to appear at the succeeding term of the court of common pleas.”  R.C. 311.07(A).  McGuffey cannot undo the affront to the public peace that Davis’s release on an insufficient bond has caused, nor can she rectify the negative effect on the community from its knowledge that Davis has been released.

                        {¶ 19} As to the third factor of the test, the potential harm to Davis if the stay is granted, Davis has not pointed to any concrete injury she will suffer if the stay is granted that goes beyond her being incarcerated now rather than later.  There is little reason to believe that Davis will be able to avoid prison; she remains convicted of two counts of aggravated drug possession, and the reversal of her convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide does not prevent her being retried on those charges or the state’s presenting the same evidence that originally resulted in a jury’s finding her guilty.  In fact, the same court of appeals that reduced her bail found that her conviction on two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide was not against the weight of the evidence.  Davis, 2021-Ohio-1693, at ¶ 62-63.

                        {¶ 20} Finally, and in contrast, McGuffey and the public have an interest in community safety, which would be placed in jeopardy by allowing Davis to be released on insufficient sureties before this appeal is decided on the merits.  The public interest lies in granting a stay and in the restoration of abuse-of-discretion review when a judge determines the amount of bail.

                        {¶ 21} The court of appeals plainly applied the wrong standard in reviewing the trial court’s bail determination in this case.  Applying the four factors stated above, I would grant the motion for a stay.  Because the majority does not grant the motion, I dissent.

 

{¶ 2} At this stage of this case, we address only whether to grant a motion to stay the judgment of the court of appeals reducing appellee Samantha Davis’s bail through its granting of a writ of habeas corpus.  Appellant, Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey, seeks a stay of the First District Court of Appeals’ judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus and ordering the reduction of Davis’s bail from $500,000 to $50,000, posted at ten percent.

 

I.  Facts and Procedural History

 

II.  Law and Analysis

A.  Factors for Determining whether to Grant a Stay

B.  The Trial Court Has Discretion to Set the Amount of Bail

C.  Applying the Law to this Case

III.  Conclusion

 

 

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/29/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2162.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1064.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2189.

In Mandamus.  Writ and statutory damages denied.  Relator’s motions to inform the court denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would award statutory damages.

 

2021-1519.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Noble, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2190.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-017.  Michael Allen Noble, Attorney Registration No. 0088639, last known business address in Ravenna, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year with six months stayed on conditions.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1269.  In re Estate of Jones v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Megan E. Shanahan, Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey, Sgt. Rick Snow,

and Hamilton County Sherriff’s Office.  Motion granted.  Respondents Sibcy Cline, Inc.’s and Auction.com’s motions to dismiss granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1270.  In re Estate of Jones v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Prohibition.  On motion to dismiss of respondents Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Megan E. Shanahan, Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey, Sgt. Rick Snow, and Hamilton County Sherriff’s Office.  Motion granted.  Respondent Special Loan Servicing, L.L.C.’s motion to dismiss granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1446.  Parker v. Newark Ohio Div. of Police.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for leave to amend original pleading denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss amended complaint and motion to strike relator’s motion to amend denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ, order that the records be produced for in camera inspection, grant relator’s motion, and deny respondent’s motions.

 

2022-0061.  State ex rel. Hicks v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted for lack of standing.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., not participating.

 

2022-0270.  Weeks v. Behr.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0302.  Tassone v. Brown.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0349.  Jones v. State.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0370.  State ex rel. Hayes v. Jones.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for counsel.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0376.  Foster v. State.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0406.  State ex rel. Hillman v. Munson.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s motion to designate relator a vexatious litigant denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., would grant the motion to designate relator a vexatious litigant.

 

2022-0422.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Waite.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for emergency 48-hour hearing and expedited review.  Motion denied.  Respondents’ combined motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed. 

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0431.  State ex rel. Black v. Brown.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0441.  State ex rel. Lusane v. Kent Police Dept.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1158.  State v. Morris.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-015, 2021-Ohio-2646.  On appellee’s motion to participate in oral argument.  Motion granted.  Appellant’s motion to strike recitation of facts and argument denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent. 

Kennedy, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion to require respondents to explain their failure to comply with the court's February 7, 2022 order.  Motion denied as moot.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.   On petitioners’ motion to require respondents to explain their failure to comply with the court’s February 7, 2022 order.  Motion denied as moot.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for an order directing respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.  Motion denied as moot.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0409.  State ex rel. Andrews v. Lake Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motion for protective order and for an order precluding respondents and their counsel from making certain extrajudicial statements.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would grant the motion in part and would order that the documents be produced for in camera inspection.

 

2022-0424.  Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-74, 2022-Ohio-629.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated in paragraph 10 of the court of appeals’ April 14, 2022 decision:  “Does the statute of repose for medical claims, set forth under R.C. 2305.113(C), apply to statutory wrongful death claims?”  The conflict cases are Smith v. Wyandot Mem. Hosp., 2018-Ohio-2441, 114 N.E.3d 1224 (3d Dist.), Mercer v. Keane, 2021-Ohio-1576, 172 N.E.3d 1101 (5th Dist.), and Martin v. Taylor, 11th Dist. No. 2021-L-046, 2021-Ohio-4614.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-0407, Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., and briefing in case Nos. 2022-0407 and 2022-0424 consolidated.

 

2022-0456.  Horvath v. Barberton Bd. of Bldg. & Zoning Appeals.

Summit App. No. CA 29921, 2022-Ohio-1302.  On appellant’s motion for stay of execution.  Motion denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., dissents.

 

2022-0560.  Ayers v. Ayers.

Wood App. No. WD-21-010.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated on pages 10 of the court of appeals’ April 26, 2022 entry:  “Does a trial court have to expressly find that a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed as a condition precedent to imputing income for child support calculation purposes, or can the trial court’s silence be construed as an implied finding that is sufficient to

impute income?”  The conflict case is Misleh v. Badwan, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23284, 2007-Ohio-5677.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0321.  State v. Miller.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110571, 2022-Ohio-378 .

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0407.  Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-74, 2022-Ohio-629.  Appeal and second appeal accepted.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2022-0424, Everhart v. Coshocton Cty. Mem. Hosp., and briefing in case Nos. 2022-0407 and 2022-0424 consolidated.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1536.  Asamoah v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc.  

Franklin App. No. 21AP-498.  Appellant’s motion to impose sanctions denied.  Appellee’s motion to deem appellant a vexatious litigator granted.  Appellant declared to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B) and prohibited from instituting or continuing legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave of the court to do so.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.

Kennedy, J., would deny appellee’s motion.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0358.  Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., L.L.C. v. J.K. Meurer Corp.

Hamilton App. No. C-210139, 2022-Ohio-540 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/28/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2210.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1304.  State v. Burroughs, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2146.

Marion App. No. 9-19-91, 2020-Ohio-4417.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1056.  State ex rel. Suggs v. McConahay, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2147.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied as moot.  Relator awarded $900 in statutory damages.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-050.  In re Disqualification of Baker Ross, 2022-Ohio-2191 (decided Apr. 27, 2022).

 

22-AP-053.  In re Disqualification of Vavra, 2022-Ohio-2192 (decided May 2, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1168.  Ohio Power Co. v. Burns.

Washington App. Nos. 20CA19 through 20CA22, 2021-Ohio-2714.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Daniel Nelson.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days. 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2002-1446.  Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Linnon.

Sua sponte, Craig M. Linnon, Attorney Registration No. 0062690, last known address in Montpelier, Virginia, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before January 7, 2005.

 

2022-0343.  In re Resignation of Wright.

Sua sponte, Edd Kenneth Wright, Attorney Registration No. 0018292, last known business address in New Philadelphia, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his attorney-registration card, failure to surrender his certificate of admission, and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before May 18, 2022.

 

2022-0778.  In re Corcoran.

On certification of default.  James I. Corcoran, Attorney Registration No. 0032204, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/27/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2179.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JUNE 27, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the June 27, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1009.  In re Application of FirstEnergy Advisors for Certification as a Competitive Retail Elec. Serv. Power Broker & Aggregator, 166 Ohio St.3d 519, 2021-Ohio-3630.

 

2020-1070.  State ex rel. Grendell v. Walder, 166 Ohio St.3d 533, 2022-Ohio-204.

 

2021-0645.  In re Affidavit of Helms, 166 Ohio St.3d 548, 2022-Ohio-293.

 

2021-0758.  State v. Baber, 166 Ohio St.3d 532, 2021-Ohio-4121.

 

2021-0771.  State ex rel. Roberts v. Hatheway, 166 Ohio St.3d 531, 2021-Ohio-4097.

 

2021-0973.  Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schriver, 166 Ohio St.3d 554, 2022-Ohio-486.

 

2021-1146.  Simmons v. Black, 166 Ohio St.3d 551, 2022-Ohio-352.

 

2022-0104.  In re Resignation of Tripp, 166 Ohio St.3d 1255, 2022-Ohio-728.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0285.  Cook v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s motion to compel discovery and motion for leave to amend complaint to writ of habeas corpus.  Motions denied as moot.

 

2022-0334.  State ex rel. Clark v. Perk.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for an order to the clerk to return the remainder of relator’s security deposit.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0396.  Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas v. Waterhouse.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion to enter information.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2022-0624.  In re R.L.

Richland App. Nos. 2021 CA 0071 and 2021 CA 0070, 2022-Ohio-1179.  Sua sponte, appellee’s memorandum in response stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.03(A)(2).  

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/24/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2174.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0661.  State ex rel. DeMora v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2173.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted in part and denied in part.  Costs assessed to respondents.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/23/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2129.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0868.  State ex rel. Reese v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. Legal Dept., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2105.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted in part and denied in part.  Relator’s request to add “[OSHP] Central Records” and “[OSHP] Southington Post” as respondents denied.  Relator’s request for an award of statutory damages denied.  Costs assessed to respondent.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0149.  Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Blauvelt, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2108.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-018.  Scott Nicholas Blauvelt, Attorney Registration No. 0068177, last known business address in Hamilton, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., not participating.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-011.  In re Disqualification of Carr, 2022-Ohio-2118 (decided Mar. 17, 2022).

 

22-AP-020.  In re Disqualification of the Judges of the Fifth Dist. Court of Appeals, 2022-Ohio-2119 (decided Mar. 9, 2022).

 

22-AP-021.  In re Disqualification of Clark, 2022-Ohio-2120 (decided Apr. 27, 2022).

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 22, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/22/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2115.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0626.  In re Resignation of Donovan.

On application for retirement or resignation of John Donovan, Attorney Registration No. 0003219, last known business address in Napoleon, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 22, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/22/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2114.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0592.  Dayton v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2073.

Montgomery App. No. 28818, 2021-Ohio-967.  Court of appeals’ judgment vacated, and cause remanded for application of Newburgh Hts. v. State, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1642, __ N.E.3d __.

Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment only as to the home-rule issues.

 

2021-0804.  LG Chem., Ltd. v. Goulding, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2065.

In Prohibition.  Writ denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0106.  State v. Zarlengo.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0036, 2021-Ohio-4631 .

On appellant’s motion for appointment of the Ohio Public Defender as counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2020-0228.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Yoder.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Thomas Alan Yoder, Attorney Registration No. 0020792, last known business address in Holland, Ohio.  Application granted.  Thomas Alan Yoder reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/21/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-2083.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0744.  Optima 777, L.L.C. v. Collins.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111616.  On appellant’s revised motion for emergency stay.  Motion denied.  Appellee’s motion to dismiss motion for emergency stay fails for want of four votes.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., would grant the motion to dismiss.

Brunner, J., would deny the motion to dismiss as moot. 

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/21/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2077.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2019-1349.  State ex rel. Target Auto Repair v. Morales, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2062.

Franklin App. No. 18AP-716.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2021-0948.  State v. Stansell, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2064.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109023, 2021-Ohio-2036.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Gwin, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Stewart, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1323.  State v. Knuff.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-618285-A.  On unopposed motion for brief stay.  Motion granted.  The stay shall remain in effect until September 15, 2022.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/21/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2047.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0012.  Blair v. Hamilton Cty. Detention Jail Facility Ctr.

In Habeas Corpus.  On relator’s motion of default.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.  

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0478.  Henry v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0481.  Appenzeller v. Bracy.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0508.  Clark v. Grice.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0646.  McDonald v. Black.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, writ allowed.  Allowing the writ means only that a return is ordered.  See Reed v. Kinkela, 84 Ohio St. 3d 1427, 702 N.E.2d 903

(1998); Hernandez v. Kelly, 107 Ohio St.3d 1430, 2005-Ohio-6400, 838 N.E.2d 670.  Respondent shall file a return of writ within 21 days of the date of service of the petition, and petitioner may file a response within 10 days after the return is filed.  Petitioner’s physical presence before the court is not required.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0443.  State v. Jones.

Jackson App. No. 20CA9, 2022-Ohio-561.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2022-0464.  State v. Groves.

Scioto App. No. 20CA3904, 2022-Ohio-443.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, J., dissent. 

 

2022-0483.  State v. Brown.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1110, 2021-Ohio-4034.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.  

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0455.  State v. Anderson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110337, 2022-Ohio-689.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

Kennedy, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2022-0468.  State v. Taylor.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110286, 2022-Ohio-811.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0469.  State v. Drewery.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109587, 2022-Ohio-838.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0470.  State v. Aldridge.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110801, 2022-Ohio-828.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0471.  State v. McCarver.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110327, 2022-Ohio-813.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0477.  State v. Whittenburg.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109700, 2022-Ohio-803.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0480.  State v. Sitgraves.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110566, 2022-Ohio-819.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0484.  State v. Debose.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109531, 2022-Ohio-837.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0486.  State v. Corrigan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110484, 2022-Ohio-816.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0489.  State v. Young.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109639, 2022-Ohio-799.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0490.  State v. Patterson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109529, 2022-Ohio-836.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

 

2022-0491.  State v. Jackson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110005, 2022-Ohio-807.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0492.  State v. Cambria.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110823, 2022-Ohio-830.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0494.  State v. Cambria.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110831, 2022-Ohio-831.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0498.  State v. Tolliver.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110739, 2022-Ohio-826.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0499.  State v. Gillespie.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109970, 2022-Ohio-805.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0500.  State v. Houchens.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110004, 2022-Ohio-806.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0517.  State v. Mitchell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110702, 2022-Ohio-935.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0524.  State v. Walker.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110839, 2022-Ohio-1404.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0537.  State v. Primm.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110479 and 110480, 2022-Ohio-945.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0540.  State v. Mitchell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110582, 2022-Ohio-1063.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0542.  State v. Durand.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110232, 2022-Ohio-1059.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0544.  State v. Harris.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110635, 2022-Ohio-933.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0549.  State v. Dudas.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110573, 2022-Ohio-931.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0333.  State ex rel. Solid Rock Ministries Internatl. v. Monroe.

Warren App. No. CA2021-04-035, 2022-Ohio-431.  Appellant’s motion to stay denied.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., would deny the motion as moot. 

 

2022-0336.  State v. Henderson.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0017, 2022-Ohio-680 .

 

2022-0339.  Lima Mem. Hosp. v. Watamura.

Allen App. No. 1-21-24, 2022-Ohio-417 .

 

2022-0342.  Wilson v. Rose Metal Industries, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110461, 2021-Ohio-4518 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0359.  In re T.D.S.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110471, 2022-Ohio-525 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0361.  State v. Wolters.

Guernsey App. No. 21CA000008, 2022-Ohio-538 .

 

2022-0371.  State v. Johnson.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1035, 2021-Ohio-4344 .

 

2022-0373.  Doe v. Cuyahoga Cty. Community College.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110590, 2022-Ohio-257 .

 

2022-0377.  Egbert v. Shamrock Towing, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-266, 2022-Ohio-474 .

 

2022-0378.  Powell v. Williams.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110536, 2022-Ohio-526 .

 

2022-0379.  Rummelhoff v. Rummelhoff.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-210112 and C-210176, 2022-Ohio-1224 .

Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II. 

 

2022-0389.  Medina ex rel. Jock v. Medina.

Medina App. No. 20CA0044-M, 2021-Ohio-4353 .

 Kennedy, J., not participating.

 

2022-0408.  State v. Pitts.

Ottawa App. No. OT-21-019, 2022-Ohio-643 .

 

2022-0423.  State v. Cutright.

Ross App. No. 21CA3749, 2021-Ohio-4039 .

 

2022-0426.  In re Y.M.

Tuscarawas App. Nos. 2021 AP 09 0020 through 2021 AP 09 0023.  Appellants’ motion for sua sponte consideration in appellate review and motion to stay proceedings of adoption pending appeal denied.

 Fischer, J., would deny the motions as moot.

 

2022-0427.  In re J.A.

Hancock App. No. 5-21-20, 2022-Ohio-1132 .

 

2022-0439.  State v. King.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00140, 2022-Ohio-676 .

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

 

2022-0449.  CR Hill, L.L.C. v. Westlake.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110610, 2022-Ohio-693 .

 

2022-0487.  In re S.W.

Hamilton App. No. C-210350, 2022-Ohio-854 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent. 

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0510.  State v. Brand.

Hamilton App. No. C-210323, 2022-Ohio-1185 .

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0224.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bahan.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2019-065.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1210, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1068.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 08-1094-EL-SSO, 08-1095-EL-ATA, 08-1096-EL-AAM, and 08-1097-EL-UNC.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1471, 2022-Ohio-1156, 185 N.E.3d 1106.  On motion for reconsideration of Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel.  Motion denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., and would clarify that the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed under the authority of Senior Citizens Coalition v. Pub. Util. Comm., 40 Ohio St.3d 329, 533 N.E.2d 353 (1988).

 

2022-0097.  Addleman v. O’Malley.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110173, 2021-Ohio-4429.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2022-Ohio-1163, 185 N.E.3d 110.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0100.  In re Estate of Jenkins.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1472, 2022-Ohio-1156, 185 N.E.3d 1103.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/16/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2030.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0744.  Optima 777, L.L.C. v. Collins.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111616.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to appellant’s revised motion for emergency stay no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 17, 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/16/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2027.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0744.  Optima 777, L.L.C. v. Collins.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111616.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to appellant’s motion for emergency stay no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 17, 2022.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2022-0381.  State ex rel. Meade Constr., Inc. v. Columbus Zoological Park Assn.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/15/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-2019.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1440.  TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200411 and C-210125, 2021-Ohio-3665.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share four minutes of the time allotted to appellant.

 

2021-1529.  EMOI Servs., L.L.C. v. Owners Ins. Co.

Montgomery App. No. 29128, 2021-Ohio-3942.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Joshua Gold, Daniel J. Healy, and Dennis Joseph Nolan.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0598.  Helton v. Fifth Third Bank.

Hamilton App. No. C-210451, 2022-Ohio-1023.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Andrew D. Schlichter.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0661.  State ex rel. DeMora v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On original relators’ motion for leave to file reply brief.  Motion denied.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0475.  State v. Oliver.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0028, 2021-Ohio-1247.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due June 10, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/14/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-2011.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0661.  State ex rel. DeMora v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to relators’ motion for leave to file a reply brief no later than 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 14, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/13/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1995.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0661.  State ex rel. DeMora v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On motion to intervene as relators of Shafron Hawkins and Mehek Cooke.  Motion granted.  Intervening relators’ verified complaints and merit brief, which were attached to the motion to intervene, deemed filed instanter.  Respondents may file a brief, if any, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 14, 2022, and intervening relators may file a reply, if any, no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 15, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file any documents that are untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/13/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1969.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JUNE 13, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the June 13, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0303.  Johnson v. Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427, 2021-Ohio-3304.

 

2020-0405.  AKC, Inc. v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 166 Ohio St.3d 460, 2021-Ohio-3540.

 

2020-0511.  In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., 166 Ohio St.3d 438, 2021-Ohio-3301.

 

2020-1117.  State v. Harrison, 166 Ohio St.3d 479, 2021-Ohio-4465.

 

2020-1513.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Macejko, 166 Ohio St.3d 503, 2022-Ohio-322.

 

2020-1545.  State ex rel. Ryan Alternative Staffing, Inc. v. Moss, 166 Ohio St.3d 467, 2021-Ohio-3539.

 

2021-0183.  State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, 166 Ohio St.3d 497, 2022-Ohio-236.

 

2021-0421.  Robinson v. State, 166 Ohio St.3d 476, 2021-Ohio-3865.

 

2021-0457.  Karr v. McClain, 166 Ohio St.3d 513, 2022-Ohio-449.

 

2021-0911.  Davis v. Hill, 166 Ohio St.3d 516, 2022-Ohio-485.

 

21-AP-163.  In re Disqualification of Floyd, 166 Ohio St.3d 1252, 2022-Ohio-919.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/10/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1956.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0667.  State ex rel. Miller v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  On joint application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 9, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/09/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1927.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1469 and 2021-0211.  State ex rel. Myers v. Meyers, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1915.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted in part and denied in part.  Relator awarded $1,800 in statutory damages.  Relator’s request for attorney fees denied.  Costs assessed to respondents.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

Fischer, J., concurs in the court’s judgment granting a partial writ but dissents from the court’s judgment as to the award of damages and costs.

 

2022-0155.  Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Mahoney, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1916.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-077.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., dissents and would adopt the sanction recommended by the Board of Professional Conduct.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0271.  Justice v. State.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s petition for an order recusing Administrative Judge David Young from Franklin C.P. No. 20-CR-03740.  Petition denied as moot.

 

2022-0273.  Justice v. State.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s petition for an order recusing Administrative Judge David Young from Franklin C.P. No. 20-CR-03740.  Petition denied as moot.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0364.  Great Am. Assur. Co. v. Acuity.

Butler App. No. CA2021-08-097, 2022-Ohio-501.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/08/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-1921.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0616.  State v. Eaton.

Montgomery App. No. 29098, 2022-Ohio-1340.  On appellant’s motion for leave to file under seal.  Motion granted.

 

2022-0618.  State v. Powell.

Montgomery App. No. 29097, 2022-Ohio-1343.  On appellant’s motion for leave to file under seal.  Motion granted.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0565.  State v. Blackburn.

Logan App. No. 8-21-25, 2022-Ohio-988.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/08/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1838.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0245.  State v. Owens.

Preble App. No. CA2021-07-007, 2022-Ohio-160 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

Brunner, J., dissents.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} Appellant, Terry Owens, pleaded not guilty to charges that included the alleged rape of a woman who happened to be close friends with members of the Preble County Sheriff’s Office and the Preble County Victim Witness Program.  Despite his fear that “everybody was in cahoots with each other,” 2022-Ohio-160, ¶ 10, Owens followed the advice of his attorney and pleaded guilty to the rape charge after his attorney assured him that the judge assigned to his case was a good judge and would be fair.  But as his sentencing approached, and after he got the impression that the victim was also friends with various court personnel, Owens believed that he was being set up and that he needed to rescind his guilty plea.

2                    {¶ 2} Rather than move forward on Owens’s request to withdraw his guilty plea, the defense attorney had an off-the-record discussion with the judge, during which the judge told the attorney that he planned on imposing a prison term at the “ ‘low end’ ” of the 3- to 11-year range that applied to the rape charge.  Id. at ¶ 17.  Once the defense attorney reassured Owens about the outcome of the sentencing hearing with the judge’s stated plan for leniency, Owens decided he would move forward with his guilty plea.

 

1                    {¶ 3} The trial judge imposed an eight-year prison sentence.  During an off-the-record conversation the next day, the judge acknowledged to the defense attorney that he had gone back on his word, and he apologized.  Despite the apology, the judge denied Owens’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  The trial and appellate courts both held that Owens’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was unjustified because he merely “had a change of heart” when he received an unexpected prison sentence.  Id. at ¶ 35.

2                    {¶ 4} Was Owens’s attempt to withdraw his guilty plea merely sour grapes over the imposition of a prison sentence that he ultimately deserved?  Or was Owens lulled into waiving his constitutional right to trial, prevented from exercising that right through a false promise of leniency, and given a sentence he did not deserve?

3                    {¶ 5} I have no idea whether eight years in prison is the sentence that Owens deserved, but I do know that the process of getting him to that sentence was antithetical to the fairness and transparency that are at the core of the constitutional right to procedural due process.  Unfortunately, in Ohio, backroom discussions with judges about pleas and sentences in criminal cases, especially those that are subsequently relayed to defendants for consideration when entering a plea, are the norm.  Backroom discussions can ensure that cases are resolved quickly.  But they can also ensure that the public is left in the dark, that victims are left feeling betrayed, that attorneys are reluctant to challenge judges on the record about their prior statements, and that defendants are sentenced by ambush with no possibility of review.

4                    {¶ 6} We need to have a profession-wide conversation about the injustices and other pitfalls of resolving criminal cases through off-the-record discussions.  And it should start with this case.

5                    {¶ 7} Because I would accept Owens’s jurisdictional appeal, I dissent.

 

STEWART, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

 

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/08/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1837.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1312.  State ex rel. Jones v. Ohio State House of Representatives, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1909.

In Mandamus.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss granted and cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

2021-1313.  State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio State Senate, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1912.

In Mandamus.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss granted and cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0108.  State ex rel. Bur. of Workers’ Comp. v. O’Donnell.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On city of Parma’s motion for leave to intervene.  Motion denied for failure to comply with Civ.R. 24(C).  Respondent’s motion to dismiss denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., would grant the motion for leave to intervene.

 

2022-0191.  State ex rel. Ware v. Pureval.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for default judgment.  Motion denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss denied.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, J., concur in part and dissent in part and would grant the motion to dismiss.

 

2022-0281.  Knox v. State.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0285.  Cook v. Chambers-Smith.

In Prohibition.  On motions to dismiss of respondents Judge Vernon Preston, Judge Reginald J. Routson, and Annette Chambers-Smith.  Motions granted.  Relator’s motions for default judgment, motion to amend response, and motion for discovery denied.  Phillip Riegle’s motion for judgment on pleadings granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2022-0308.  State ex rel. Carter v. Walsh.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to pause.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion for standby counsel, motion to continue pro se “and to unpause mandamus,” and motion to respond to motion to dismiss denied.  Respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0309.  State ex rel. Crawford v. Walsh.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0310.  State ex rel. Higgins v. Walsh.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for standby counsel.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion to pause denied.  Respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings granted.  Relator’s “motion to unpause and continue pro se” and “motion asking for relief” denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0311.  State ex rel. Davis v. Walsh.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0312.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Walsh.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0313.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Oldfield.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0314.  State ex rel. Lewis v. Walsh.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0323.  Silver v. State.

In Prohibition.  On respondent Judge Ashley Kilbane’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to all respondents.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0346.  Griffitts v. Medina.

In Quo Warranto.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0360.  Arnoff v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Office.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for deposition by written questions and interrogatory for Cuyahoga County Auditor Dennis Kennedy denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2008-1098.  State v. Rarden.

Butler App. No. CA200703077.  On appellant’s motion for order or relief pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01.  Motion denied.

 

2020-1498.  State ex rel. Ware v. Crawford.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for court order to compel respondent to comply with the court’s order issued on February 8, 2022.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to show cause within 14 days why she should not be held in contempt for failing to provide the requested records per the court’s February 8, 2022 order.

 

 

2021-1297.  Howson v. Delaware Cty. Jail.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike or alternatively issue an alternative deadline to respond to the entry granting dismissal of this action.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion to compel Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections to provide access to the clerk of court’s electronic filing portal denied.

 Brunner, J., would construe the motion strike or issue an alternative deadline as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and would grant the motion.

 

2021-1376.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110081, 2021-Ohio-3359.  On appellant’s state exhaustion petition.  Petition denied.  Appellant’s motion for state to waive exhaustion requirement denied.

 

2022-0388.  255 Fifth St. Holdings, L.L.C. v. 255 Fifth Ltd. Partnership.

Hamilton App. No. C-210325, 2022-Ohio-851.  On appellant’s emergency motion to stay proceedings during appeal.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0254.  Hope Academy v. White Hat Mgt., L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-475, 2022-Ohio-178 .

Kennedy, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

John W. Wise, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

 

2022-0265.  State v. Stewart.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 109868 and 109867, 2022-Ohio-199 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0351.  State v. Curry.

Hamilton App. No. C-210274, 2022-Ohio-627 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and would remand the cause to the trial court for clarification of its suppression decision under Peter v. Union Mfg. Co., 56 Ohio St. 181, 207, 46 N.E. 894 (1897).

Stewart, J., dissents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/07/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1913.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0599.  State v. Bryant, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1878.

Lake App. No. 2019-L-024, 2020-Ohio-438.  Judgment reversed, sentence modified, and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer and DeWine, JJ.

 

2021-1504.  State ex rel. Cherry v. Breaux, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1885.

Summit App. No. 30076, 2021-Ohio-3909 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0447.  State v. Sarge.

Knox App. No. 21CA00014.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due June 3, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondents shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2021-1469.  State ex rel. Balunek v. Marchbanks.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1893.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0396.  Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas v. Waterhouse.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.  Petitioner’s motion to compel and motion for discovery denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0294.  State v. Marshall.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109633, 2021-Ohio-4434.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2022-0099, State v. Ali.  Appellant’s motion to accept the case and hold decision denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, J., would deny the motion as moot. 

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent and would not accept the appeal.

 

2022-0296.  State v. Dickerson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109434, 2022-Ohio-298.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2019-1298, State v. Bourn.

 Kennedy, J., would not hold the cause. 

Stewart, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

2022-0297.  State v. Jenkins.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109421, 2022-Ohio-297.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2019-1298, State v. Bourn.

 Kennedy, J., would not hold the cause.

 Stewart, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0316.  Schaad v. Alder.

Hamilton App. No. C-210349, 2022-Ohio-340 .

 O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0318.  Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110151, 2021-Ohio-4604.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-1134, Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.

 

2022-0393.  State v. McCalpine.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110665, 2022-Ohio-842.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0394.  State v. Hardy.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110230, 2022-Ohio-686.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0395.  State v. Winkler.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109420, 2022-Ohio-702.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0400.  State v. Campbell.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109822, 2022-Ohio-621.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0414.  State v. Gamble.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109613, 2021-Ohio-1810.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0415.  State v. Sealey.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109670, 2022-Ohio-1166.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

 

2022-0429.  State v. Jenkins. 

Cuyahoga App. No. 109701, 2022-Ohio-705.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0433.  State v. Hardin-Rogers.   

Cuyahoga App. No. 109679, 2022-Ohio-802.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons

 

2022-0434.  State v. Coleman.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110096, 2022-Ohio-809.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0435.  State v. Reed.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110217, 2022-Ohio-1058.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0451.  State v. Gopar.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110648, 2022-Ohio-695.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0452.  State v. Hines.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110159, 2022-Ohio-684.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0453.  State v. Davidson.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110625, 2022-Ohio-694.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0467.  State v. Gilmer.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110649, 2022-Ohio-821.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0183.  State v. Maldonado.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 108907, 2021-Ohio-1724 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No.  IV. 

 

2022-0203.  State v. Thompson.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109253, 2022-Ohio-376 .

 

2022-0274.  Staple v. Ravenna.  

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0070, 2022-Ohio-261 .

 

2022-0275.  State v. McClendon.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 111231.  Appellant’s motion for leave to attach motion to compel denied.

 Kennedy, J., would deny the motion as moot. 

 

2022-0282.  State v. Monebrake.   

Preble App. Nos. CA2021-04-004, CA2021-04-005, and CA2021-04-006, 2022-Ohio-246 .

 

2022-0283.  State v. Roper.  

Clermont App. No. CA2021-05-019, 2022-Ohio-244 .

 

2022-0284.  Heimann v. Heimann.  

Hancock App. No. 05-21-11, 2022-Ohio-241 .

 

2022-0288.  State v. Brantley.  

Hamilton App. No. C-210258, 2022-Ohio-597 .

 DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0290.  Brady v. Youngstown State Univ.   

Franklin App. No. 20AP-444, 2022-Ohio-353 .

 Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0293.  State v. Kirklin.  

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0089, 2022-Ohio-435 .

 

 

2022-0295.  Miami Valley Constr. Group, L.L.C. v. Thompson.  

Warren App. No. CA2021-03-024, 2021-Ohio-4358 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents.

 

2022-0301.  State v. Miller.  

Wood App. No. WD-20-047, 2021-Ohio-3381 .

 

2022-0320.  State v. Hughes.  

Butler App. No. CA2022-01-010.

 

2022-0324.  State v. Krowiak.  

Medina App. No. 21CA 0003-M.

 DeWine and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0326.  Robinson v. Schweitzer.  

Madison App. No. CA2021-08-015, 2022-Ohio-568.  Appellant’s motion for stay, motion for appointment of counsel, and motion for oral argument denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., would deny the motions as moot.

 Brunner, J., would deny the motion for stay and motion for oral argument as moot.

 

2022-0327.  State v. Denoma. 

Hamilton App. No. C-210450.

 DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0332.  Bacon v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid.  

Butler App. No. CA2020-11-112, 2021-Ohio-4537 .

 

2022-0345.  State v. Rowbotham.  

Mahoning App. No. 19 MA 0066, 2022-Ohio-926 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0348.  In re H.M.M. 

Hamilton App. No. C-210590, 2022-Ohio-473 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0822, In re K.K

Stewart, J., dissents. 

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

2022-0353.  State v. Gulley.  

Stark App. No. 06CA00114.  

 

2022-0374.  State v. Harris.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 111285.

 

2022-0384.  In re L.E.  

Richland App. Nos. 2021 CA 0025 through 2021 CA 0028.  

 

2022-0399.  State v. Charlton.  

Lorain App. No. 21CA011822.

 

2022-0405.  State v. Kendrick.  

Montgomery App. No. 29082, 2022-Ohio-634 .

 

2022-0410.  Britton v. Ciraldo.  

Summit App. No. 30062, 2022-Ohio-600 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0428.  State v. Kent.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109118, 2022-Ohio-834 .

 

2022-0442.  State v. Curtis.  

Brown App. No. CA2022-02-002.

 

2022-0450.  State v. Wallace.  

Mahoning App. No. 19 MA 0093, 2022-Ohio-1446 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment nunc pro tunc pursuant to State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 287, 2020-Ohio-4784, 162 N.E.3d 776.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-1448.  State ex rel. Dates v. Hamilton Cty. Common Pleas Court.  

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-798, 184 N.E.3d 120.  On affidavit application of writ of error and conflict of variance of law by beneficiary for the Carlean Dates estate and notice of interest.  Application denied.

 Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1569.  State ex rel. Bowie v. Bloom.  

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-798, 184 N.E.3d 124.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/02/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1871.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0667.  State ex rel. Miller v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of the answer, briefs, and evidence: Respondents shall file an answer to the complaint no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 3, 2022; relators shall file their brief and evidence no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 7, 2022; respondents shall file their brief and evidence no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 9, 2022; and relators may file a reply brief no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 10, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

June 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/02/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1835.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0742.  State v. Jackson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1823.

Hamilton App. No. C-200153, 2021-Ohio-1646.  Judgment vacated and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1272.  Rance v. Watson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1822.

Marion App. No. 9-21-22.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion to strike denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0836.  State ex rel. DeMarco v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-227, 2021-Ohio-1937.  On appellant’s motion to withdraw motion to terminate mediation.  Motion granted.  

 

2022-0376.  State ex rel. Foster v. Cuyahoga Cty.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s petition for habeas corpus demand for dismissal.  Petition stricken as untimely under Civ.R. 15(A).

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0660.  In re Bell.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Joseph Michael Bell, Attorney Registration No. 0095600, last known address in Warren, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/01/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1830.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0661.  State ex rel. DeMora v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of the answer, briefs, and evidence: respondents shall file an answer to the complaint no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 2, 2022; relators shall file their brief and evidence no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, June 6, 2022; respondents shall file their brief and evidence no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 8, 2022; and relators may file a reply brief no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, June 10, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

June 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 06/01/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1820.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0725.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1765.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted in part and denied in part.  Relator awarded statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.  Costs assessed to respondent.

DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., concurs for the reasons set forth in State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 165 Ohio St.3d 368, 2021-Ohio-1762, 179 N.E.3d 1150 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., concur in judgment only.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2021-1206.  State ex rel. White v. Aveni, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1755.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-103, 2021-Ohio-3159 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 31, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/31/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1791.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MAY 31, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the May 31, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2001-1208.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartsock, 166 Ohio St.3d 1247, 2022-Ohio-401.

 

2018-0809.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall, 166 Ohio St.3d 1240, 2021-Ohio-3605.

 

2020-1159.  State ex rel. Wood v. Rocky River, 166 Ohio St.3d 394, 2021-Ohio-3313.

 

2020-1242.  State v. Toles, 166 Ohio St.3d 397, 2021-Ohio-3531.

 

2021-0026.  State v. Kidd, 166 Ohio St.3d 423, 2022-Ohio-424.

 

2021-0151.  Barrow v. New Miami, 166 Ohio St.3d 423, 2022-Ohio-423.

 

2021-0395.  State ex rel. Powell v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 166 Ohio St.3d 406, 2021-Ohio-4030.

 

2021-0634.  State ex rel. Adams v. Winkler, 166 Ohio St.3d 412, 2022-Ohio-271.

 

2021-0770.  State ex rel. Duncan v. Am. Transm. Sys., Inc., 166 Ohio St.3d 416, 2022-Ohio-323.

 

2021-1326.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartley, 166 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2021-Ohio-3894.

 

2022-0072.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. James, 166 Ohio St.3d 1249, 2022-Ohio-402.

 

21-AP-144.  In re Disqualification of English, 166 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2021-Ohio-4670.

 

22-AP-003.  In re Disqualification of Ballard, 166 Ohio St.3d 1245, 2022-Ohio-775.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0533.  In re J.H., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1767.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109332, 2021-Ohio-700.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. 

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTIONS AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1323.  State v. Knuff.  

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-618285-A.  On appellant’s motion to appoint substitute counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0610.  State ex rel. Moscow v. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Prohibition and Mandamus.  On relators’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/27/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1790.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0616.  State v. Eaton.

Montgomery App. No. 29098, 2022-Ohio-1340.  On appellant’s motion to stay judgment of the court of appeals.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0618.  State v. Powell.

Montgomery App. No. 29097, 2022-Ohio-1343.  On appellant’s motion to stay judgment of the court of appeals.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 26, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/26/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1751.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1055.  State ex rel. Parker v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1730.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0038, 2021-Ohio-2739.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion to strike from the record appellee’s merit brief for noncompliance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03(B) denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1172.  In re J.F., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1731.

Jackson App. Nos. 21CA2 and 21CA3, 2021-Ohio-2713.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1413.  Payton v. Beathard.

In Procedendo.  Sua sponte, relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to perfect service in accordance with Civ.R. 4(E).

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0226.  State ex rel. Ware v. Fankhauser.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0056, 2022-Ohio-172.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0177.  Farmers Natl. Bank of Canfield v. Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0006, 2021-Ohio-4615.  On appellant’s motion to refer case to mediation.  Motion granted.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/25/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-1750.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193. League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for an order directing respondents to show cause for why they should not be held in contempt of the court’s April 14, 2022 order and second motion for an order directing respondents to show cause for why they should not be held in contempt of the court’s April 14, 2022 order.  Motions denied.

 Kennedy, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1198. Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for an order directing respondents to show cause, motion to schedule contempt hearing, and motion for attorney fees.  Motions denied.

 Kennedy, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1210. Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for an order directing respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.  Motion denied.

Kennedy, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

DeWine, J., not participating.

_________________

KENNEDY, J., concurring.

                        {¶ 1} I agree with the majority’s decision to deny petitioners’ motions for orders directing respondents, the Ohio Redistricting Commission and its individual members, Governor Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Auditor of State Keith Faber, Senator Robert McColley, Representative Jeffrey LaRe, Senator Vernon Sykes, and House Minority Leader Allison Russo, to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of this court’s April 14 order in League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1235, __ N.E.3d __ (“League IV”).  I write to explain why. Russo voted against it.  Petitioners in all three cases have filed objections to the readopted plan, and those objections have been addressed in a separate opinion, see League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1727, __ N.E.3d __ (“League V”).  In each of the three cases, the petitioners have also filed a motion for orders directing respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of this court’s April 14 order in League IV based on the commission’s readoption of Map 3.  The Bennett petitioners also seek an award of attorney fees for what they allege is respondents’ “bad faith” and “frivolous conduct” under R.C. 2323.51.  Respondents oppose the motions.

                        {¶ 5} This court does not have the power to hold the commission or its members in contempt.  “The separation-of-powers doctrine * * * precludes the judiciary from asserting control over ‘the performance of duties that are purely legislative in character and over which such legislative bodies have exclusive control.’ ”  Toledo v. State, 154 Ohio St.3d 41, 2018-Ohio-2358, 110 N.E.3d 1257, ¶ 27, quoting State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 633, 716 N.E.2d 704 (1999).  In Toledo, this court held that “separation-of-powers principles prevent the judiciary from enjoining the legislative branch of government from enacting laws.”  Id. at ¶ 25.

                        {¶ 6} Respondents argue that Toledo applies here because granting petitioners’ requested relief would be tantamount to exercising authority over the performance of legislative duties over which the commission has exclusive control under Article XI of the Ohio Constitution.  Petitioners argue, however, that separation-of-powers principles support finding the commission in contempt because of the commission’s “flagrant disregard” of this court’s rulings in these cases.  Moreover, petitioners argue that Article XI, Section 9(B) contemplates the exercise of judicial power over the commission, undermining the notion that legislative redistricting is within the commission’s “exclusive” control.

                        {¶ 7} Although Article XI, Section 9 contemplates a role for this court in the redistricting process, that role is limited to a judicial one: reviewing the plan adopted by the commission and determining whether it is constitutional, see Article XI, Section 9(B) and (D).  If a majority of this court determines (as it has four times before in these cases) that the commission’s plan does not comply with Article XI, then the remedy is for the commission to be reconstituted and to try again.  See Article XI, Section 9(B) and (D)(3).  And Article XI does not provide a mechanism to

                        end the process of redistricting other than the commission’s adoption of a plan and, if challenged, this court’s upholding of the plan as constitutional.  Accelerating the process through the imposition of contempt sanctions is not a course of action that Article XI, Section 9 contemplates.

                        {¶ 8} “Adherence to the defined roles of each branch is essential to the functioning of our representative democracy.  Therefore, maintaining respect for the enumerated powers granted expressly to the commission precludes this court from interfering with the exercise of those powers or attempting to supervise the commission’s work through the threat of contempt.”  League IV, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1235, __ N.E.3d __, at ¶ 97 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).  A majority of this court has set deadlines for the commission to perform its duties following the invalidation of the previous plans in these cases, and I have disagreed with the majority’s determination that this court retains jurisdiction after invalidating a plan.  See League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-342, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 130 (“League II”) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).  The setting of deadlines for the commission’s performance of acts that it is constitutionally committed to perform under Article XI, Section 9(B) is a far cry from what petitioners’ motions seek.  Petitioners’ motions to show cause go far beyond what Article XI empowers this court to do in its exercise of judicial authority.  What petitioners ask—that we hold the commission in contempt and levy sanctions that can be purged only by the adoption of a plan that meets this court’s approval—would require this court to “assert[] control over ‘the performance of duties that are purely legislative in character,’ ” Toledo, 154 Ohio St.3d 41, 2018-Ohio-2358, 110 N.E.3d 1257, at ¶ 27, quoting Grendell, 86 Ohio St.3d at 633, 716 N.E.2d 704.  In my view, this court should not enter that political thicket.

                        {¶ 9} This court had no authority to tell the commission whom to hire or how to do its work; therefore, it follows that the court cannot hold the commission in contempt.  Redistricting is a political process.  Article XI contains political solutions to political problems—for instance, a plan adopted without bipartisan support remains in place for only two election cycles rather than an entire decade.  Article XI never contemplated this court’s becoming a super-commission that would be the final arbiter of electoral fairness and diviner of the commission’s subjective intent.  Our role was to ensure that the objective line-drawing rules of Article XI, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 had been followed.  See Article XI, Section 9(D)(3).  It is because this court has

                        ignored the separation of powers set forth in Article XI that we stand where we are today: past the primary date with no General Assembly–district plan.

                        {¶ 10} Some petitioners ask the court to fine the individual members of the commission daily until a new plan is adopted.  Some of the other petitioners assert that any sanctions could be purged only if this court finds the plan constitutional.  However, as established above, contempt proceedings would run afoul of separation-of-powers principles.  Further, the very basis of contempt proceedings makes them inapplicable to the individual members of the commission.

                        {¶ 11} “ ‘The power of contempt is inherent in a court, such power being necessary to the exercise of judicial functions.’ ”  Toledo, 154 Ohio St.3d 41, 2018-Ohio-2358, 110 N.E.3d 1257, at ¶ 22, quoting Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14, 15, 520 N.E.2d 1362 (1988).  A court’s “ ‘authority and proper functioning’ ” is the “ ‘primary interest involved in a contempt proceeding.’ ”  Id., quoting Denovchek at 16.  Therefore, a court may hold a litigant in contempt for conduct that “ ‘ “brings the administration of justice into disrespect, or which tends to embarrass, impede or obstruct a court in the performance of its functions,” ’ ” id., quoting Denovchek at 15, quoting Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55, 271 N.E.2d 815 (1971), paragraph one of the syllabus.

                        {¶ 12} “ ‘If a valid restrictive order has been issued, a court has the statutory and inherent power to entertain contempt proceedings and punish disobedience of that order.’ ”  Toledo at ¶ 23, quoting Planned Parenthood Assn. of Cincinnati, Inc. v. Project Jericho, 52 Ohio St.3d 56, 61, 556 N.E.2d 157 (1990).  “But a court order cannot be enforced in contempt unless the order was ‘clear and definite, unambiguous, and not subject to dual interpretations.’ ”  Id., quoting State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter, 138 Ohio St.3d 51, 2013-Ohio-5614, 3 N.E.3d 179, ¶ 25.

                        {¶ 13} The order at issue here does not clearly and definitely address the individual members of the commission.  None of the petitioners dispute that League IV’s order for the commission to be reconstituted and adopt an entirely new General Assembly–district plan was directed only at the commission.  The Bennett and Ohio Organizing Collaborative petitioners contend, however, that the individual commissioners may be held in contempt because Ohio courts have recognized the power of a court to hold in contempt anyone who takes actions in defiance of an order.  See, e.g., State ex rel. DeWine v. C & D Disposal Technologies, 2016-Ohio-476, 58 N.E.3d 614, ¶ 21 (7th Dist.) (contemnor was managing member of the corporations bound by the order).  And in this case, the individual respondents are parties to this action as

                        members of the commission.  However, petitioners have not cited a case in which this court has held that individual members of a state legislative body can be held in contempt for the body’s failure to comply with a court order.  Moreover, holding individual members in contempt is problematic because no single member of the commission has the power to bind the commission or act (much less adopt a district plan) on behalf of the commission.  The commission can adopt a General Assembly–district plan only by majority vote.  See Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 1(B)(1).

                        {¶ 14} Relatedly, for a civil-contempt sanction to be proper, a contemnor must have the opportunity to purge himself of contempt through compliance with the court’s order.  See Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250, 253, 416 N.E.2d 610 (1980) (“The contemnor is said to carry the keys of his prison in his own pocket”).  As noted above, some petitioners seek to hold the individual members in contempt and propose that they may purge the contempt by adopting a constitutional plan.  And some other petitioners propose fines of $10,000 per contemnor per day until the commission adopts a constitutional plan.  None of the individual commission members, however, has authority to control the commission.  Therefore, the individual members do not carry the keys of their prison in their own pockets with respect to the proposed purge conditions.  Whether the contempt is purged depends not on the acts of the contemnor but on the acts of the commission as a whole.

                        {¶ 15} Therefore, for the above reasons, I agree with this court’s decision to deny petitioners’ motions to show cause as to the individual members of the commission.

                        {¶ 16} This court has the authority under Article XI, Section 9(D) to invalidate a redistricting plan only if it violates the objective map-drawing requirements set forth in Article XI, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7.  League III, at ¶ 118 (Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissenting).  The majority has found no such violation with regard to Map 3—either on its first adoption on February 24, 2022, or on its readoption on May 5, 2022.  Therefore, because the majority invalidated Map 3 without constitutional authority, neither the commission nor its individual members can be held in contempt for readopting it.

                        {¶ 17} For all the above reasons, I agree with the majority’s decision to deny the petitioners’ motions for orders directing respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.

 

{¶ 2} In League IV, a majority of this court invalidated the commission’s fourth General Assembly–district plan and ordered the commission “to be reconstituted, to convene, and to draft and adopt an entirely new General Assembly–district plan that meets the requirements of the Ohio Constitution, including Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B) as [the majority had] explained those provisions in each of [its] four decisions in these cases.”  Id. at ¶ 78.  The majority further ordered the commission to file the new district plan with the secretary of state by 9:00 a.m. on May 6, 2022, and to file it with this court by noon on the same date.  Id. at ¶ 79.

{¶ 3} In a parallel matter in a federal district court, a three-judge panel announced on April 20, 2022, that if the commission did not adopt a plan by May 28, 2022, the federal court would order a primary election to be held on August 2, 2022, and would order that a map previously rejected by a majority of this court be used to define the districts of members of the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate for the 2022 election cycle.  See Gonidakis v. LaRose, S.D.Ohio No. 2:22-cv-0773, 2022 WL 1175617, *30 (Apr. 20, 2022).  The map the district court would impose is the General Assembly–district plan adopted on February 24, 2022 (“Map 3”), id., which is the same plan a majority of this court found unconstitutional in League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-789, __ N.E.3d __ (“League III”).

{¶ 4} On May 5, 2022, the commission voted four to three to readopt Map 3.  The four members in favor of readoption of Map 3 were Governor DeWine, Secretary LaRose, Senator McColley, and Representative LaRe.  Auditor Faber, Senator Sykes, and House Minority Leader

 

This court lacks the power to declare the commission to be in contempt

 

This court has no contempt powers over the individual members of the commission

When a plan is not challenged under Article XI, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7, no order of contempt can issue

Conclusion

_________________

FISCHER, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 18} I concur in this court’s judgments denying the petitioners’ show-cause and related motions in these cases, and I join paragraphs 1 through 7 of the other concurring opinion concerning those motions.  I write separately to emphasize two points.

2                    {¶ 19} First, the petitioners in these cases are trying to do what legislative immunity forbids: hold certain individual members of respondent Ohio Redistricting Commission individually liable for their legislative actions.

3                    {¶ 20} For example, in arguing against the applicability of legislative immunity, the petitioners in Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. (Supreme Court case No. 2021-1210) (“OOC petitioners”) argue that the commission is not a legislative body and should not be treated like one.  They argue that the commission “is an agency created by the Ohio Constitution for the limited purpose of drawing General Assembly districts consistent with the affirmative commands of Article XI and congressional districts consistent with Article XIX.”  They characterize the commission’s function as “remedial” rather than legislative.

4                    {¶ 21} This court correctly rejects the OOC petitioners’ argument.  In League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-65, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 76, 79 (“League I”), this court affirmed the principle that legislative apportionment “is a legislative task,” albeit one now delegated to the commission under Article XI of the Ohio Constitution.  See also Wilson v. Kasich, 134 Ohio St.3d 221, 2012-Ohio-5367, 981 N.E.2d 814, ¶ 18-24.  The Ohio Constitution’s committal of the apportionment task to a constitutionally created body rather than to the General Assembly does not make the task any less legislative.  It simply means that the Ohio Constitution delegates this discrete legislative function to the commission.  See League I at ¶ 79.

5                    {¶ 22} The United States Supreme Court has strongly cautioned courts against sanctioning individual legislators:

 

 

The imposition of sanctions on individual legislators is designed to cause them to vote, not with a view to the interest of their constituents or of the city, but with a view solely to their own personal interests.  Even though an individual legislator took the extreme position—or felt that his constituents took the extreme position—that even a huge fine against the city was preferable to enacting the Affordable Housing Ordinance, monetary sanctions against him individually would motivate him to vote to enact the ordinance simply because he did not want to be out of pocket financially.  Such fines thus encourage legislators, in effect, to declare that they favor an ordinance not in order to avoid bankrupting the city for which they legislate, but in order to avoid bankrupting themselves.

 This sort of individual sanction effects a much greater perversion of the normal legislative process than does the imposition of sanctions on the city for the failure of these same legislators to enact an ordinance.  In that case, the legislator is only encouraged to vote in favor of an ordinance that he would not otherwise favor by reason of the adverse sanctions imposed on the city.  A councilman who felt that his constituents would rather have the city enact the Affordable Housing Ordinance than pay a “bankrupting fine” would be motivated to vote in favor of such an ordinance because the sanctions were a threat to the fiscal solvency of the city for whose welfare he was in part responsible.  This is the sort of calculus in which legislators engage regularly.

 

 Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 279-280, 110 S.Ct. 625, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990).  Based on this reasoning, the United States Supreme Court reversed a contempt finding against city council members who had voted against a resolution of intent to adopt a housing-assistance ordinance, despite the existence of a federal district-court order compelling the city to adopt such an ordinance.  Id. at 271-272, 280.

1                    {¶ 23} Through their requests for contempt sanctions against the individual respondents, petitioners attempt to accomplish indirectly what legislative immunity forbids them from accomplishing directly: imposing sanctions against individual legislative officers for their legislative actions.  This court must and does deny petitioners’ motions as to the individual respondents.

 

1                    {¶ 24} Second, I write once again, see League of Women Voters v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 166 Ohio St.3d 1444, 2022-Ohio-957, 184 N.E.3d 133, ¶ 1-6 (Fischer, J., concurring), to remind all counsel not to file baseless motions.  The petitioners in Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. (Supreme Court case No. 2021-1198) seek an award of attorney fees under R.C. 2323.51 for alleged frivolous conduct or bad faith on the part of the commission, and they ask this court to set a hearing on their request for attorney fees for the same time as a contempt hearing.  As set forth in this court’s judgment entries and for the reasons stated above and in the other concurring opinion, the petitioners in these cases are not entitled to the relief they seek in their motions to show cause.  Thus, there is no predicate bad faith or frivolous conduct upon which to base a motion for attorney fees under R.C. 2323.51.  Additionally, and more significantly, the Bennett petitioners do not explain how R.C. 2323.51 applies here.  That statute applies only to “civil action[s].”  This proceeding is not a civil action as that term is understood in Ohio jurisprudence.  See In re Wyckoff’s Estate, 166 Ohio St. 354, 357, 142 N.E.2d 660 (1957) (the term “civil action” means actions at law or suits in equity).  Rather, it is a special proceeding.  See Wilson, 134 Ohio St.3d 221, 2012-Ohio-5367, 981 N.E.2d 814, at ¶ 43.

2                    {¶ 25} The bottom line is that baseless motions requesting attorney fees should not be filed, or opposing parties may, in turn, decide to seek their own awards of attorney fees.  As the colloquial phrase goes: “People in glass houses should not throw stones.”  Quality lawyering avoids wasting judicial resources, and the petitioners should refrain from doing the same.

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/25/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-1749.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1727.

On complaints invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ objections to the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s May 6, 2022 resubmission of the invalidated February 24, 2022 plan and “objections to the already-invalidated February 24, 2022 plan, re-adopted May 5, 2022, and request for immediate relief.”  Objections  sustained.  Plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission on May 5, 2022, declared invalid in its entirety.  The Ohio Redistricting Commission shall be reconstituted to convene and to draft and adopt an entirely new General Assembly–district plan that meets the requirements of the Ohio Constitution, including Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B).

 The Ohio Redistricting Commission shall file the district plan with the secretary of state no later than 9:00 a.m. on June 3, 2022, and in this court by 12:00 p.m. on the same date.  This court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of reviewing the new plan.

 Petitioners shall file objections, if any, to the new plan, by 12:00 p.m. on June 7, 2022.  Respondents shall file responses, if any, by 12:00 p.m. on June 9, 2022.  Petitioners shall not file a reply or any motion for leave to file a reply.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to accept any filings under this paragraph that are untimely or prohibited.

 No requests or stipulations for extension of time for the objections or responses shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  For good cause shown, the Ohio Redistricting

Commission may file a motion for extension of time to file the district plan with the secretary of state.

 Petitioners’ request for additional relief denied.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/25/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1737.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1033.  State v. Gwynne.

Delaware App. No. 16 CAA12 0056, 2021-Ohio-2378.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On joint motion by the League of Women Voters of Ohio petitioners, the Neiman petitioners, and respondents President of the Senate Huffman and Speaker of the House Cupp to correct the evidentiary record.  Motion granted.

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On joint motion by the League of Women Voters of Ohio petitioners, the Neiman petitioners, and respondents President of the Senate Huffman and Speaker of the House Cupp to correct the evidentiary record.  Motion granted.

 

2022-0583.  Gibson Bros., Inc. v. Oberlin College.

Lorain App. Nos. 19CA011563 and 20CA011632, 2022-Ohio-1079.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Jessica Ring Amunson, Seth D. Berlin, Deanna Krokos, and Joseph Slaughter.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0383.  State ex rel. Yost v. Tone.

Erie App. No. {22}E-22-012.  On appellant’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/25/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1652.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1032.  Lundeen v. Turner, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1709.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109240.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1386.  In re Jabbar v. Nagel.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ notice of status of federal proceedings and request to remove this action from the court’s docket.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0130.  State ex rel. Hopkins v. Mason Mun. Court.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

2022-0234.  Barry v. Celebrezze.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0241.  State ex rel. Sheppard v. Hamilton Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0258.  State ex rel. Martinez-Castro v. Callahan.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0260.  State ex rel. Moses v. Sweeney.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0268.  State ex rel. Pinckney v. Walsh.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for standby counsel.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion to pause mandamus complaint, “motion to unpause and continue pro se,” and motion asking for relief denied.  Respondent’s motion for judgment on pleadings granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0271.  Justice v. State.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.   Relator’s “objections to David Young’s and Mary Ellen O’Shaughnessy’s appointment of counsel motion/petition to correct” denied.  Respondents’ motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0272.  Jones v. Pureval.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., would deny the motion and would sua sponte dismiss the cause for failure to state a claim.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0273.  Justice v. State.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s “objections to David Young’s appointment of counsel motion/petition to correct” denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0299.  Brigner v. Lang.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1250.  Fluty v. Raiff.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to amend verified petition for a writ of mandamus.  Motion granted.

 

2022-0180.  Byrd v. Newark.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00052, 2021-Ohio-3886.  On appellant’s “objection and request for findings to the court’s March 29, 2022 entry,” “objection and motion for findings to the court’s March 29, 2022, entry,” and requests for en banc review.  Objections and requests denied. 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/24/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1714.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0674.  State ex rel. Ugicom Ents., Inc. v. Morrison, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1689.

Franklin App. No. 17AP-895, 2021-Ohio-1269 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0611.  In re Goodman.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Amber Renee Goodman, Attorney Registration No. 0096383, last known business address in Lima, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/24/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1687.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0352.  Hicks v. Greene Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0354.  Marshall v. Hilderbrand.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0355.  State ex rel. Peterson v. Foley.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion for leave to supplement the petition for writ of habeas corpus.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., would deny the motion as moot. 

 

2022-0357.  Wright v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2022-0375.  Thomas v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0386.  McKenna v. Coury.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0387.  Potts v. Medina.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0300.  State v. Barron.

Warren App. No. CA2020-12-088, 2022-Ohio-102.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2022-0317.  State v. Good.

Auglaize App. No. 2-21-02, 2021-Ohio-4560.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0341.  State v. Green.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110105, 2022-Ohio-682.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1580.  State v. Moore.

Montgomery App. No. 28640, 2021-Ohio-1114 .

 

2022-0222.  State v. Vanwinkle.

Miami App. No. 2021-CA-3, 2021-Ohio-3849 .

 

2022-0223.  State v. Myers.

Wood App. No. WD-15-017, 2016-Ohio-223 .

 

2022-0225.  State v. Cook.

Union App. No. 14-21-09, 2022-Ohio-97 .

 

2022-0227.  Columbus v. ACM Vision V, L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-436.

 

2022-0229.  State v. Quinn.

Clark App. No. 2020-CA-47, 2022-Ohio-214 .

 

2022-0235.  State v. Lusane.

Portage App. No. 2014-P-0057, 2016-Ohio-267 .

 

2022-0238.  Altman v. Parker.

Hamilton App. No. C-210177, 2022-Ohio-142 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0239.  Ridge-Pleasant Valley, Inc. v. Navin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109777, 2022-Ohio-130 .

 

2022-0247.  Myles v. Ohio Atty. Gen.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-464.

 

2022-0251.  State v. Boyce.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-313.

 

2022-0252.  State v. Evick.

Clinton App. No. CA2019-05-010, 2020-Ohio-3072 .

 

2022-0256.  Gangale v. Coyne.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110772, 2022-Ohio-196 .

 

2022-0266.  State v. Christy.

Fairfield App. No. 22CA01.  Appellee’s motion to strike denied as moot.

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would appoint counsel and would deny the motion.

 

2022-0280.  In re S.A.

Muskingum App. No. CT2021-0034, 2022-Ohio-265 .

 

2022-0289.  State v. Martinez.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1120, 2022-Ohio-404 .

 

2022-0305.  State v. Brown.

Montgomery App. No. 21540.

 

2022-0331.  State v. Simpson.

Greene App. No. 2020-CA-38, 2021-Ohio-2700 .

 

2022-0356.  State v. McKnight.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-595, 2022-Ohio-591 .

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2020-0648.  State v. Bethel.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-324, 2020-Ohio-1343 .  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2021-Ohio-783, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1568.  State v. Brown.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1440, 2022-Ohio-792, 184 N.E.3d 121.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1589.  State v. Daniels.

Licking App. No. 21CA0025.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1428, 2022-Ohio-743, 184 N.E.3d 104.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0009.  Williams v. Warden.

In Procedendo.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2022-Ohio-797, 184 N.E.3d 116.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY MATTERS

 

2022-0362.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Wells.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-035.  Lisa Marie Wells, Attorney Registration No. 0076255, last known business address in Independence, Kentucky, suspended from the practice of law for two years, with credit for the time served under the December 10, 2019 interim felony suspension. 

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0365.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Jancura.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-24.  Scott Edward Jancura, Attorney Registration No. 0064763, last known business address in Sheffield Lake, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for six months, conditionally stayed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 20, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/20/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1688.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1473.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co. for Significantly Excessive Earnings Test.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 19-1121-EL-UNC, 20-1041-EL-UNC, 20-680-EL-UNC, 18-1875-EL-GRD, 18-1876-EL-WVR, and 18-1877-EL-AAM.  On appellant-cross-appellee Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel’s motion to strike nonrecord materials from cross-appellant’s second merit brief.  Motion granted.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would defer the question whether to consider the contested information.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/18/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1650.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0823.  State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1627.

Summit App. No. 29622, 2021-Ohio-2025.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded.

 Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., concurs, with an opinion.

 Kennedy, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 DeWine, J., concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons stated in Justice Kennedy’s opinion and in State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Byrd, 160 Ohio St.3d 141, 2020-Ohio-2766, 154 N.E.3d 57, ¶ 60-68 (DeWine, J., concurring in judgment only in part and dissenting in part).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0967.  State v. Martin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108996, 2021-Ohio-1096.  On motion of amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General, for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General, shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2022-0205.  State v. Green.

Summit App. No. 29770, 2021-Ohio-2912.  Sua sponte, appellee permitted to a file a memorandum in response to appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2020-1335.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Atkins.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, James Benjamin Atkins, Attorney Registration No. 0093208, last known business address in Buffalo, West Virginia.  Application granted.  James Benjamin Atkins reinstated to the practice of law.

 

2021-1251.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rumes.

Sua sponte, Kevin Wayne Rumes, Attorney Registration No. 0067764, last known business address in Brunswick, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before April 13, 2022.

 

2022-0181.  In re Resignation of Barbera.

Sua sponte, Richard Barbera, Attorney Registration No. 0064044, last known business address in Medina, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before April 13, 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 17, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/17/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1640.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0794.  State v. Fuell, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1607.

Clermont App. No. CA2020-02-008, 2021-Ohio-1627.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Kimberly Plumer, Alexandra Widas, and Janelle Lamb.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLAEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0240.  State ex rel. Peaspanen v. Ashtabula Cty. Auditor’s Office.

Ashtabula App. No. 2020-A-0052, 2022-Ohio-166.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due May 12, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/16/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1624.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MAY 16, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the May 16, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1490.  State ex rel. T.S. Trim Industries, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 166 Ohio St.3d 297, 2021-Ohio-2709.

 

2020-0495.  State v. Jordan, 166 Ohio St.3d 339, 2021-Ohio-3922.

 

2020-0819.  State v. Leyh, 166 Ohio St.3d 365, 2022-Ohio-292.

 

2020-0931.  Lamar Advantage GP Co., L.L.C. v. Cincinnati, 166 Ohio St.3d 319, 2021-Ohio-3155.

 

2021-0047 and 2021-0169.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan, 163 Ohio St.3d 382, 2022-Ohio-448.

 

2021-0102.  State ex rel. Welt v. Doherty, 166 Ohio St.3d 305, 2021-Ohio-3124.

 

2021-0166.  Humphrey v. Bracy, 166 Ohio St.3d 334, 2021-Ohio-3836.

 

2021-0199.  DeVore v. Black, 166 Ohio St.3d 311, 2021-Ohio-3153.

 

2021-0763.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Ludwig, 166 Ohio St.3d 358, 2021-Ohio-3971.

 

2022-0127.  In re Poole, 166 Ohio St.3d 1237, 2022-Ohio-312.

 

21-AP-132.  In re Disqualification of Halliday, 166 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2021-Ohio-4481.

 

21-AP-138.  In re Disqualification of Pokorny, 166 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2021-Ohio-4488.

 

21-AP-160.  In re Disqualification of Giulitto, 166 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2022-Ohio-749.

 

21-AP-162.  In re Disqualification of Floyd, 166 Ohio St.3d 1235, 2022-Ohio-750.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0574.  Furr v. Ruehlman.

Hamilton App. No. C-220122.  On memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  This case originated in the court of appeals and therefore should proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.01.  The clerk shall issue an order for the transmission of the record from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0419.  In re Resignation of Dougherty.

On application for retirement or resignation of Timothy Dougherty, Attorney Registration No. 0064500, last known business address in Las Cruces, New Mexico.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/13/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1606.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0164.  State v. Polizzi.

Lake App. Nos. 2020-L-016 and 2020-L-017, 2021-Ohio-244 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion. 

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I, II, IV, and V.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} This case is yet another example of the alarming nonexistence of appellate review of criminal sentences in Ohio.

2                    {¶ 2} The Eleventh District Court of Appeals had vacated appellant Anthony J. Polizzi Jr.’s sentence primarily because the record did not support the trial court’s decision to consecutively run maximum sentences for every single one of Polizzi’s eight low-level felony sex offenses and ultimately sentence him to 33 years in prison, far in excess of the state’s requested 20-year sentence.  State v. Polizzi, 11th Dist. Nos. 2018-L-063 and 2018-L-064, 2019-Ohio-2505.  On remand, the trial court knocked a few months off each sentence and again ran them all consecutively for a total of close to 30 years based on findings that were identical to its original decision.  See 2021-Ohio-244, ¶ 17, 25.  In reviewing the trial court’s revised sentencing entry, the appellate court noted that the trial court failed to follow the law of the case regarding consecutive sentencing but concluded there was nothing it could do in light of the intervening decisions in State v. Gwynne, 158 Ohio St.3d 279, 2019-Ohio-4761, 141 N.E.3d 169, and State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649.

 

1                    {¶ 3} On reconsideration, the appellate court acknowledged that Gwynne and Jones were not intervening decisions, because they addressed sentencing decisions made under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, while this case involved consecutive-sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.14(C).  2021-Ohio-244 at ¶ 87-88.  Nonetheless, the appellate court held that the trial court’s second sentencing decision—previously characterized as noncompliant with the appellate court’s mandate regarding consecutive sentencing—somehow actually did comply with the appellate court’s mandate.  Id. at ¶ 98.  The appellate court held that there were at least some findings that supported the trial court’s decision to run sentences consecutively and that it was not within the appellate court’s purview to determine whether only a portion of those sentences should be consecutive, because such a determination would constitute a reweighing of the facts.  Id. at ¶ 99.

2                    {¶ 4} Dissenting in part, one appellate judge opined that an appellate court does not improperly reweigh facts when overturning a decision to run two sentences consecutively any more than it does when overturning a wholesale decision to run a large group of sentences consecutively.  Id. at ¶ 107 (Wright, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).  There is no law that says review of consecutive sentencing is an all-or-nothing decision.  Further, the appellate judge who dissented in part contended that the proportionality analysis for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) must be applied as each link along the chain of multiple sentences is added because, under R.C. 2929.41(A), the default for each sentence is for it to run concurrently.  As the chain gets longer, “the bar for each succeeding consecutive sentence is raised, and it becomes increasingly difficult to satisfy the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) criteria.”  Id. at ¶ 110 (Wright, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

3                    {¶ 5} This appeal provides the court with a clear, straightforward opportunity to determine how appellate review of the links between consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and 2953.08(G)(2)(a) can be squared with this court’s logic in Gwynne and Jones.  By passing on the opportunity, this court is giving a pass to a method of consecutive-sentencing review that is just as hollow and toothless as our current standards for reviewing individual sentences.

4                    {¶ 6} Any semblance of meaningful appellate review of criminal sentences is further decimated each time this court declines to accept jurisdiction in one of these cases.  Appellate review is an important check on the system.  The public needs to know that our criminal justice system operates in a way that promotes enormous sentencing disparities from courtroom to

 

1                    courtroom by telling trial-court judges that they should just trust their guts when resolving the rapid-fire, high-volume stream of sentencing matters that come before them on a daily basis and then telling appellate-court judges that there is nothing they can do when reviewing sentences on appeal.  The problems exemplified by this case need to be brought to light.  Because I believe this court should accept jurisdiction over Polizzi’s appeal, I dissent.

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/13/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1605.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0334.  State ex rel. Clark v. Perk.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 12, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/12/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1584.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2019-0926.  State v. McAlpin, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1567.

Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-623243.  Judgment affirmed.  Sentence ordered to be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the deputy warden on Tuesday, May 19, 2026.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 

2021-0691.  State v. Lewis, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1570.

Knox App. No. 20CA000013, 2021-Ohio-1360.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0555.  State v. Wade.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-049, 2022-Ohio-1006.  Sua sponte, pages 18 through 20, exclusive of the certificate of service, of appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (requiring that a memorandum “not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and the certificate of service”).

 

 

2022-0557.  State ex rel. Givens v. Shadyside.

Belmont App. No. 21 BE 0027, 2022-Ohio-1051.  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 19 of appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (requiring that a memorandum “not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and the certificate of service”).

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/11/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-1576.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1473.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co. for Significantly Excessive Earnings Test.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 19-1121-EL-UNC, 20-1041-EL-UNC, 20-680-EL-UNC, 18-1875-EL-GRD, 18-1876-EL-WVR, and 18-1877-EL-AAM.  Sua sponte, responses, if any, to appellant/cross-appellee Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel’s motion to strike nonrecord materials from cross-appellant’s second merit brief ordered to be filed no later than Monday, May 16, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/11/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-1575.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ second motion for an order directing respondents to show cause for why they should not be held in contempt of the court’s April 14, 2022 order.  Sua sponte, responses, if any, ordered to be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 12, 2022.  The clerk shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0128.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Owens.

Sua sponte, Robert Morris Owens, Attorney Registration No. 0069866, last known business address in Delaware, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before April 4, 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/11/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1558.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0190.  State ex rel. Smith v. Tenth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

_________________

FISCHER, J., concurring.

                        {¶ 1} I concur in this court’s decision to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint in this case.  I write separately, however, to stress the fundamental principle that a court is not sui juris and therefore cannot be sued.  See State ex rel. Armatas v. Fifth Dist. Court of Appeals, 158 Ohio St.3d 1516, 2020-Ohio-2976, 145 N.E.3d 305. Cleveland Mun. Court v. Cleveland City Council, 34 Ohio St.2d 120, 121, 296 N.E.2d 544 (1973).

                        {¶ 4} Because Smith can identify no express statutory authority permitting an Ohio appellate court to be sued, this court cannot issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Tenth District to act in a certain manner.

                        {¶ 5} I accordingly concur in this court’s judgment granting the Tenth District’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

 

{¶ 2} “ ‘A court is not a judge, nor a judge a court.’ ”  Todd v. United States, 158 U.S. 278, 284, 15 S.Ct. 889, 39 L.Ed. 982 (1895), quoting United States v. Clark, 25 F.Cas. 441, 442 (C.C.Mass.1813).  “ ‘A court is defined to be a place in which justice is judicially administered.’ ”  Id., quoting Clark at 442.

{¶ 3} In his complaint, relator, Thomas Smith, asks us to issue a writ of mandamus compelling respondent, the Tenth District Court of Appeals, to require all three of the judges on the panel in his direct appeal to sign the court’s October 19, 2010 decision in that case and to have a judge sign the court’s January 25, 2022 journal entry in the case.  However, “[a]bsent express statutory authority, a court can neither sue nor be sued in its own right.”  State ex rel.

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/11/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1484.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0978.  State v. West, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1556.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-90, 2020-Ohio-3434 .  Judgment affirmed.

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., concurs in judgment only.

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2021-0646.  State ex rel. Mango v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1559.

Franklin App. No. 18AP-945, 2021-Ohio-1314 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0199.  State ex rel. Lockhart v. Gormley.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2022-0207.  Williams v. Fuerst.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0218.  State ex rel. Pinckney v. Jones.

In Mandamus.  On  respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for standby counsel and “motion to pause mandamus complaint” denied.  Relator’s motion to continue to pro se and “motion to unpause and continue to pro se” denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0220.  State ex rel. Adams v. Branch.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2022-0236.  State ex rel. Brady v. Kohlrieser.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0237.  Snowden v. McKay.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1194.  State ex rel. Russell v. Klatt.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-264.  On appellant’s motion for relief from judgment or order.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0110.  Silver v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion for discharge.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0347.  State v. Diluzio.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-087, 2022-Ohio-169.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that no conflict exists.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0228.  State v. Diluzio.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-087, 2022-Ohio-169.  Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause remanded to the court of appeals for proceedings consistent with State v. Maddox, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-764, __ N.E.3d __.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0131.  State v. Garcia.

Ashtabula App. Nos. 2020-CA-0034 and 2020-CA-0035.

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I and would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0670, State v. Burns.

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II and would hold the cause for the decision in Burns.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/10/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-1574.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for an order directing respondents to show cause, motion to schedule contempt hearing, and motion for attorney fees.  Sua sponte, any responses ordered to be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 12, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.   On petitioners’ motion for an order directing respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.  Sua sponte, any responses ordered to be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 12, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/10/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1557.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0797.  State v. Crawford, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1509.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108431, 2020-Ohio-2939 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart and Brunner, JJ.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0217.  In re E.G.

Muskingum App. No. CT2021-0070.  On appellant’s motion for stay of execution and emergency motion for intervention.  Motions denied as moot.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2017-0359.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Lech.

On application for termination of probation by respondent, Robert Raymond Lech, Attorney Registration No. 0073078, last known business address in Dublin, Ohio.  Respondent has substantially complied with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D) and with this court’s order dated June 6, 2017, reinstating respondent to the practice of law and ordering him to serve two years of probation that would be satisfied by his compliance with the probation imposed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Probation of Robert Raymond Lech terminated.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The following case has been returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.

 

2022-0340.  State ex rel. Kidd v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-364, 2022-Ohio-450.  Appellant shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.  As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, this court may dismiss this case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/10/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1485.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0287.  Valentine v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0306.  Grinnell v. Cool.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0330.  Gross v. Hill.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0257.  State v. Reeder.

Allen App. Nos. 1-21-08, 1-21-09, and 1-21-10, 2021-Ohio-4558.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0328.  State v. Whetstone.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109671, 2022-Ohio-800.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Fischer, J., would not hold the cause.

 Donnelly, J., dissents.

 

2022-0335.  State v. Delvallie.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 Fischer, J., would not hold the cause.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1450.  State v. Ladson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 105914, 2018-Ohio-1299 .

 

2021-1523.  State v. Osborne.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110237, 2021-Ohio-3352 .

 

2022-0020.  State v. Monaco.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2021 AP 01 0002, 2021-Ohio-3888 .

 

2022-0098.  Cach, L.L.C. v. Young.

Mahoning App. Nos. 15 MA 0176 and 15 MA 0177, 2021-Ohio-4638.  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., would accept the appeal.

Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II and would accept the cross-appeal on proposition of law No. I.

 

2022-0163.  Iacona v. Iacona.

Geauga App. No. 2020-G-0270, 2021-Ohio-4616 .

 

2022-0192.  Heiland v. Heiland.

Medina App. No. 21CA0035-M.

 

 

2022-0195.  State v. Craig.

Wood App. No. WD-20-034, 2021-Ohio-2790 .

 

2022-0197.  State v. Monaco.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2021 AP 01 0002, 2021-Ohio-3888 .

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III and would appoint counsel.

 

2022-0198.  State v. Inabnitt.

Warren App. No. CA2021-02-013, 2022-Ohio-53 .

 

2022-0202.  Dovetail Energy, L.L.C. v. Bath Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals.

Greene App. No. 2021-CA-15, 2022-Ohio-92 .

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0206.  State v. Young.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109169, 2022-Ohio-308 .

 

2022-0208.  State v. Lusane.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0011, 2021-Ohio-4262 .

 

2022-0210.  State v. Lewis.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110448, 2022-Ohio-70 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0211.  State v. Iden.

Muskingum App. No. CT2019-04.

 

2022-0213.  Neal v. Lilly.

Montgomery App. No. 29117, 2022-Ohio-410 .

 

2022-0214.  Adams v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-200173, 2022-Ohio-60 .

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0215.  Riley v. Riley.

Perry App. No. 21 CA 00004, 2022-Ohio-67 .

 

 

 

2022-0216.  Steffen v. Steffen.

Lorain App. No. 20CA011637, 2021-Ohio-3277 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0243.  Blanchard v. Blanchard.

Ashtabula App. No. 2021-A-0003, 2022-Ohio-162 .

 

2022-0246.  State v. Wampler.

Montgomery App. No. 7965.

 

2022-0249.  State v. Russell.

Montgomery App. No. 29177, 2022-Ohio-285 .

 

2022-0276.  State v. Zappa.

Summit App. No. 20AP0025, 2022-Ohio-243 .

 

2022-0277.  State v. Martin.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 044, 2022-Ohio-367 .

 

2022-0286.  State v. White.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-406.

 

2022-0291.  State v. Pittman.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110272, 2022-Ohio-300 .

 

2022-0292.  State v. Simpson.

Lucas App. No. L-22-1023.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0325.  State v. Martinez-Castro.

Lorain App. No. 18CA011361, 2019-Ohio-1155 .

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-1522.  Verbillion v. Enon Sand & Gravel, L.L.C.

Clark App. No. 2021-CA-1, 2021-Ohio-3850.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1414, 2022-Ohio-554, 181 N.E.3d 1209.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1534.  Columbus v. Wynn.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-479, 2021-Ohio-3934.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1414, 2022-Ohio-554, 181 N.E.3d 1210.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1566.  Solon v. Solon.

Stark App. No. 2020CA00116.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1415, 2022-Ohio-554, 181 N.E.3d 1214.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0010.  Beckett v. Rosza.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0003, 2021-Ohio-4298.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1415, 2022-Ohio-554, 181 N.E.3d 1215.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 9, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/09/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1538.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0397.  Pope v. Bracy.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0053, 2022-Ohio-1013.  On appellant’s motion to correct prior filing pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.13.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 6, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/06/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1517.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1064.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to have the court hold respondent in contempt of court’s order.  Motion denied in accordance with relator’s April 22, 2022 notification that the motion was misfiled in this matter.

 

2022-0421.  State ex rel. Brafford v. Brown.

In Prohibition and Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to file under seal.  Motion granted.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0329.  Disciplinary Counsel v. DiLeone.

On certified order of the North Carolina State Bar, No. 20G0639.  Ralph Joseph DiLeone, Attorney Registration No. 0010900, last known business address in Raleigh, North Carolina, publicly reprimanded.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-0999.  State ex rel. House v. Dir. of Job & Family Servs.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a notice of failure of settlement or application for dismissal, due April 25, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0140.  State v. Richardson.

Trumbull App. No. 2020-T-0037, 2021-Ohio-3482.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due April 28, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 5, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/05/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1483.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0266.  State v. Moore, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1460.

Erie App. No. E-18-064, 2020-Ohio-6781 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Rishi Gupta.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 4, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/04/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1474.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1111.  State v. Hudson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1435.

Mahoning App. No. 17 MA 0080, 2020-Ohio-3577.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0533.  In re J.H.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109332, 2021-Ohio-700.  On appellant’s motion for waiver of oral argument.  Motion granted.  Oral argument scheduled for Wednesday, May 11, 2022, cancelled.

 

2022-0413.  State v. Groves.

Scioto App. No. 20CA3902, 2022-Ohio-442.  On appellant’s motion for delayed appeal due to COVID-19.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0350.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Purola.

On certification of default.  Albert Linden Purola, Attorney Registration No. 0010275, last known business address in Willoughby, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 3, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/03/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1466.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0580.  Durkin v. Williams, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1416.

In Prohibition.  Writ denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondents shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2021-0960.  State ex rel. Palm v. McClain.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

May 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/02/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1445.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0421.  State ex rel. Brafford v. Brown.

In Prohibition and Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted in part and prohibition claim against respondent Judge James Brown dismissed.  Motion as to procedendo claim against respondent Judge Jeffrey Mackey denied and alternative writ granted.  The following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: Relators shall file their evidence and merit brief within seven days, respondent shall file his evidence and merit brief within seven days of the filing of relators’ brief, and relators may file a reply brief within three days after the filing of respondent’s merit brief.

 Kennedy, J., would order respondent Judge Jeffrey Mackey to file an answer to the procedendo complaint by May 4, 2022.

 Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would grant an alternative writ and would stay the proceedings below pending this court’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

May 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 05/02/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1433.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MAY 2, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the May 2, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1447.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 166 Ohio St.3d 258, 2021-Ohio-3624.

 

2020-1520.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Morton, 166 Ohio St.3d 266, 2021-Ohio-4095.

 

2020-1580.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Beem, 166 Ohio St.3d 230, 2021-Ohio-2821.

 

2021-0762.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Weber, 166 Ohio St.3d 261, 2021-Ohio-3907.

 

2021-0851.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony, 166 Ohio St.3d 1221, 2022-Ohio-221.

 

2021-1030.  State ex rel. Pennington v. Bivens, 166 Ohio St.3d 241, 2021-Ohio-3134.

 

2021-1127.  State ex rel. T-Bill Dev. Co., L.L.C. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 166 Ohio St.3d 250, 2021-Ohio-3535.

 

2022-0018.  In re Resignation of Druckenmiller, 166 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2022-Ohio-222.

 

21-AP-106.  In re Disqualification of Singer, 166 Ohio St.3d 1216, 2021-Ohio-3891.

 

21-AP-140.  In re Disqualification of Bonfiglio, 166 Ohio St.3d 1219, 2021-Ohio-4669.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0369.  State ex rel. Capella v. Ohio Elections Comm.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/28/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1390.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0971.  Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Diam, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1370.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-006.  Thomas Mark O’Diam, Attorney Registration No. 0029455, last known business address in Xenia, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for six months, fully stayed on conditions.

Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., concur in part and dissent in part and would impose the sanction recommended by the Board of Professional Conduct.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0353.  State v. Gulley.

Stark App. No. 06CA00114, 2008-Ohio-887.  Sua sponte, appellant’s amended memorandum in support of jurisdiction filed on April 25, 2022, ordered to be stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.13(B)(1).

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/27/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-1384.]

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0021.  State ex rel. Allen v. Ross.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s “motion naming Attorney Kerry M. O’Brien—reg no. 0025304 as counsel for relator.”  Motion denied as moot.

 

2022-0381.  State ex rel. Meade Constr., Inc. v. Columbus Zoological Park Assn.

In Mandamus.  On joint motion for referral to mediator Thomas Kirkwood and joint motion to stay pending mediation.  Motions granted.  This matter will be returned to the regular docket on June 15, 2022, if an application for dismissal has not been filed.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0250.  State v. Morris.

Lucas App. No. L-18-1187, 2020-Ohio-704.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due April 18, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0457.  State ex rel. Clemons v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/27/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1285.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0137.  State v. Parker.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

_________________

FISCHER, J., concurring.

1                    {¶ 1} Although I agree that dismissal of relator Terrence D. Parker’s complaint in this matter is appropriate, I write separately to address the argument that a criminal defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation.

2                    {¶ 2} Hybrid representation is the right to represent oneself with the assistance of counsel, with the defendant and defense counsel sharing responsibilities in preparing and conducting trial.  State v. Hackett, 164 Ohio St.3d 74, 2020-Ohio-6699, 172 N.E.3d 75, ¶ 34 (Fischer, J., concurring), citing State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385, 2004-Ohio-5471, 816 N.E.2d 227, ¶ 29.  It is true that this court has held that there is no right under the Ohio Constitution to hybrid representation.  See State v. Thompson, 33 Ohio St.3d 1, 6, 514 N.E.2d 407 (1987); Martin at paragraph one of the syllabus.  But as I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Hackett, this court did not look to the plain language of the Ohio Constitution in reaching that conclusion in Martin and ThompsonHackett at ¶ 35-36 (Fischer, J., concurring).

 

1                    {¶ 3} In fact, the plain language of the Ohio Constitution supports the argument that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to hybrid representation.  Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution states, “In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel.”  (Emphasis added.)  The word “and” is conjunctive; the disjunctive word “or” is not found in the quoted constitutional provision.  As a matter of grammar and basic reading comprehension, Article I, Section 10 provides a probable constitutional right to hybrid representation.

2                    {¶ 4} It is not improper for parties to rely on this court’s holdings in Martin and Thompson, but they should be aware that those cases were decided without this court considering the very document that might guarantee the right to hybrid representation.  I encourage this court to reevaluate its holdings in Martin and Thompson and take into consideration the plain language of Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution, because a plain reading of that provision supports a right to hybrid representation.

 

_________________

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/27/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1284.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

In re Cases Held for State v. Maddox.

The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are reversed, and the causes are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this court’s decision in State v. Maddox, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-764, ___ N.E.3d ___: 2020-1232, State v. Downard; 2020-1243, State v. Velliquette; 2021-0001, State v. Cochran; 2021-0374, State v. Beatty; 2021-0383, State v. Ludwig; 2021-0422, State v. Bothuel; 2021-0458, State v. Doughty; 2021-0629, State v. Stevens; 2021-0662, State v. Mills; 2021-0726, State v. Hunter; 2021-0779, State v. Slye; 2021-0902 and 2021-0925, State v. Moran; 2021-0919, State v. Stenson; 2021-1155, State v. McGowan; 2021-1175, State v. Long; 2021-1327 and 2021-1348, State v. Woods; 2021-1395, State v. Joyce; 2021-1398, State v. Waggle; 2021-1415, State v. Williams; 2021-1540, State v. Waltz; 2021-1590, State v. Brazo.

The causes in the following cases are dismissed as having been improvidently accepted: 2021-0059, State v. Wolfe; 2021-0063, State v. Dames; 2021-0067, State v. Ferguson; 2021-0086, State v. Stone; 2021-0173, State v. Jones; 2021-0585, State v. Crawford; 2021-0589, State v. Noble; 2021-0707, State v. Hodgkin; 2021-1005, State v. Singh; and 2021-1125, State v. Tupuola.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would order briefing on proposition of law Nos. IV and V in 2021-1125, State v. Tupuola.

 

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0025.  State ex rel. Schlegel v. Sweeney.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.  

 

2022-0111.  Fancher v. #1 Archer Systems, L.L.C.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0125.  State ex rel. Morant v. Fregiato.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0156.  Blachere v. Franklin Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Prohibition.  On respondent Bureau of Criminal Investigation’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to remaining respondents.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0182.  State v. Williams.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

1989-1291.  State v. Sneed.

Stark App. No. CA6976.  On appellee’s motion to withdraw motion to lift stay and set execution date.  The motion is moot because no motion to lift stay and set execution date is pending before this court.

 

2020-1278.  State v. Miller.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-285.  On appellant’s motion to reopen appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0591.  State v. Sinkhorn.

Clark App. No. 2019-CA-79, 2020-Ohio-5359.  Sua sponte, cause no longer held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox, and cause now held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2021-0996.  State v. Rodriguez.

Seneca App. No. 13-20-07, 2021-Ohio-2295.  Sua sponte, cause no longer held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox, and cause now held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2021-1555.  McMahon v. Chambers-Smith.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion for clarification.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0227.  Columbus v. ACM Vision V, L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-436.  On appellant’s motion to stay proceedings in M.C. case No. 2016-EVH-060329.  Motion denied.  James Hinkle’s motion to stay proceedings in M.C. case No. 2016-EVH-060329 denied.

 

2022-0250.  State v. Morris.

Lucas App. No. L-18-1187, 2020-Ohio-704.  On appellant’s motion to stay.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0262.  Olmsted Twp. v. Ritchie.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110107 and 110108, 2022-Ohio-124.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated on the court of appeals’ February 15, 2022 entry:  “Whether R.C. 2929.25(D)(4) authorizes a trial court to impose a jail term for a violation of a condition of a community-control sanction when the original sentence was directly imposed under R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(a) and no suspended jail

time was reserved as contemplated under R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(b), regardless of notice having been provided under R.C. 2929.25(A)(3)(c).”  The conflict cases are State v. Coffer, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 18 MA 0077, 2020-Ohio-994; State v. Bailey, 2016-Ohio-4937, 68 N.E.3d 416 (9th Dist.); State v. Gibson, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2013-P-0047, 2014-Ohio-433; State v. Sutton, 162 Ohio App.3d 802, 2005-Ohio-4589, 835 N.E.2d 752 (4th Dist.); State v. McDonald, 4th Dist. Ross No. 04CA2806, 2005-Ohio-3503; and State v. Netter, 4th Dist. Ross No. 05CA2832, 2005-Ohio-4606.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0085.  State v. L.A.B.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-120, 2021-Ohio-4323.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-1429, State v. Nicholas.

 Stewart, J., would also hold the cause for the decision in 2020-1126, State v. Burns.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0106.  State v. Zarlengo.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0036, 2021-Ohio-4631 .

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0077.  State v. Carswell.

Sandusky App. No. S-20-001, 2021-Ohio-3379 .

 Stewart, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0860, State v. Lloyd.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 26, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/26/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1377.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1078.  State ex rel. Yost v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1326.

Montgomery App. No. 28496, 2020-Ohio-3820 .  Judgment affirmed.

 Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by O’Connor, C.J.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2020-1337.  State v. Reed, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1327.

Montgomery App. No. 28442, 2020-Ohio-3574.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded to the trial court for consideration of appellant Rashaan O. Reed’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial in light of State v. Bethel, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-783, ___ N.E.3d ___.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1336.  State v. Gapen, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1328.

Montgomery App. No. 28808, 2021-Ohio-3252.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

22-AP-006.  In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 2022-Ohio-1329 (decided Feb. 17, 2022).

 

22-AP-007.  In re Disqualification of Wallace and Capizzi, 2022-Ohio-1330 (decided Feb. 18, 2022).

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0315.  State ex rel. Mazur v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0425.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Stickrath.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 26, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/26/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1332.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0248.  Griffitts v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0259.  Thomas v. Schweitzer.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0261.  Elder v. Middletown Police Dept.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0267.  Clark v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0200.  State v. McKee.

Logan App. No. 8-19-16, 2019-Ohio-4307.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal due to COVID-19.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0136.  State v. Carlock.

Jefferson App. No. 19 JE 0017, 2021-Ohio-4550.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-0794, State v. Fuell.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0177.  Farmers Natl. Bank of Canfield v. Platinum Rapid Funding Group, Ltd.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0006, 2021-Ohio-4615 .

O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0129.  Haynes v. Haynes.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00036, 2021-Ohio-4507 .

 

2022-0134.  Champion Chrysler, Plymouth Jeep v. Dimension Serv. Corp.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-252, 2021-Ohio-2901 .

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0139.  State v. Silvas.

Shelby App. No. 17-21-03, 2021-Ohio-4473 .

 

2022-0150.  State v. Estes.

Preble App. No. CA2013-04-001, 2014-Ohio-767 .

 

2022-0151.  Vesper v. Otterbein Lebanon.

Warren App. No. CA2021-02-016, 2021-Ohio-4545 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0153.  State v. Abner.

Warren App. No. CA2021-05-048, 2021-Ohio-4549 .

 Stewart, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

2022-0157.  Estate of Millstein.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110546, 2021-Ohio-4610 .

 

2022-0158.  State v. Lowe.

Logan App. No. 8-20-36, 2021-Ohio-4563 .

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0162.  Cihan v. PHH Mtge. Corp.

Fairfield App. No. 21CA27.

 

2022-0165.  State v. Branch.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110050, 2022-Ohio-132 .

 

2022-0166.  State v. Brantley.

Summit App. No. 29924, 2021-Ohio-4621 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II and would appoint counsel.

 

2022-0168.  State v. Caldwell.

Butler App. No. CA2021-02-017, 2021-Ohio-3777 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would appoint counsel.

 

2022-0169.  Anderson v. Westlake.

Lorain App. No. 19CA011512, 2021-Ohio-4582 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0171.  Martin v. Taylor.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-046, 2021-Ohio-4614 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0178.  State v. Mole.

Ashland App. No. 21-COA-002, 2021-Ohio-4628 .

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

2022-0201.  State v. Price.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-384.

 

2022-0217.  In re E.G.

Muskingum App. No. CT2021-0070.

 

2022-0253.  State v. Hunt.

Summit App. No. 29977, 2022-Ohio-458.  Appellant’s request for leave to attach supporting documents denied.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0151.  Barrow v. New Miami.

Butler App. Nos. 2019-07-0112 and 2019-08-136.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-423, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1414.  Arnoff v. State.

Miscellaneous case.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1404, 2022-Ohio-461, 181 N.E.3d 1188.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Relator’s demand for grand-jury testimony, motion for production, motion for an evidentiary hearing and oral arguments, motion to compel, motion for deposition, motion for expert assistance, motion for order to show cause, motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, petition for an evidentiary hearing and oral arguments, and “objection to illegal and unconstitutional dismissal with no findings of facts” denied.

 

2021-1422.  State ex rel. Wylie v. Cuyahoga Cty. Probate Court.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 166 Ohio St.3d 1404, 2022-Ohio-461, 181 N.E.3d 1189.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/25/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1351.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

21-AP-164.  In re Disqualification of Myers, Bergeron, and Crouse, 2022-Ohio-1333 (decided Jan. 21, 2022).

 

21-AP-165.  In re Disqualification of Ferenc, 2022-Ohio-1334 (decided Jan. 14, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2018-0259.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sciortino.

On respondent’s motion for leave to withdraw petition for reinstatement to the practice of law.  Motion granted.  Petition withdrawn.  

 

2022-0006.  State v. Carter.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for standby counsel.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-0478.  Hudson v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109405, 2021-Ohio-576.  On joint application for dismissal of case.  Joint application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 22, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/22/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1338.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0421.  State ex rel. Brafford v. Brown.

In Prohibition and Procedendo.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response to the petition no later than 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2022.  If either respondent files a motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings, relators’ response shall be filed no later 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 28, 2022.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/21/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1308.]

 

 

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0759.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1288.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-055.  Kenneth Allen Nelson II, Attorney Registration No. 0075834, last known business address in Avon Lake, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year stayed on conditions.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 20, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/20/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1297.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1516.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Davis, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1286.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-003.  Wesley Robert Davis, Attorney Registration No. 0076727, last known business address in Brice, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on conditions.     

  O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0831.  Tuscarawas Cty. Pub. Defender’s Office v. Goudy.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2020 AP 10 0023, 2021-Ohio-1754.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellant.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0072.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. James.

Sua sponte, Krishna James, Attorney Registration No. 0089891, last known business address in Youngstown, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before March 16, 2022.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0174.  Robinson v. McConahay.

Richland App. No. 2022 CA 0003.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due April 12, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0233.  State v. Barnes.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00033, 2021-Ohio-4527.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due April 14, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/19/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1301.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0417.  Davis v. McGuffey.

Hamilton App. No. C-220040.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response, if any, to appellant’s motion to stay decision of First District Court of Appeals no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, April 22, 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/18/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1269.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF APRIL 18, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the April 18, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-0923.  In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127, 2020-Ohio-5102.

 

2020-0658 and 2020-0991.  State v. Williams, 166 Ohio St.3d 159, 2021-Ohio-3152.

 

2020-0781.  In re Application of Suburban Natural Gas Co., 166 Ohio St.3d 176, 2021-Ohio-3224.

 

2020-0866.  State v. Foreman, 166 Ohio St.3d 204, 2021-Ohio-3409.

 

2020-1121.  State ex rel. Hicks v. Fraley, 166 Ohio St.3d 141, 2021-Ohio-2724.

 

2020-1575.  State ex rel. Zarbana Industries, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 166 Ohio St.3d 216, 2021-Ohio-3669.

 

2021-0231.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Okuley, 166 Ohio St.3d 191, 2021-Ohio-3225.

 

2021-0354.  State ex rel. Long v. Hamilton Cty. Coroner, 166 Ohio St.3d 201, 2021-Ohio-3315.

 

2021-0409.  State ex rel. Jones v. Hogan, 166 Ohio St.3d 213, 2021-Ohio-3567.

 

2021-0416.  State ex rel. Slaughter v. Foley, 166 Ohio St.3d 222, 2021-Ohio-4049.

 

2021-0442.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Winters, 166 Ohio St.3d 149, 2021-Ohio-2753.

 

2021-0513.  State v. Misch, 166 Ohio St.3d 224, 2021-Ohio-4477.

 

2021-0552.  In re Resignation of Federle, 166 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2021-Ohio-2399.

 

2021-0647.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Revision, 166 Ohio St.3d 225, 2021-Ohio-4486.

 

21-AP-109.  In re Disqualification of Pittman, 166 Ohio St.3d 1213, 2021-Ohio-3892.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0533.  In re J.H.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109332, 2021-Ohio-700.  On appellant’s motion to prevent broadcasting oral argument pursuant to Sup.R. 12(A).  Motion denied.

 

2021-1163.  Stewart v. Solutions Community Counseling & Recovery Ctrs., Inc.

Warren App. No. CA2021-01-008, 2021-Ohio-2635.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Kathrina Szymborski and Easha Anand.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days. 

 

2021-1269.  In re Estate of Ohio Republic v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, pursuant to Civ.R. 4(E), relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this cause should not be dismissed as to

respondents AP Rimtex, L.L.C., Robert House, Clunk Hoose Co., L.P.A., and U.S. Bank National Association for failure to perfect service within the time period since the complaint was filed.

 

2021-1270.  In re Estate of Ohio Republic v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas. 

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, pursuant to Civ.R. 4(E), relator ordered to show cause within 14 days why this cause should not be dismissed as to respondents Auction.com, Robert House, Clunk Hoose Co., L.P.A., and U.S. Bank National Association for failure to perfect service within the time period since the complaint was filed.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0343.  In re Resignation of Wright.  

On application for retirement or resignation of Edd Kenneth Wright, Attorney Registration No. 0018292, last known business address in New Philadelphia, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0368.  State ex rel. Slodov v. Viland.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/15/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1250.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0226.  State ex rel. Ware v. Fankhauser.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0056, 2022-Ohio-172.  On appellant’s motion to remand this matter to the court of appeals so it may consider appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion for relief from judgment.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/14/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-1244.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for an order directing respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of the court’s March 16, 2022 order.  Motion denied.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ renewed motion for an order directing respondents to show cause and motion to schedule contempt hearing.  Motions denied.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ joinder in renewed motion for an order directing respondents to show cause and motion to schedule contempt hearing filed by the petitioners in 2021-1198, Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.  Motions denied.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/14/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-1249.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1235.

On complaints invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Petitioners’ objections to the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s third revised General Assembly–district plan under Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution sustained.  Third revised plan declared invalid in its entirety.  The Ohio Redistricting Commission shall be reconstituted, shall convene, and shall draft and adopt an entirely new General Assembly–district plan that meets the requirements of the Ohio Constitution, including Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B).

The Ohio Redistricting Commission shall file the district plan with the secretary of state by 9:00 a.m. on May 6, 2022, and shall file a copy of that plan with this court by 12:00 p.m. on the same date.  This court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of reviewing the new plan.

Petitioners shall file objections, if any, to the new plan by 9:00 a.m. three days after the new plan is filed with this court.  Respondents shall file responses to the objections by 9:00 a.m. three days after the objections are filed.  If the deadline for the objections or responses falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the objections or responses shall be filed by 9:00 a.m. on the next business day.  Petitioners shall not file a reply or any motion for leave to file a reply.  The clerk of this court shall refuse to accept any filings under this paragraph that are untimely or prohibited.

No requests or stipulations for extension of time for the objections or responses shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or

stipulations for extension of time.  For good cause shown, the commission may file a motion for extension of time to file the district plan with the secretary of state.

Petitioners’ requests for additional relief denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion and joins paragraphs 151, 152, 157, and 158 of Justice DeWine’s dissenting opinion.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/14/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1228.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0215.  Riley v. Riley.

Perry App. No. 21 CA 00004, 2022-Ohio-67.  On appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal.  Motion denied.

Fischer, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/14/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1225.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0224.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bahan, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1210.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2019-065.  Natalie J. Bahan, Attorney Registration No. 0079304, last known business address in West Mansfield, Ohio, suspended for six months, fully stayed on conditions.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J., except for paragraphs 85 and 86.

DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, J.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0006.  State v. Carter.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike for failure to provide service.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2022-0377.   Egbert v. Shamrock Towing, Inc. 

Franklin App. No. 20AP-266, 2022-Ohio-474.  Sua sponte, appellant ordered to file a copy of the February 24, 2022 judgment entry within ten days as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(D)(1).  This case will be subject to dismissal if the February 24, 2022 judgment entry is not timely filed.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/13/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1220.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0121.  State v. Williams.

Lorain App. No. 20CA011703, 2021-Ohio-4469.  On appellant’s amended motion to appoint the Ohio Public Defender as counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0851.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony.

Sua sponte, Marcelle Rose Anthony, Attorney Registration No. 0026115, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before March 2, 2022.

 

2022-0127.  In re Poole.

Sua sponte, Robert Lawrence Poole, Attorney Registration No. 0065547, last known business address in Florence, Kentucky, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before March 9, 2022.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0263.  State ex rel. Pullins v. Holmes Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/13/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1156.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0207.  Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1198.

Franklin App. No. 18AP-32, 2020-Ohio-6953.  Judgment affirmed on the authority of Jezerinac v. Dioun, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-509, __ N.E.3d __.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2021-1330.  Key Realty, Ltd. v. Hall, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1199.

Lucas App. No. L-19-1237, 2021-Ohio-1868.  Judgment affirmed on the authority of Jezerinac v. Dioun, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-509, __ N.E.3d __.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1068.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 08-1094-EL-SSO, 08-1095-EL-ATA, 08-1096-EL-AAM, and 08-1097-EL-UNC.  Sua sponte, appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as premature for lack of jurisdiction.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent and would issue a show-cause order.  

 

 

 

2021-1505.  State ex rel. Marc I. Strauss Children’s Trust II v. O’Donnell.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s motion for issuance of peremptory writ or, alternatively, expedited proceedings and other relief.  Motion denied as moot.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1592.  State ex rel. Hunt v. E. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relators shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relators’ brief, and relators may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0006.  State v. Carter.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to pause.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0021.  State ex rel. Allen v. Ross.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss amended complaint.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0043.  Melvin v. Greene Cty. Adult Detention Ctr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0049.  Hopkins v. Prosecutor.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0066.  Thornton v. Greene Cty. Adult Detention Ctr. Mail Dept.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s motion to remove argument one of respondent’s motion to dismiss from the court’s consideration granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0082.  Cantor v. Greene Cty. Adult Detention Ctr. Mail Dept.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0100.  In re Estate of Jenkins.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0102.  Miller v. Camillus.

In Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0172.  Valentine v. Gall.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0501.  Asamoah v. Sygma Network, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-113.  On appellant’s motion for relief from judgment.  Motion denied.

 

 

2021-0503.  Asamoah v. TigerPoly Mfg., Inc.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-114.  On appellant’s motion for relief from judgment.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1254.  State v. Bortree.

Logan App. No. 8-20-67, 2021-Ohio-2873.  On appellant’s motion to suspend the execution of sentence and application for bail pending appeal.  Motion and application denied.

 

2021-1351.  Asamoah v. TS Tech Americas, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-404.  On appellant’s motion for court costs, attorney fees, and expenses.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion for relief from judgment denied.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1371.  Asamoah v. Capital One.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-499.  On appellant’s motions for award of court costs, attorney fees, and expenses.  Motions denied.  Appellant’s motion for relief from judgment denied.

 

2021-1372.  Asamoah v. Pennsylvania Higher Edn. Assistance Agency.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-512.  On appellant’s motion for relief from judgment.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0146.  State v. Patterson.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-062, 2021-Ohio-4617.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that no conflict exists.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0147.  State v. Patterson.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-062, 2021-Ohio-4617.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decisions in 2020-1496, State v. Hacker, and 2021-0532, State v. Simmons.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0001.  State v. Culler.

Columbiana App. No. 20 CO 0030, 2021-Ohio-4642 .

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0113.  State v. Walton.

Butler App. No. CA2020-12-124, 2021-Ohio-3958 .

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 12, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/12/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1214.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1018.  State v. Eatmon, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1197.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108786, 2020-Ohio-3592 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-0659.  State ex rel. Siedle v. State Teachers Retirement Sys.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due April 4, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0124.  Haynie v. Forshey.

Noble App. No. 20 NO 0480, 2021-Ohio-4681.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due April 4, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0340.  State ex rel. Kidd v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-364, 2022-Ohio-450 .

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 12, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/12/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1163.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0034.  Blair v. Summit Behavioral Mental Health.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, petition dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0188.  Dalton v. Common Pleas Court of Greene Cty.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0212.  Jones v. Foley.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, writ allowed and return of writ ordered. Respondent shall file a return of writ within 21 days of service of the petition, and petitioner may file a response within 10 days after the return is filed.  Petitioner’s physical presence before the court not required.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents and would dismiss the cause. 

 

2022-0219.  Alexander v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0221.  Williams v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0185.  State v. Hill.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109727, 2021-Ohio-3028.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent. 

 

2022-0205.  State v. Green.

Summit App. No. 29770, 2021-Ohio-2912.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0058.  Diller v. Diller.

Mercer App. Nos. 10-21-03 and 10-21-04, 2021-Ohio-4252.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, dissent.

 

2022-0099.  State v. Ali.

Summit App. No. 29611, 2021-Ohio-4596.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0107.  In re N.D.

Licking App. Nos. 21 CA 0040 and 21 CA 0041, 2021-Ohio-4506.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-0934, In re D.R.

 Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

2022-0159.  In re Adoption of H.P.

Van Wert App. No. 15-21-03, 2021-Ohio-4567.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1442.  State v. Brown.

Mahoning App. No. 19 MA 0136, 2021-Ohio-2853.

 

2021-1507.  State v. Hawkins.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-546, 2021-Ohio-2899.

 

2021-1542.  State v. Hawkins.

Montgomery App. No. 29013, 2021-Ohio-3373.

 

2022-0059.  Patrick v. Ellman.

Brown App. No. CA2021-04-004, 2021-Ohio-4354.

 

2022-0060.  State v. Briscoe.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110490, 2021-Ohio-4317.

 

2022-0062.  State v. Bankston.

Ashtabula App. No. 2020-A-0005, 2021-Ohio-4332.

 

2022-0064.  State v. Stoychoff.

Hancock App. Nos. 5-21-18 and 5-21-19, 2021-Ohio-4248.

 

2022-0065.  Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C. v. Integrity Express Logistics, L.L.C.

Clermont App. No. CA2020-09-056, 2021-Ohio-4242.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2022-0067.  State v. Singleton.

Hamilton App. No. C-200365, 2021-Ohio-4271.

 

2022-0070.  Pietrangelo v. PolyOne Corp.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011734, 2021-Ohio-4239.

 

2022-0074.  State v. Singleton.

Hamilton App. No. C-200365, 2021-Ohio-4271.

 

2022-0089.  In re Roudebush Trust.

Carroll App. No. 21 CA 0949, 2021-Ohio-4557.

 

2022-0090.  State v. Bennett.

Brown App. No. CA2021-06-007.

 

2022-0093.  State v. Costell.

Union App. No. 14-21-02, 2021-Ohio-4363.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0094.  Epperson v. Covington Madison Corp.

Warren App. No. CA2021-06-057, 2021-Ohio-4359.

 

2022-0097.  Addleman v. O’Malley.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110173, 2021-Ohio-4429.

 

2022-0101.  Cincinnati v. Twang, L.L.C.

Hamilton App. No. C-200369, 2021-Ohio-4387.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0103.  Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Humphreys.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-396, 2021-Ohio-4324.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0105.  State v. Martin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110576, 2021-Ohio-4213.

 

2022-0109.  State v. Culbertson.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00023, 2021-Ohio-4415.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0112.  Toledo v. Johnson.

Lucas App. Nos. L-20-1032 and L-20-1033, 2021-Ohio-4447.

 

2022-0114.  In re H.P.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1090, 2021-Ohio-4446.

 

2022-0116.  State v. Lindsay.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0068, 2021-Ohio-4526.

 

2022-0117.  State v. Buehner.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109699, 2021-Ohio-4435.

 

2022-0118.  Bancsi v. Valmark Fin. Group, L.L.C.

Summit App. No. 29897.

 

2022-0119.  State v. C.D.S.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-355, 2021-Ohio-4492.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-0133.  State v. Stevens.

Columbiana App. No. 19 CO 0049, 2022-Ohio-2.

 

2022-0144.  Roubanes v. Roubanes.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-382, 2021-Ohio-4493.

 Fischer and Brunner, JJ., not participating.

 

2022-0204.  State v. D.M.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-118.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2019-1813.  State v. Smith.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107899, 2019-Ohio-4671.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-288, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2020-1498.  State ex rel. Ware v. Crawford.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-295, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

Kennedy, J., dissents.

 

2021-1186.  State v. Lewis.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108463.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1505, 2022-Ohio-85, 179 N.E.3d 123.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/08/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1183.]

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2021-1446.  Parker v. Newark Div. of Police.

In Mandamus.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1162.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0373.  Colonial, Inc. v. McClain, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1149.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2020-94.  Decision affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On Senate President Huffman and House Speaker Cupp’s motion for leave to file a corrected memorandum in opposition to petitioners’ motions for an order to show cause.  Motion granted.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On Senate President Huffman and House Speaker Cupp’s motion for leave to file a corrected memorandum in opposition to petitioners’ motions for an order to show cause.  Motion granted.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On Senate President Huffman and House Speaker Cupp’s motion for leave to file a corrected memorandum in opposition to petitioners’ motions for an order to show cause.  Motion granted.

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose. 

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for appointment of process server.  Motion granted. 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 6, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/06/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1152.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1131.  M.R. v. Niesen, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1130.

Hamilton App. No. C-200302, 2020-Ohio-4368 .  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0719.  Navistar, Inc. v. Dutchmaid Logistics, Inc.

Licking App. No. 2020 CA 00003, 2021-Ohio-1425.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Lawrence R. Lassiter.  Motion granted.  Lawrence Lassiter shall not participate in oral argument scheduled for April 13, 2022, because his motion for admission pro hac vice was not filed at least 30 days prior to oral argument as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02(B)(4).  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2021-0934.  In re D.R.

Hamilton App. No. C-190594, 2021-Ohio-1797.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellant.

 

 

 

 

2021-0948.  State v. Stansell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109023, 2021-Ohio-2036.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2021-1518.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Carr.

On respondent’s motion to continue oral argument.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0052.  Buckeye Inst. v. Kilgore.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-193, 2021-Ohio-4196.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Joseph Henchman.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0141.  Clay v. McCarty.

In Habeas Corpus.  On respondent Steve Mylett’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied as moot.  Petitioner’s motion to strike motion to dismiss denied as moot.

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Julie A. Ebenstein.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

 

In re Homrighausen, Dover Mayor.

On March 14, 2022, the state of Ohio presented a request that the chief justice establish a special commission of three retired judges pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C).  Pursuant to R.C. 3.16, the special commission shall be established by the chief justice, not sooner than 14 days after receipt of the request, to consider the suspension from public office of Richard Homrighausen, mayor of the city of Dover, in relation to felony charges pertaining to official conduct in office. 

Accordingly, the following three retired judges are hereby appointed and directed to proceed as provided by R.C. 3.16:

 

Judge John G. Haas

 

Judge R. Alan Corbin

 

Judge Reeve W. Kelsey

 

 Pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C)(1), at least one member of the special commission is of the same party as the public official and all members of the special commission shall receive compensation for their services and reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with special-commission functions, from funds appropriated by the attorney general’s office.

 It is further ordered that Bryan Smeenk, deputy chief legal counsel in the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel at the Supreme Court of Ohio, shall serve as secretary to the special commission, with authority to contact the parties, schedule hearings, and sign orders on behalf of and at the direction of the special commission.

 All documents in this matter shall be filed with the secretary to the special commission either by mail or in another manner directed by the secretary.  The original and five copies of all documents shall be filed.  All documents filed with the special commission shall also be served on all other parties to this matter on the day of filing with the secretary.

 Pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C)(2), all meetings of the special commission shall be closed to the public and the records shall not be made available to the public for inspection or copying until the special commission issues its written report or otherwise concludes its proceedings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 4, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/04/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1129.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF APRIL 4, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the April 4, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0134.  O’Keefe v. McClain, 166 Ohio St.3d 25, 2021-Ohio-2186.

 

2020-0182.  Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn., 166 Ohio St.3d 96, 2021-Ohio-3445.

 

2020-0368.  State v. Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 85, 2021-Ohio-3311.

 

2021-0246.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Nordic Title Agency, Inc., and Hall, 166 Ohio St.3d 49, 2021-Ohio-2210.

 

2021-0747.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Berry, 166 Ohio St.3d 112, 2021-Ohio-3864.

 

2021-0754.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Porter, 166 Ohio St.3d 117, 2021-Ohio-4352.

 

2021-0867.  State ex rel. Donaldson v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 166 Ohio St.3d 55, 2021-Ohio-2943.

 

2021-1050.  State ex rel. Ferrara v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 166 Ohio St.3d 64, 2021-Ohio-3156.

 

2021-1102.  State ex rel. Hillside Creek Farms v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 166 Ohio St.3d 77, 2021-Ohio-3214.

 

21-AP-113.  In re Disqualification of Halliday, 166 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2021-Ohio-3911.

 

21-AP-147.  In re Disqualification of Stormer, 166 Ohio St.3d 1203, 2021-Ohio-4671.

 

21-AP-150.  In re Disqualification of Brudzinski, 166 Ohio St.3d 1205, 2021-Ohio-4672.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2014-0136 and 2014-1403.   Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Johnson.

On petition for reinstatement by respondent, Robert Lawrence Johnson, Attorney Registration No. 0042439.  Petition denied.  Respondent ordered to pay costs of proceedings in the amount of $515, less the deposit of $500, for a total balance of $15, within 90 days.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Raisa Cramer and Harleen Gambhir.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days. 

 

2021-1563.  Lucas v. Gaul.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts and motion for leave to file additional evidence to supplement motion for summary judgment.  Motions denied as moot.

 

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Raisa Cramer.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice

of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Robert D. Fram, Anupam Sharma, David Denuyl, James M. Smith, Alexander Thomson, Sarah Suwanda, Yiye Fu, and Donald W. Brown.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

April 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/01/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1104.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-1496.  State v. Hacker.

Logan App. No. 8-20-01, 2020-Ohio-5048.  Sua sponte, cause no longer held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox, and stay of briefing schedule lifted.  The clerk of the court shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Logan County, and the parties shall brief proposition of law No. I only in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

2021-0532.  State v. Simmons.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109476, 2021-Ohio-939.  Sua sponte, cause no longer held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox, and stay of briefing schedule lifted.  The clerk of the court shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, and the parties shall brief this case in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

April 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 04/01/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1107.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1421.  State v. Walker.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1047, 2021-Ohio-3860.  Sua sponte, Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of T. Alora Thomas.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 31, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/31/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1047.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0138.  State ex rel. Byron v. Collins.

In Habeas Corpus.  On motion of respondents Judge Brian J. Corrigan and Judge Michael P. Shaughnessy to dismiss.  Motion denied as moot.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/30/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1039.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for an order directing respondents to show cause for why they should not be held in contempt of the court’s March 16, 2022 order.  Sua sponte, responses, if any, shall be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 4, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motions shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ renewed motion for an order directing respondents to show cause and motion to schedule contempt hearing.  Sua sponte, responses, if any, shall be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 4, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motions shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ joinder in renewed motion for an order directing respondents to show cause and motion to schedule contempt hearing filed by petitioners in 2021-1198, Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.  Sua

sponte, responses, if any, shall be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 4, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motions shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 30, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/30/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1030.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0801.  State v. Sanford.

Lorain App. No. 18CA011308, 2021-Ohio-1619.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2022-0156.  Blachere v. Franklin Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, amicus curiae’s memorandum in support stricken pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.01(C) because it was filed on behalf of an entity by a person who is not a qualified attorney (as prohibited by S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.01(A)(1)(b)) and because it was filed without a signature (as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.08).

 

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of William B. Stafford, Abha Khanna, Jyoti Jasrasaria, Spencer W. Klein, and Harleen Gambhir.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file notices of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2019-1086.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yavorcik.

On application for termination of probation by respondent, Martin Edward Yavorcik, Attorney Registration No. 0070681, last known business address in Youngstown,

Ohio.  Respondent has substantially complied with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D) and with this court’s order dated January 21, 2020, suspending respondent from the practice of law for two years with credit for 18 months served under his interim felony suspension and the final six months stayed on conditions, including a one-year period of monitored probation.  Probation of Martin Edward Yavorcik terminated.

 

2021-0216.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kathman.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Edward Timothy Kathman, Attorney Registration No. 0055446, last known business address in Norwood, Ohio.  Application granted.  Edward Timothy Kathman reinstated to the practice of law.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/29/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-1017.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for scheduling order.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of answers, evidence, and merit briefs:  Answers shall be filed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(A)(1), and dispositive motions are prohibited.  The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 25 days of the date of this entry; petitioners shall file a brief within 10 days of the filing of the evidence; respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of petitioners’ brief; petitioners may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ briefs.  Sua sponte, case consolidated with 2022-0298, Neiman v. LaRose.  Any disputes concerning discovery shall be addressed to the court by motion.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents filed in this case shall be served on the date of submission for filing by personal service, facsimile transmission, or email.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part for the reasons stated in the concurring-and-dissenting opinion in Neiman v. LaRose, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-1016, __ N.E.3d __.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/29/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-1016.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for scheduling order.  Sua sponte, the following schedule is set for the filing of answers, evidence, and merit briefs:  Answers shall be filed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(A)(1), and dispositive motions are prohibited.  The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 25 days of the date of this entry; petitioners shall file a brief within 10 days of the filing of the evidence; respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of petitioners’ brief; petitioners may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ briefs.  Sua sponte, case consolidated with 2022-0303, League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.  Any disputes concerning discovery shall be addressed to the court by motion.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents filed in this case shall be served on the date of submission for filing by personal service, facsimile transmission, or email.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part, with an opinion.

_________________

 

 

KENNEDY, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

1                    {¶ 1} The court today correctly denies petitioners’1 motion for a scheduling order—a motion that sought to cabin respondents’2 opportunity for discovery and argument to mere days.  We also agree with the court’s order to consolidate this case with case No. 2022-0303, League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.  Nevertheless, the majority still issues an unnecessarily truncated scheduling order that unduly limits the time in which the parties may conduct discovery.  Because there is no need for such a rushed schedule, we dissent and would issue an order that allows for a fair presentation of this case.

2                    {¶ 2} There is no reason to expedite this case.  At this juncture, it is abundantly clear that this case will not be litigated prior to the 2022 primary election.  The drafters of Article XIX of the Ohio Constitution anticipated that the time provided for the determination, adoption, and judicial review of a congressional-district plan could affect regularly scheduled elections.  They therefore provided a stop-gap protection in Article XIX, Section 1(J): if a plan enacted by the General Assembly or adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission expires or is invalidated by the court under Article XIX, the boundaries that the congressional-district plan created shall continue to be used for holding elections until a new plan is enacted or adopted.  The prior district boundaries do not lapse until new ones are in place.

3                    {¶ 3} The May primary election is quickly approaching.  Pursuant to R.C. 3509.01(B)(1) and (2) and a waiver granted to the state under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (“UOCAVA”), 52 U.S.C. 20302, the state must finalize and mail absentee ballots by April 5, 2022.  In addition, in-person absentee voting starts the same day.  R.C. 3509.01(B)(3) (in-person absentee voting begins on the first day after the close of voter registration).  Given this timeframe, it is virtually certain that Ohioans will vote for congressional representatives using the district boundaries that the commission adopted in the March 2, 2022 congressional-district plan.  The outcome of the litigation before us challenging the map cannot change those boundaries.  If this court upholds the plan, the district map remains in place for the next two election cycles.  And if this court rejects the plan, the same district boundaries will continue nonetheless for purposes of

 

1.  Petitioners in this case are Meryl Neiman, Regina C. Adams, Bria Bennett, Kathleen M. Brinkman, Martha Clark, Susanne L. Dyke, Carrie Kubicki, Dana Miller, Holly Oyster, Constance Rubin, Solveig Spjeldnes, and Everett Totty.

 

2. Respondents are Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Senate President Matt Huffman, Speaker of the House Robert Cupp, and the Ohio Redistricting Commission.

                        conducting elections pursuant to Article XIX, Section 1(J) of the Ohio Constitution until either (1) a new plan is enacted by the General Assembly and becomes law or (2) a new plan is adopted by the commission and filed with the secretary of state.  Given the logistical hurdles of enacting legislation, the possibility of it being subject to referendum, and the 30-day delay before the commission may adopt a plan if the General Assembly fails to do so, any plan adopted to replace the current plan will come too late to use for the May primary. {¶ 7} The General Assembly enacted the first congressional-district plan on November 18, 2021, and Ohio’s governor signed it into law two days later.  Adams v. DeWine, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-89, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 21.  However, on January 12, 2022, a majority of this court held that “the General Assembly did not comply with Article XIX, Sections 1(C)(3)(a) and (b) of

                        the Ohio Constitution in passing the congressional-district plan,” “declar[ed] the plan invalid,” and “order[ed] the General Assembly to pass a new congressional-district plan.”  Id. at ¶ 102.

                        {¶ 8} After the General Assembly failed to pass a revised plan within the 30-day period provided by Article XIX, Section 3(B)(1), the commission convened and adopted a congressional-district plan on March 2, 2022.  The petitioners in Adams moved to enforce the January 12 order, but we unanimously denied the motions as “procedurally improper.”  ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-871, ___ N.E.3d ___.

                        {¶ 9} On March 21, 2022, petitioners filed this case to invalidate the March 2 plan.  Petitioners also moved this court for an expedited scheduling order, proposing an abbreviated schedule that would allow the case to be fully briefed by March 30, 2022, mere days before April 5, the deadline for mailing absentee ballots under UOCAVA and R.C. 3509.01(B)(1) and (2) as well as the first day of in-person absentee voting, R.C. 3509.01(B)(3).  Although petitioners contend that discovery will not be needed beyond expert disclosures, they admit that their proposed scheduling order contemplates this court’s rescheduling the primary election.  Secretary of State LaRose responds that it is now too late to change the election processes for the May primary.  And Senate President Huffman and House Speaker Cupp argue that petitioners’ claims are barred by laches and that discovery, including depositions and cross-examination of petitioners’ experts, is needed to contest petitioners’ challenge on the merits.  They therefore urge this court to deny petitioners’ motion for a scheduling order and to allow the 2022 election cycle to continue under the March 2 plan.

                        {¶ 10} Conducting an election requires election officials to comply with federal and state laws that establish the dates of elections as well as deadlines for filing candidate petitions and preparing ballots that are tied to the dates of each election.

                        {¶ 11} Article I, Section 4, cl. 1 of the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”  Exercising its authority under the Elections Clause, Congress has provided that election day for federal offices is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even numbered years.  2 U.S.C. 1; 2 U.S.C. 7; 3 U.S.C. 1.  The General Assembly has followed suit.  R.C. 3501.01(A).  No one asserts that this

                        court has the authority to move the date of the general election in contravention of these statutes.  See United States Constitution, Article VI, cl. 2.

                        {¶ 12} Article V, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution states, “All nominations for elective state, district, county and municipal offices shall be made at direct primary elections or by petition as provided by law * * *.”  The General Assembly has provided that primary elections shall be “held for the purpose of nominating persons as candidates of political parties for election to offices” and “shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May of each year except in years in which a presidential primary election is held.”  R.C. 3501.01(E)(1); see also R.C. 3513.01(A).  R.C. 3501.40 removes any doubt that this court lacks authority to change the date of a primary election: “Except as permitted under section 161.09 of the Revised Code [pertaining to enemy attacks], and notwithstanding any other contrary provision of the Revised Code, no public official shall cause an election to be conducted other than in the time, place, and manner prescribed by the Revised Code.”

                        {¶ 13} Changing the date of the primary and general elections is therefore not an option for this court in reviewing the claims advanced in this case. Nor is it possible to use a district map for the general election that is different than the one used in the primary.  Once candidates have been nominated at the May primary for the November election, they will be certified to appear on the ballot at the general election “as the nominee of a political party because the candidate has won the primary election of the candidate’s party for the public office the candidate seeks,” R.C. 3501.01(K).

                        {¶ 14} The drafters of Article XIX were no doubt aware of the statutory dates for primary and general elections, yet they nonetheless contemplated that congressional redistricting would be a deliberative process.  The timelines for adopting a plan are drawn out, and Article XIX, Section 1(C)(1) of the Ohio Constitution gives the General Assembly until November of a year ending in the number one at the latest to enact a plan.  The Constitution then permits a party to challenge the plan in this court, without explicitly including any time requirements for filing or for this court to reach a decision.  Id., Section 3(A).  If the plan is invalidated by this court, the Constitution grants the General Assembly 30 days to enact a new plan.  Id., Section 3(B)(1).  But for the plan to go into immediate effect—and not be subject to the people’s right of referendum for at least 90 days, Article II, Section1(c)—it would have to be passed as emergency legislation by a two-thirds vote of each house of the General Assembly, Article II, Section 1d.  If the General Assembly fails to

                        enact a new plan within 30 days after a plan has been declared invalid, then the commission has another 30 days to adopt a plan.  Article XIX, Section 3(B)(2).  Nothing in the text of Article XIX precludes the General Assembly or the commission—or both—from using the full number of days allotted for preparing a congressional-district plan.  And as the proceedings in this case and in Adams, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-89, ___ N.E.3d ___, show, even when this court expedites apportionment challenges, it is possible that a decision will not be issued until soon before the statutory deadlines for conducting elections, regardless of the diligence of all involved.

                        {¶ 15} At this time, there is no realistic possibility that this court could decide the case in time to ensure that voting at the May primary is not disrupted.  Indeed, if further evidence of the unreasonableness an expedited scheduling order is needed, consider the fact that it took the court 53 days to decide Adams on the first go-around.  How can the majority expect respondents to submit evidence and respond to petitioners’ evidence in less than half the time it took the court to decide the last case?  The petitioners in a companion case to this one are more pragmatic and concede that it would be unreasonable for this court to invalidate the revised plan and expect a new plan to be enacted and reviewed in time for the 2022 elections.  See petitioners’ Motion for Scheduling Order filed on March 22, 2022, in Supreme Court case No. 2022-0303, League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.  They recognize that “at some point, an election must be held.  The Ohio Constitution sets forth a 60-day process following the invalidation of an enacted plan by this Court.  Seeking relief for elections after 2022 respects that timeline.”

                        {¶ 16} Based on these circumstances, it is not surprising that the parties call on us to weigh the legitimate need to definitively resolve the constitutionality of the March 2 plan against the very real concern that an expedited decision by this court will throw the 2022 election cycle into chaos.  This, however, is a false dichotomy.

                        {¶ 17} The drafters of Article XIX were far-sighted and provided that “[w]hen a congressional district plan ceases to be effective under this article, the district boundaries described in that plan shall continue in operation for the purpose of holding elections until a new congressional district plan takes effect in accordance with this article.”  Ohio Constitution, Article XIX, Section 1(J).  That is, even when a congressional-district plan expires or is invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, its district boundaries must be used for congressional elections until a new plan is either (1) enacted by the General Assembly and becomes law or (2) is adopted by the commission and filed with the secretary of state.  See Article XIX, Sections 1(D) and (E).

                        {¶ 18} So here, the district boundaries outlined in the commission’s March 2 plan should remain in place for the upcoming May primary.  That plan is currently in effect, and it is presumptively constitutional, Wilson v. Kasich, 134 Ohio St.3d 221, 2012-Ohio-5367, 981 N.E.2d 814, ¶ 18 (“Wilson II”).  And the Ohio Constitution does not require this court to approve a duly enacted plan before it is used in an upcoming election.  See Article XIX, Section 1(J).  Rather, if this court were to reject the revised congressional-district plan, Ohioans would still elect their representatives to the United States House of Representatives using that plan’s district boundaries until new ones are drawn.

                        {¶ 19} None of this is new or extraordinary.  The petitioners in Wilson challenged the congressional-district plan adopted following the 2010 federal decennial census under former Article XI.  See Wilson II at ¶ 4-6.  They moved for an order to maintain the status quo by preventing the state of Ohio from implementing the plan at the March 2012 primary election, the first election after the adoption of the plan that followed the 2010 census.  See Motion for Order Protecting the Court’s Jurisdiction filed on January 13, 2012, in Supreme Court case No. 2012-0019, Wilson v. Kasich.  This court denied the motion, and based on laches, it dismissed the challenge to the extent that it attacked the use of the 2011 district plan for the 2012 election cycle.  See Wilson I, 131 Ohio St.3d 249, 2012-Ohio-612, 963 N.E.2d 1282, at ¶ 8.  That decision allowed the allegedly unconstitutional plan to be implemented for the 2012 primary and general elections while the litigation continued regarding the use of the plan for 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020.  There is precedent, then, to use the plan adopted on March 2, even though petitioners claim it is unconstitutional, during the 2022 election cycle, while allowing the challenge to that plan for future election cycles to be fully developed, without undue haste, by the presentation of evidence and argument.

                        {¶ 20} Compelling reasons justify establishing a case schedule that allows respondents to conduct meaningful discovery.  Senate President Huffman and House Speaker Cupp request an opportunity to cross-examine petitioners’ experts.  In the decision invalidating the General Assembly’s first congressional-district map, Adams, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-89, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 51, 62, 66, 69, the court heavily relied on petitioners’ experts to conclude that the first congressional-district plan violated Article XIX of the Ohio Constitution.  Respondents point out that petitioners’ experts present conflicting evidence and that some of their alternative district

                        plans may not have complied with constitutional requirements.  They ask for nothing more than a full and fair opportunity to engage in meaningful discovery.  Meaningful discovery—including, most significantly, the opportunity to depose experts—“is a vital aspect of the truth-seeking mechanism of the adjudicative process,” In re Carey, 89 S.W.3d 477, 497 (Mo.2002), and is therefore essential to the adversarial process.

                        {¶ 21} Indeed, by now this court should be acutely aware of the dangers of proceeding based solely on opinions by professional experts who have not been subjected to adversarial testing.  In the previous go-round (as well as in the General Assembly-redistricting cases), the majority placed tremendous reliance on Dr. Kosuke Imai’s description of 5,000 simulated maps that he prepared and on his purported comparison of the enacted plan with those maps.  But his simulations were nowhere to be found in the record.  There was no way for respondents to test Dr. Imai’s assumptions through a critical examination of his simulated maps or through cross-examination.  And Dr. Imai’s simulations were misleading insofar as he allowed for a population variance among districts of roughly 4,000 people, whereas the district-population variance in the first enacted plan never exceeded one person.  Adams at ¶ 190 (Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, dissenting) (“To compare Dr. Imai’s maps to the enacted plan (as is central to the majority’s analysis) is rather like comparing watermelons to walnuts”).

                        {¶ 22} Moreover, in the first General Assembly-redistricting case, the majority placed great weight on an expert report prepared by Dr. Jonathan Rodden.  See League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-65, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 112, 126, 130.  Based on Dr. Rodden’s representations, the majority held out his proposed plan as more proportional than the enacted plan and as meeting all constitutional standards.  It did not.  See petitioners’ Notice of Correspondence filed on Jan. 20, 2022, in Supreme Court case No. 2021-1198, Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. (confessing “technical issues” in the plan that may have resulted in splits of municipal corporations and townships not “permitted by the strict language of Article XI”).  In a wiping-egg-from-the-face footnote, the majority admitted as much in the second General Assembly-redistricting case.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., ___Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-342, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 14, fn. 5.  To save this court from the embarrassment of another such incident, we should afford the parties time for meaningful discovery.  That cannot be accomplished on a 20-day schedule.

                        {¶ 23} The majority’s heavy reliance on petitioners’ experts in our recent redistricting cases exacerbates respondents’ need to submit their evidence to adversarial testing.  Indeed, in that same footnote, the majority criticized respondents’ failure to “contest” Dr. Rodden’s unconstitutional proposal.  Id.  But now, respondents highlight contradictions in the expert evidence presented by petitioners that raise questions about its validity.  Deposing petitioners’ experts will assist respondents’ effort to sort fact from fiction.  This court should not be in the position of making important constitutional decisions based on untested expert assertions.

                        {¶ 24} The truncated schedule is particularly unreasonable in light of the fact that the blame for the time-crunch lies squarely with petitioners.  They waited more than 20 days after the revised redistricting plan was enacted before they filed their complaint.  Instead of promptly filing a lawsuit challenging the new plan, petitioners filed a motion that sought to reopen a final judgment and obtain relief against a body that was not a party to that action.  By any reading of the law, such a motion was plainly improper.  See Spiegel v. McClintic, 916 F.3d 611, 619 (7th Cir.2019) (holding that a party cannot seek leave to amend a complaint after entry of judgment unless the judgment is first vacated or set aside); Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir.2011) (same); Morse v. McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir.2002) (same); Faith Properties, L.L.C. v. First Commercial Bank, 988 So.2d 485, 490 (Ala.2008) (same); Chokel v. Genzyme Corp., 449 Mass. 272, 278-279, 867 N.E.2d 325 (2007) (same).  This court recognized as much when it unanimously dismissed the unlawful filing.  See Adams v. DeWine, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-871, ___ N.E.3d ___.

                        {¶ 25} Petitioners have no legitimate excuse for their 20-day delay, and that delay prejudices their adversaries.  By needlessly “expediting an election case” the majority “ ‘restricts respondents’ time to prepare and defend against [their] claims,’ ” and burdens the state’s “ ‘ability to prepare, print, and distribute appropriate ballots because of the expiration of the time for providing absentee ballots.’ ”  State ex rel. Syx v. Stow City Council, 161 Ohio St.3d 201, 2020-Ohio-4393, 161 N.E.3d 639, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Willke v. Taft, 107 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5303, 836 N.E.2d 536, ¶ 18.

                        {¶ 26} The majority’s scheduling order is an improvement over the one proposed by petitioners, but in our view, it unnecessarily limits the time for discovery to 20 days.  As explained above, this case will undoubtably involve a battle of expert testimony.  And the majority has demonstrated in the General Assembly- and congressional-redistricting cases that the process by

                        which the plan is adopted will be scrutinized as much or more than the actual partisan result.  Sufficient discovery is essential to allowing the adversarial process to properly function, and there is no reason to rush discovery under the circumstances of this important case.

                        {¶ 27} “[P]ractical considerations sometimes require courts to allow elections to proceed despite pending legal challenges.”  Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406, 426, 128 S.Ct. 1970, 170 L.Ed.2d 837 (2008).  At this juncture, the primary election is upon us and it is not possible for this court to rule on petitioners’ objections to the constitutionality of the plan prior to that election.  We should therefore take guidance from what we did in Wilson I and what the United States Supreme Court did in Merrill v. Milligan, ____ U.S. ____, 142 S.Ct. 879, ____ L.Ed.2d ____ (2022): allow the congressional election to proceed under the duly adopted and presumptively constitutional plan and handle this litigation in a posture commensurate with the care and attention to detail a challenge of this magnitude requires.

                        {¶ 28} Because the majority’s scheduling order elevates expediency and politics over accuracy and fairness, we dissent.  We see no reason that this case should not proceed under a scheduling order that recognizes this case’s complexity and importance.  We would issue an order as follows:

                        {¶ 29} This matter also fits comfortably within our criteria for conducting oral argument.  See State ex rel. Pilarczyk v. Geauga Cty., 157 Ohio St.3d 191, 2019-Ohio-2880, 134 N.E.3d 142, ¶ 23.  We therefore would schedule oral argument forthwith.

 

{¶ 4} Both Ohio law and the United States Constitution prohibit this court from moving election dates established by the General Assembly and Congress.  And because the same district boundaries must be used for both the primary and general elections, it is too late for this court to enter any order that would affect the 2022 election cycle.  See Wilson v. Kasich, 131 Ohio St.3d 249, 2012-Ohio-612, 963 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 8 (“Wilson I”) (denying attack on decennial apportionment plan “based on laches insofar as [petitioners] attempt to challenge the use of the apportionment plan for the 2012 election cycle”).

{¶ 5} In light of this reality, it makes little sense for the majority to issue an order that unduly limits discovery.  Given the need to schedule depositions for numerous fact and expert witnesses, we believe that 25 days is insufficient.  This case most likely will turn on the credibility of expert testimony.  The cases addressing both the General Assembly and the congressional redistricting have demonstrated the need for expert opinions to be tested, as numerous alternative plans have been submitted that did not comply with the basic map-drawing requirements imposed by the Ohio Constitution.  Allowing the adversarial process time to unfold is essential to our fair review.  Sometimes in election cases it is necessary to decide the case on an expedited basis, but this is not one of those cases.  Therefore, we should not compress the discovery period.

{¶ 6} This case presents a question of importance to all Ohioans, and there is no reasonable basis to expedite this case and decide it without the discovery, argument, deliberation, and adversarial testing that it deserves.  In addition, we would schedule a date for oral argument now.  Because the majority does not, we dissent from that part of the scheduling order.

 

Background

Expedited Briefing Is Wholly Unnecessary

Expediting This Case Would Hinder the Parties’ Ability to Fairly Litigate It

Conclusion

                  • Answer to be filed within 21 days

                  Expert reports to be exchanged within 20 days of filing of the answer

                  • All fact and expert discovery to be completed within 45 days of filing of the answer

                  • Petitioners’ brief to be filed within 10 days of discovery cutoff

                  Respondents’ brief to be filed within 21 days thereafter

                  • Petitioners’ reply to be filed within 7 days thereafter

 

_________________

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/29/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-1002.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0126.  State ex rel. Byk v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-992, 2022-Ohio-136.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due March 23, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0180.  Byrd v. Newark.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00052, 2021-Ohio-3886.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due March 25, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0304.  Stingray Pressure Pumping, L.L.C. v. McClain.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2015-1465 and 2015-1823.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 29, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/29/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-994.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0132.  Rohrig v. Columbus.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0138.  State ex rel. Byron v. Collins.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.  Petitioner’s request for complete record of transcripts/discovery at state’s expense denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.  

 

2022-0141.  Clay v. McCarty.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0160.  Walker v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-0487.  State v. Lawson.

Lawrence C.P. No. 17CR0000333.  On application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.06.  Application denied.

 

2022-0140.  State v. Richardson.

Trumbull App. No. 2020-T-0037, 2021-Ohio-3482.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0047.  Wray v. Ice House Ventures, L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-24, 2021-Ohio-4195.

 O’Connor, C.J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II only.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0121.  State v. Williams.

Lorain App. No. 20CA011703, 2021-Ohio-4469.

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1412.  State v. Martin.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0044, 2021-Ohio-3163.

 

2021-1453.  State v. Warner.

Marion App. No. 9-21-14, 2021-Ohio-4183.  Appellant’s motion for stay of execution of sentence and admission to bail denied.

 Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I and would grant the motion.

Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

2021-1458.  State v. Warner.

Marion App. No. 9-21-15, 2021-Ohio-4182.  Appellant’s motion for stay of execution of sentence and continuation of bond or new bond pending appeal denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1511.  Fannie Mae v. Dent.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-197, 2021-Ohio-3826.

 

2022-0026.  State v. White.

Columbiana App. No. 2020 CO 0025.

 

2022-0027.  SMS Fin. XXVI, L.L.C. v. Waxman Chabad Ctr.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110374, 2021-Ohio-4174.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0028.  SMS Fin. XXVI, L.L.C. v. Waxman Chabad Ctr.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110376, 2021-Ohio-4174.

 Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2022-0029.  State v. Griffith.

Stark App. No. 2021 CA 00001, 2021-Ohio-4165.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0032.  State v. Elkins.

Sandusky App. No. S-21-010, 2021-Ohio-4231.  Appellant’s request for leave to file supporting documents denied. 

 

2022-0037.  Caldwell v. Custom Craft Builders, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110168, 2021-Ohio-4173.

 

2022-0040.  State v. Daylong.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-279, 2021-Ohio-4192.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-0042.  State v. Urbina.

Defiance App. Nos. 4-21-08 and 4-21-09, 2021-Ohio-4254.

 

2022-0044.  Pernick v. Dallas.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0011, 2021-Ohio-4635.

 

2022-0045.  Cleveland v. Kushlak.

Cuyahoga App. No. 111016.

 

2022-0046.  Terry v. Bell.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1057, 2021-Ohio-4235.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0050.  State v. Svoboda.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-190752 and C-190753, 2021-Ohio-4197.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2022-0051.  State v. Bush.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 0019, 2021-Ohio-4269.

 DeWine and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0052.  Buckeye Inst. v. Kilgore.   

Franklin App. No. 21AP-193, 2021-Ohio-4196.   

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

Robin N. Piper III, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for 

Fischer, J.

 

2022-0056.  State v. Terrell.

Cuyahoga App. No. 103428, 2021-Ohio-4563.

 O’Connor, C.J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I and would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0794, State v. Fuell.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0057.  Kidd v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-190618 and C-200018 through C-200022.

 Stewart, J., dissents.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating. 

 

2022-0069.  Long v. Harding.

Butler App. No. CA2020-11-120, 2021-Ohio-4240.

 

2022-0071.  State v. Brunk.

Richland App. No. 2021-CA-0037, 2021-Ohio-4270.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0076.  State v. Williams.

Erie App. No. E-18-024, 2019-Ohio-5144.

 

2022-0078.  State v. Morris.

Summit App. No. 13366.

 

2022-0079.  Osborn v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-200205, 2021-Ohio-3426.

 Stewart, J., dissents.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating. 

 

2022-0095.  Lapkovitch v. Rankl & Ries Motorcars, Inc.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00062, 2021-Ohio-4436.

 

2022-0096.  State v. Workman.

Auglaize App. No. 2-21-12.

 

2022-0115.  State v. Fields.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107971, 2021-Ohio-201.

 

2022-0123.  State v. Roberts.

Hamilton App. No. C-210310.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating. 

 

2022-0145.  State v. Brown.

Montgomery App. No. 21540.

 

2022-0167.  State v. Taylor.

Montgomery App. No. 28609, 2021-Ohio-1745.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-1376.  State v. Jones.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110081, 2021-Ohio-3359.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1505, 2022-Ohio-85, 179 N.E.3d 123.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

 

 

2021-1421.  State v. Walker.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1047, 2021-Ohio-3860.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1506, 2022-Ohio-85, 179 N.E.3d 125.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion granted.  The case shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0944, State v. Messenger.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1430.  Wisehart v. Wisehart.

Preble App. No. CA2021-01-001, 2021-Ohio-3649.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1524, 2022-Ohio-258, 179 N.E.3d 1293.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1462.  State v. Mejia.

Union App. No. 14-19-28, 2020-Ohio-4883.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1508, 2022-Ohio-140, 179 N.E.3d 1268.  On amended motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1464.  State v. Martinez.

Union App. No. 14-19-29, 2020-Ohio-4883.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1508, 2022-Ohio-140, 179 N.E.3d 1268.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY MATTERS

 

2022-0154.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Mager.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2021-021.  Jessica Anne Mager, Attorney Registration No. 0073766, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for six months, conditionally stayed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents and would remand the cause.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/28/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-973.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0579.  State v. Bunch.

Mahoning App. No. 18 MA 0022, 2021-Ohio-1244.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Lauren Gottesman and Kristina Kersey.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2021-0794.  State v. Fuell.

Clermont App. No. CA2020-02-008, 2021-Ohio-1627.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Kristina Kersey.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Phillip J. Strach and John E. Branch III.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days. 

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Phillip J. Strach and John E. Branch III.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days of the date of this entry.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2019-1371.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoague.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Michael Christopher Hoague, Attorney Registration No. 0024771, last known business address in Delaware, Ohio.  Application granted.  Michael Christopher Hoague reinstated to the practice of law.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/25/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-983.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0478.  Hudson v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109405, 2021-Ohio-576.  On joint motion for stay of proceedings including oral argument scheduled for March 29, 2022.  Motion granted.  Oral argument scheduled for March 29, 2022, canceled.  The parties shall provide a status update within 30 days.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/25/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-950.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Alyssa M. Riggins and Thomas A. Farr.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Thomas A. Farr and Alyssa M. Riggins.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days. 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/24/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-957.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210. League of Women Voters v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaints invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion by respondents Senator Vernon Sykes and House Minority Leader Allison Russo to move the primary-election date.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

_________________

FISCHER, J., concurring.

                        {¶ 1} I too would deny the motion filed by respondents Senator Vernon Sykes and House Minority Leader Allison Russo (“respondents”) requesting that this court move the date of the primary election. directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.”  Thus, lawyers must recognize the existence of pertinent opposing legal authorities in making their arguments to this court.  See Prof.Cond.R. 3.3, Comment 4.  A knowing failure to disclose such information may constitute “dishonesty toward the tribunal.”  Id.

                        {¶ 4} I am saddened, disappointed, and concerned that respondents’ motion and supporting memorandum fail to mention the case law directly contrary to their position.  Respondents request that this court move the date of the primary election.  However, respondents fail to mention that in League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, ___ Ohio St.3d____, 2022-Ohio-342, ___N.E.3d___, ¶ 65-66 (“League II”), a case in which respondents were parties, the majority opinion clearly sets forth the fact that this court lacks the authority to alter the date of an election.  The League II majority opinion specifically states that “[t]he General Assembly established the date of the primary election, see R.C. 3501.01(E)(1), and it has the authority to ease the pressure that the commission’s failure to adopt a constitutional redistricting plan has placed on the secretary of state and on county boards of elections by moving the primary election, should that action become necessary.”  Id. at ¶ 66.  This conclusion was emphasized in my dissenting opinion in League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, ___ Ohio St.3d____, 2022-Ohio-789, ___N.E.3d___, ¶ 196 (“League III”) (Fischer, J., dissenting).

                        {¶ 5} As parties in League II and League III, respondents were aware of the majority opinion’s resolution of the primary-election-date issue in League II.  And the extensive coverage of these cases in the mainstream press further demonstrates that the failure to disclose the controlling authority under League II was possibly done knowingly.  Respondents neither attempt to distinguish such a recent and well-known precedent nor argue for an exception to or a change in the law.  And if a change in the current law is the basis for their argument, the respondents should have at least cited to a case such as Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, ¶ 47, in support of their argument.  Respondents’ failure to refer to ¶ 65 or ¶ 66 of League II is troubling.

                        {¶ 6} The phrase “legal authority * * * not disclosed by opposing counsel” in Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(2) is written in the past tense for a specific purpose—so that a lawyer cannot attempt to avoid his or her duty to disclose directly adverse citations in the hope that the opposing party will later disclose the directly adverse authority.  A lawyer’s important duty to cite directly adverse legal authority cannot and should not be “lateraled” to an opposing lawyer.  The attorney, as an

                        officer of this court, has a duty and obligation to protect the judicial process and to disclose directly contrary authority.  The failure to do so might be a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(2) and might also constitute dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).

                        {¶ 7} This situation is extremely disappointing, and I can only hope that respondents’ failure to cite to League II was an oversight.  It is a sad day in the legal profession and this state’s judicial system when lawyers do not include a simple “but see” citation to contrary authority in any filing in this court, or in any court.

                        {¶ 8} For these and many other reasons, I concur in the decision denying the motion filed by respondents.

 

{¶ 2} I write separately, for the benefit of the judicial system and the legal profession, to express my sincere concern that in filing this motion and supporting memorandum, respondents’ attorneys may be in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  I may be wrong, but it seems the motion and its attached memorandum might be in contradiction to the requirements of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct requiring candor toward this court.

{¶ 3} The Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyer to be candid with courts.  See Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(2) and 8.4(c).  A failure on the lawyer’s part to be honest in his or her dealings with a court may result in a violation of these rules and subject the attorney to disciplinary action.  As relevant to this case, under Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(2), a lawyer “shall not knowingly * * * fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be

 

_________________

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/24/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-920.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0773 and 2020-0861.  Fonzi v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-901.

Monroe App. Nos. 19 MO 0012, 2020-Ohio-3631, and 19 MO 0011, 2020-Ohio-3739 .  Judgments affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0166.  French v. Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-869.

Jefferson App. No. 19 JE 0015, 2020-Ohio-4719.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1232.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Darling, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-870.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-034.  Stephen Michael Darling, Attorney Registration No. 0080930, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and ordered to make restitution of $8,835 to Lifestyle Medical Solutions.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinion, which was previously issued as an entry in response to an affidavit of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

21-AP-163.  In re Disqualification of Floyd, 2022-Ohio-919 (decided Feb. 10, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0533.  In re J.H.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109332, 2021-Ohio-700.  On appellant’s motion for continuance of oral argument, request to participate in hearings telephonically or via Zoom, and motion for remote hearing.  Motions and request granted.  Oral argument in this case shall proceed remotely.  The oral argument scheduled for April 13, 2022, is cancelled.  Oral argument will be rescheduled for a later date.

 

2021-1324.  Arnoff v. Lorain Cty. Sheriff.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for deposition by written questions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 31, motion for production, and motion for an evidentiary hearing and oral arguments.  Motions denied as moot.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/23/2022 Case Announcements #7, 2022-Ohio-912.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0303.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  The clerk of the court shall serve a summons and a copy of the complaint on respondents as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02.  Respondents shall file a response, if any, to the motion for scheduling order no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 24, 2022.  The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio shall govern the procedure and form of documents filed in this action.  The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure shall supplement the Rules of the Supreme Court of Ohio for this case, unless clearly inapplicable.  Service of all documents shall be on the date of submission for filing by personal service, facsimile transmission, or email.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/23/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-792.]

 

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1568.  State v. Brown.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss amended complaint for mandamus.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

_________________

 FISCHER, J., concurring.

                        {¶ 1} Although I agree that dismissal of relator David Brown’s complaint in this matter is appropriate, I write separately to address the argument that a criminal defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation. {¶ 3} In fact, the plain language of the Ohio Constitution supports the argument that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to hybrid representation.  Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution states, “In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel.”  (Emphasis added.)  The word “and” is conjunctive; the disjunctive word “or” is not found in the quoted constitutional provision.  As a matter of grammar and basic reading comprehension, Article I, Section 10 provides a probable constitutional right to hybrid representation.

                        {¶ 4} It is not improper for parties to rely on this court’s holdings in Martin and Thompson, but they should be aware that those cases were decided without this court considering the very document that might guarantee the right to hybrid representation.  I encourage this court to reevaluate its holdings in Martin and Thompson and take into consideration the plain language of Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution, because a plain reading of that provision supports a right to hybrid representation.

 

{¶ 2} Hybrid representation is the right to represent oneself with the assistance of counsel, with the defendant and defense counsel sharing responsibilities in preparing and conducting trial.  State v. Hackett, 164 Ohio St.3d 74, 2020-Ohio-6699, 172 N.E.3d 75, ¶ 34 (Fischer, J., concurring), citing State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385, 2004-Ohio-5471, 816 N.E.2d 227, ¶ 29.  It is true that this court has held that there is no right under the Ohio Constitution to hybrid representation.  See State v. Thompson, 33 Ohio St.3d 1, 6, 514 N.E.2d 407 (1987); Martin at paragraph one of the syllabus.  But as I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Hackett, this court did not look to the plain language of the Ohio Constitution in reaching that conclusion in Martin and ThompsonHackett at ¶ 35-36 (Fischer, J., concurring).

 

_________________

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/23/2022 Case Announcements #6, 2022-Ohio-910.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0163.  Iacona v. Iacona.

Geauga App. No. 2020-G-0270, 2021-Ohio-4616.  On appellee’s motion to strike memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  Motion denied.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/23/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-797.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0009.  Williams v. Warden, Cuyahoga Cty. Jail.

In Procedendo.  On Judge Nancy Fuerst’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

_________________

 FISCHER, J., concurring.

                        {¶ 1} Although I agree that dismissal of relator Daniel Williams Jr.’s complaint in this matter is appropriate, I write separately to address the argument that a criminal defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation. {¶ 3} In fact, the plain language of the Ohio Constitution supports the argument that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to hybrid representation.  Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution states, “In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel.”  (Emphasis added.)  The word “and” is conjunctive; the disjunctive word “or” is not found in the quoted constitutional provision.  As a matter of grammar and basic reading comprehension, Article I, Section 10 provides a probable constitutional right to hybrid representation.

                        {¶ 4} It is not improper for parties to rely on this court’s holdings in Martin and Thompson, but they should be aware that those cases were decided without this court considering the very document that might guarantee the right to hybrid representation.  I encourage this court to reevaluate its holdings in Martin and Thompson and take into consideration the plain language of Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution, because a plain reading of that provision supports a right to hybrid representation.

 

{¶ 2} Hybrid representation is the right to represent oneself with the assistance of counsel, with the defendant and defense counsel sharing responsibilities in preparing and conducting trial.  State v. Hackett, 164 Ohio St.3d 74, 2020-Ohio-6699, 172 N.E.3d 75, ¶ 34 (Fischer, J., concurring), citing State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385, 2004-Ohio-5471, 816 N.E.2d 227, ¶ 29.  It is true that this court has held that there is no right under the Ohio Constitution to hybrid representation.  See State v. Thompson, 33 Ohio St.3d 1, 6, 514 N.E.2d 407 (1987); Martin at paragraph one of the syllabus.  But as I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Hackett, this court did not look to the plain language of the Ohio Constitution in reaching that conclusion in Martin and ThompsonHackett at ¶ 35-36 (Fischer, J., concurring).

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/23/2022 Case Announcements #5, 2022-Ohio-796.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0030.  Williams v. Warden.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss petition for writ of procedendo.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.

_________________

 FISCHER, J., concurring.

                        {¶ 1} Although I agree that dismissal of relator Rodney Williams’s complaint in this matter is appropriate, I write separately to address the argument that a criminal defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid representation. {¶ 3} In fact, the plain language of the Ohio Constitution supports the argument that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to hybrid representation.  Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution states, “In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel.”  (Emphasis added.)  The word “and” is conjunctive; the disjunctive word “or” is not found in the quoted constitutional provision.  As a matter of grammar and basic reading comprehension, Article I, Section 10 provides a probable constitutional right to hybrid representation.

                        {¶ 4} It is not improper for parties to rely on this court’s holdings in Martin and Thompson, but they should be aware that those cases were decided without this court considering the very document that might guarantee the right to hybrid representation.  I encourage this court to reevaluate its holdings in Martin and Thompson and take into consideration the plain language of Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution, because a plain reading of that provision supports a right to hybrid representation.

 

{¶ 2} Hybrid representation is the right to represent oneself with the assistance of counsel, with the defendant and defense counsel sharing responsibilities in preparing and conducting trial.  State v. Hackett, 164 Ohio St.3d 74, 2020-Ohio-6699, 172 N.E.3d 75, ¶ 34 (Fischer, J., concurring), citing State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385, 2004-Ohio-5471, 816 N.E.2d 227, ¶ 29.  It is true that this court has held that there is no right under the Ohio Constitution to hybrid representation.  See State v. Thompson, 33 Ohio St.3d 1, 6, 514 N.E.2d 407 (1987); Martin at paragraph one of the syllabus.  But as I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Hackett, this court did not look to the plain language of the Ohio Constitution in reaching that conclusion in Martin and ThompsonHackett at ¶ 35-36 (Fischer, J., concurring).

 

_________________

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/23/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-791.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1533.  State v. Bowen.

Holmes App. No. 21CA001, 2021-Ohio-3969 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

1                    {¶ 1} Appellant, Richard Bowen, has alleged that the trial judge who presided over his 2018 criminal case indicated during an off-the-record conversation that he would not grant any motion to suppress Bowen’s confession, which Bowen claimed was false and coerced, because the judge knew of the questioning officer’s interrogation skills and did not think that the officer’s tactics would ever be coercive.  Although Bowen had presented, along with other evidence outside the record, an affidavit from his trial counsel to support his coerced-confession claim in his petition for postconviction relief, the trial court overruled the claim without holding an evidentiary hearing to test the truth of Bowen’s allegations.  The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the grounds that Bowen should have raised the issue on direct appeal and should have filed an affidavit of disqualification during the trial proceedings in an effort to have the judge removed.  2021-Ohio-3969, ¶ 32-34.

2                    {¶ 2} This case presents this court with the opportunity to address the problems that can arise when trial judges have off-the-record discussions about the cases pending before them, the inapplicability of res judicata to claims involving evidence outside the record, and the narrow purpose of affidavits of disqualification.  Moreover, this case presents us with the opportunity to

 

1                    address what I have repeatedly bemoaned as the increasingly miserly standards that Ohio’s courts use to justify their refusals to hold evidentiary hearings on petitions for postconviction relief.  See State v. Burke, 162 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2021-Ohio-1204, 166 N.E.3d 1245 (Donnelly, J., dissenting); State v. McFeeture, 159 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2020-Ohio-3885, 150 N.E.3d 123 (Donnelly, J., dissenting); State v. Bonnell, 159 Ohio St.3d 1413, 2020-Ohio-3276, 147 N.E.3d 647 (Donnelly, J., dissenting).

2                    {¶ 3} Because I believe that this court should seize on the opportunities discussed above, I dissent from this court’s decision to not accept jurisdiction over Bowen’s appeal.

 

_________________

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/23/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-798.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0306.  Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ironics, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-841.

Wood App. No. WD-19-018, 2020-Ohio-137 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, J.

 Fischer, J., concurs in judgment only in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.

 

2021-0448.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-840.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2019-015.  Samuel Ray Smith II, Attorney Registration No. 0076242, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years with the final six months stayed on conditions.

Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Brunner, JJ., would impose an additional 12-month suspension.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1187.  State ex rel. Huth v. Animal Welfare League of Trumbull Cty., Inc.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur. 

Brunner, J., dissents and would dismiss the cause. 

 

2021-1250.  State ex rel. Fluty v. Raiff.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted and respondents ordered to submit for in camera inspection unredacted copies of all records withheld in response to relator’s public-records request.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2021-1324.  Arnoff v. Lorain Cty. Sheriff.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1433.  State ex. rel. Doe v. Byrd.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for leave to amend complaint.  Motion denied as moot.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss second amended complaint granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1448.  State ex rel. Dates v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

 

 

2021-1467.  Havens v. Twelfth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On relator’s motion to disqualify opposing counsel, motion to strike respondent’s pleadings, motion to sanction for frivolous conduct, and motion for judgment on pleadings.  Motions denied.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss amended complaint granted.  Relator’s motion to strike respondent’s memorandum in opposition denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1497.  Weatherford v. DeWine.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1526.  McComas v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2021-1528.  Thornton v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1548.  Washington v. Warden.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1551.  Brown v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

2021-1563.  Lucas v. Gaul.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion requesting in camera review and supplemental motion requesting in camera review denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1569.  State ex rel. Bowie v. Bloom.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to supplement/clarify the reason for mandamus denied.  Respondent’s motion to strike relator’s motion denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., would grant respondent’s motion.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2021-1575.  Jarrell v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1587.  State ex rel. Gordon v. Ninth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1603.  Brown v. Greene Cty. Adult Detention Ctr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2021-1604.  Mayes v. Dankof.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1605.  Jarrell v. Greene Cty. Adult Detention Ctr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0033.  Willis v. Adm. Judge, Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0048.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Lucas Cty. Treasurer.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2022-0080.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Toledo.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

 Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent and would dismiss the cause. 

 

2022-0083.  State ex rel. Gregory v. Toledo.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent and would dismiss the cause. 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-1536.  S. Euclid v. Silver.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109234, 2020-Ohio-5185.  On appellant’s request to reassign judge.  Request denied.

 

2021-0502.  Asamoah v. GM Fin.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-112.  On appellant’s motion for relief from judgment.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0720.  Bank of New York Mellon v. Ackerman.

Montgomery App. No. 28737, 2020-Ohio-6954.  On appellant’s emergency request and motion to compel mediation proceedings.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0721.  Bank of New York Mellon v. Ackerman.

Montgomery App. No. 28737, 2020-Ohio-6954.  On appellant’s emergency request and motion to compel mediation proceedings.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0744.  State v. McNeal.

Montgomery App. No. 28885, 2021-Ohio-1520.  On appellee’s motion to dismiss appeal as improvidently accepted.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0977.  State v. Ramilla.

Greene App. No. 2021CA0019.  On appellant’s “motion for judgment on notice upon court.”  Motion denied.

 

2021-1090.  State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110297, 2021-Ohio-2524.  On appellant’s motion for oral argument.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2021-1091, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs., and 2021-1181, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Summit Cty., for oral argument only.  The appellants shall have a total of 30 minutes of oral-argument time, as will the appellees.

 

2021-1091.  State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

Lucas App. No. L-21-1087.  On appellant’s motion for oral argument.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2021-1090, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty., and 2021-1181, State ex rel. US Bank Trust,

Natl. Assn. v. Summit Cty., for oral argument only.  The appellants shall have a total of 30 minutes of oral-argument time, as will the appellees.

 

2021-1181.  State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Summit Cty.

Summit App. No. 29889, 2021-Ohi0-3189.  On appellant’s motion for oral argument.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2021-1090, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty., and 2021-1091, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs., for oral argument only.  The appellants shall have a total of 30 minutes of oral-argument time, as will the appellees.

 

2021-1267.  State ex rel. Freed v. Wise.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s objection and motion re lack of Article IV, Section 2(C) reasons, motion for costs, and motion for sanctions.  Motions denied.

 

2021-1367.  Free Inhabitant Falsely Imprisoned as U.S. Citizen v. Beel.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion for final, appealable order.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1370.  Asamoah v. Tigerpoly Mfg., Inc.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-488.  On appellant’s motion to impose sanctions.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion for relief from judgment denied.

 

2021-1371.  Asamoah v. Capital One.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-499.  On appellant’s motion to disqualify attorney Laura A. Hauser.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion to add exhibit to case denied.

 

2022-0089.  In re Roudebush Trust.

Carroll App. No. 21 CA 0949, 2021-Ohio-4557.  On appellants’ motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0157.  In re Estate of Millstein.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110546, 2021-Ohio-4610.  On appellant’s motion for immediate stay of court of appeals’ judgment.  Motion granted.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2022-0014.  Highland Tavern, L.L.C. v. DeWine.

Franklin App. No. 21-AP-176, 2021-Ohio-4067 .

 O’Connor, C.J., dissents.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1560.  State v. Murphy.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110220 and 110483, 2021-Ohio-3925 .

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and would remand the cause to the trial court for application of State v. Bethel, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-783, __ N.E.3d __.

Brunner, J., dissents.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 22, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/22/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-892.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0648.  State v. Bethel, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-783.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-324, 2020-Ohio-1343 .  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

 

2021-0975.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-784.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-073.  Kevin Christopher Cox, Attorney Registration No. 0074018, last known business address in Coshocton, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years with the second year stayed on conditions.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of T. Alora Thomas.  Motion denied for failure to complete the affidavit required by Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A)(7).  T. Alora Thomas may file a compliant motion for pro hac admission.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1539.  State v. Wolfe.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 0009, 2021-Ohio-3223.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due March 17, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/21/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-900.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  The clerk of the court shall serve a summons and a copy of the complaint on respondents as provided for by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02.  Respondents shall file a response, if any, to the motion for scheduling order no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2022.  The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio shall govern the procedure and form of documents filed in this action.  The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure shall supplement the Rules of the Supreme Court of Ohio for this case, unless clearly inapplicable.  All documents filed in this case shall be served on the date of filing by personal service, facsimile transmission, or email.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/21/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-900.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0298.  Neiman v. LaRose.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  The clerk of the court shall serve a summons and a copy of the complaint on respondents as provided for by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02.  Respondents shall file a response, if any, to the motion for scheduling order no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2022.  The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio shall govern the procedure and form of documents filed in this action.  The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure shall supplement the Rules of the Supreme Court of Ohio for this case, unless clearly inapplicable.  All documents filed in this case shall be served on the date of filing by personal service, facsimile transmission, or email.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/21/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-899.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On respondents Senator Vernon Sykes and House Minority Leader Allison Russo’s motion to move the primary-election date.  Sua sponte, responses, if any, ordered to be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 23, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the objections shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On respondents Senator Vernon Sykes and House Minority Leader Allison Russo’s motion to move the primary-election date.  Sua sponte, responses, if any, ordered to be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 23, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the objections shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On respondents Senator Vernon Sykes and House Minority Leader Allison Russo’s motion to move the primary-election date.  Sua sponte, responses, if any, ordered to be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on

Wednesday, March 23, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the objections shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/21/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-868.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MARCH 21, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the March 21, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-1037.  Ostanek v. Ostanek, 166 Ohio St.3d 1, 2021-Ohio-2319.

 

2020-1139.  State v. Pilkington, 166 Ohio St.3d 23, 2021-Ohio-4119.

 

2021-0271.  State v. Lamb, 166 Ohio St.3d 24, 2021-Ohio-4120.

 

2021-0668.  Gomez v. Bennett, 166 Ohio St.3d 11, 2021-Ohio-2797.

 

2021-0749.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 18, 2021-Ohio-4070.

 

2021-0764.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilcoxson, 166 Ohio St.3d 13, 2021-Ohio-3964.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0194.  In re Resignation of Whipple.

On respondent’s notice of withdrawal of application for retirement or resignation.  Matter dismissed.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/18/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-871.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1428.  Adams v. DeWine.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Petitioners’ motion to enforce court’s order denied as procedurally improper.  This court entered final judgment in this case on January 14, 2022, and did not retain jurisdiction to review any plan passed or adopted under Article XIX, Section 3(A) or 3(B) of the Ohio Constitution.  Petitioners may not, through a motion to enforce, challenge the validity of the congressional redistricting plan adopted on March 2, 2022.

Petitioners’ motion for leave to file amended complaint denied.  The motion seeks to add new claims that arose after this court’s final judgment on January 14, 2022.  

 Nothing in this order shall be construed as precluding the filing of a new original action challenging the validity of the March 2, 2022 plan under Article XIX, Section 3(A) of the Ohio Constitution.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur in the dismissal and would deny as moot the motion for leave to file amended complaint.

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Petitioners’ motion to enforce this court’s January 14, 2022 order denied as procedurally improper.  This court entered final judgment in this case on January 14, 2022, and did not retain jurisdiction to review any plan passed or adopted under Article XIX, Section 3(A) or 3(B) of the Ohio Constitution.  Petitioners may not, through a motion to enforce, challenge the validity of the congressional redistricting plan adopted on March 2, 2022.

Petitioners’ motion for leave to file second amended complaint denied.  The motion seeks to add new claims that arose after this court’s final judgment on January 14, 2022.  

 Nothing in this order shall be construed as precluding the filing of a new original action challenging the validity of the March 2, 2022 plan under Article XIX, Section 3(A) of the Ohio Constitution.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur in the dismissal and would deny as moot the motion for leave to file second amended complaint.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/18/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-867.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2022-0187.  State ex rel. Maras v. LaRose, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-866.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/18/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-847.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1492.  State ex rel. Wilson v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2021-1558.  Defendant is being held without due process of law.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0161.  Tate v. Calabrese.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/16/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-790.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-789.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Petitioners’ objections relating to the second revised plan’s violation of Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution sustained.  The Ohio Redistricting Commission shall be reconstituted and shall convene, and the commission shall draft and adopt an entirely new General Assembly-district plan that conforms with the Ohio Constitution, including Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B).  To promote transparency and increase public trust, the drafting shall occur in public and the commissioners should convene frequent meetings to demonstrate their bipartisan efforts to reach a constitutional plan within the time set by this court.  Petitioners’ requests for additional relief are denied at this time.  

The Ohio Redistricting Commission shall file the district plan with the secretary of state no later than March 28, 2022, and shall file a copy of that plan with this court by 9:00 a.m. on March 29, 2022.  This court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of reviewing the new plan.

Petitioners shall file objections, if any, to the new plan by 9:00 a.m. three days after the new plan is filed in this court.  Respondents shall file responses, if any, to the objections by 9:00 a.m. three days after the objections are filed.  If the deadline for the objections or responses falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the objections or responses shall be filed by 9:00 a.m. on the next business day.  Petitioners shall not file a reply or any motion for leave to file a reply.  The clerk shall refuse to accept any filings under this paragraph that are untimely or prohibited.  No requests or

stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of this court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent, with an opinion.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/16/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-770.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1266.  State v. Maddox, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-764.

Lucas App. No. CL-19-1253, 2020-Ohio-4702.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2021-0170.  Davis v. Nathaniel, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-751.

Summit App. No. 29761, 2020-Ohio-6858.  Judgment vacated for lack of a final, appealable order and cause remanded.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2021-0605.  State ex rel. Burkons v. Beachwood, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-748.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110139, 2021-Ohio-950.  Judgment affirmed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

21-AP-160.  In re Disqualification of Giulitto, 2022-Ohio-749 (decided Jan. 10, 2022).

 

21-AP-162.  In re Disqualification of Floyd, 2022-Ohio-750 (decided Jan. 12, 2022).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0864.  Maple Hts. v. Netflix, Inc.

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 1:20-CV-01872.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Gregory G. Garre.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2022-0055.  In re Application of Firelands Wind, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 18-1607-EL-BGN.  On motion of Firelands Wind, L.L.C., for leave to intervene as appellee.  Motion granted.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/15/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-765.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0255.  State ex rel. Brubaker v. Lawrence Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint no later than Thursday, March 17, 2022.  The case shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/14/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-762.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2016-1913.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Pro-Net Fin., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-726.

On Final Report by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, No. UPL 2012-05.  Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-0064.  Cincinnati Fed. S. & L. Co. v. McClain, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-725.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2018-2247.  Decision affirmed in part and vacated in part, and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, J.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2021-1387.  State ex rel. Pool v. Sheffield Lake.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to lift mediation stay.  Motion granted.

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/15/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-743.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0110.  Silver v. State.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0120.  Harris v. Schweitzer.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0081.  State v. Young.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109169, 2020-Ohio-5429.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0084.  State v. Yowpp.

Lucas App. No. L-19-1176, 2020-Ohio-5215.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1483.  Wilson v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-180196, 2019-Ohio-3880.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1352, Elliot v. Durrani.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the cross-appeal.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

2021-1486.  Carr v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-180458, 2020-Ohio-3787.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1352, Elliot v. Durrani.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the cross-appeal.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

2021-1487.  Roark v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-180647.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1352, Elliot v. Durrani.

 Stewart, J., would accept the cross-appeal. 

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating. 

 

2021-1488.  Jones v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-180642, 2020-Ohio-5607.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1352, Elliot v. Durrani.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the cross-appeal.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

 

 

2021-1489.  Robbinson-Woods v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-180515.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1352, Elliot v. Durrani.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the cross-appeal.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

2021-1490.  Bentley v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-190554.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1352, Elliot v. Durrani.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the cross-appeal.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

2021-1590.  State v. Brazo.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 0016, 2021-Ohio-4006.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox.

 Fischer, J., would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II only.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0022.  Deck v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-180685, 2020-Ohio-3790.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1352, Elliot v. Durrani.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the cross-appeal.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2022-0023.  Sand v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-180194, 2019-Ohio-3880.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1352, Elliot v. Durrani.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the cross-appeal.

W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REIVEW

 

2021-1165.  State v. McKnight.

Vinton App. No. 20CA721, 2021-Ohio-2673.  Appeal and cross-appeal not accepted.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., would accept the appeal.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

2021-1275.  State v. Piatt.

Wayne App. No. 19AP0023, 2020-Ohio-1177.

 

2021-1375.  State v. Thompson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109110, 2021-Ohio-3105.

 

2021-1538.  State v. Williams.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-145, 2021-Ohio-3317.

 

2021-1572.  White v. Cincinnati.

Hamilton App. No. C-210133, 2021-Ohio-4003.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1577.  Heredia Realty, L.L.C. v. Harvey.

Hamilton App. No. C-210313, 2021-Ohio-4218.

 

2021-1581.  Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Courtney.

Ashtabula App. No. 2020-A-0051, 2021-Ohio-4056.

 

 

2021-1584.  125th & St. Clair St. Co., L.L.C. v. Adams.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110291, 2021-Ohio-4013.

 

2021-1585.  State v. Anthony.

Stark App. No. 2020CA00126, 2021-Ohio-1755.

 

2021-1586.  State v. Conard.

Ashtabula App. No. 2021-A-0017, 2021-Ohio-4261.

 

2021-1589.  State v. Daniels.

Licking App. No. 21CA0025, 2021-Ohio-4142.

 

2021-1591.  State v. Baker.

Summit App. No. 29943, 2021-Ohio-3991.

 

2021-1593.  Leeds v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110348, 2021-Ohio-4123.

 

2021-1597.  State v. Norris.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00098.

 

2021-1601.  State v. Brown.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109979, 2021-Ohio-4130.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1602.  Covarrubias v. Lowe’s Home Improvement, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109819, 2021-Ohio-1658.

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1606.  State v. Ryan.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-032, 2021-Ohio-4059.

 

2021-1607.  State v. Hoy.

Delaware App. No. 21 CAC 03 0013, 2021-Ohio-4098.

 

2022-0002.  State v. Williams.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 041, 2021-Ohio-4643.

 

2022-0003.  State v. Ford.

Wood App. No. WD-20-085, 2021-Ohio-4403.

 

2022-0004.  State v. Clark.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0133, 2021-Ohio-4294.

 

2022-0008.  State v. Arroyo-Garcia.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-408, 2021-Ohio-4325.

 

2022-0011.  Pryor v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110403, 2021-Ohio-4315.

 

2022-0016.  Bachman v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-190514, 2021-Ohio-4073.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2022-0038.  Crawford v. Ohio Dept. of Health.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0033, 2021-Ohio-4302.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2022-0039.  State v. Echols.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-587, 2021-Ohio-4193.

 Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. IV.

Brunner, J., dissents and would remand the cause for application of State v. Smith, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-274, __ N.E.3d __.

 

2022-0068.  State v. Groce.

Franklin App. No. 18AP-51, 2021-Ohio-3490.

 Fischer and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-0073.  State v. Walker.

Franklin App. No. 17AP-558.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2022-0075.  State v. Lipkins.

Lucas App. Nos. L-21-1046, L-21-1058 through L-21-1061, 2021-Ohio-4343.

 

2022-0086.  State v. Workman.

Auglaize App. No. 2-21-08.

 

2022-0091.  State v. Jensen.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1042, 2021-Ohio-3505.

 

2022-0092.  State v. Washington.

Lucas App. No. L-19-1190, 2021-Ohio-760.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-1347.  State v. Johnson.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0032, 2021-Ohio-3410.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1505, 2022-Ohio-85, 179 N.E.3d 123.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s motion for stay and motion to waive court costs and three days in jail denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/14/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-763.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0263.  State ex rel. Pullins v. Holmes Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file an answer to the complaint no later than Thursday, March 17, 2022.  The case shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.  All documents in this case shall be served as specified by S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(C).

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/14/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-731.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-0136.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan.

Hamilton App. No. C-200318.  Appeal dismissed as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1373.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bulson.

On relator’s motion for an order directing respondent to show cause as to why he should not be found in contempt.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0104.  In re Resignation of Tripp.

On application for retirement or resignation of Douglas Stephen Tripp, Attorney Registration No. 0058362, last known address in Edmond, Oklahoma.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/14/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-729.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-1251.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rumes.

On certification of default.  Kevin Wayne Rumes, Attorney Registration No. 0067764, last known address in North Royalton, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

 

2022-0181.  In re Resignation of Barbera.

On application for retirement or resignation of Richard Barbera, Attorney Registration No. 0064044, last known business address in Medina, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending. 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0135.  S. Squared Properties, L.L.C. v. Searcy.

In Prohibition.  On joint application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 12, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/12/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-733.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1428.  Adams v. DeWine.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to petitioners’ motion for leave to file amended complaint no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 15, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motion for leave to file amended complaint shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/11/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-732.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to petitioners’ motion for leave to file second amended complaint no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 15, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motion for leave to file second amended complaint shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/11/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-714.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1254.  State v. Bortree.

Logan App. No. 8-20-67, 2021-Ohio-2873.  Sua sponte, appellee ordered to file a response to appellant’s motion to suspend the execution of sentence and application for bail pending appeal within ten days.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 9, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/09/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-668.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1457.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Burgess.  

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt and affidavit of compliance.  Motion granted.

 

2022-0036.  Fontain v. Smith.

Hamilton App. No. C-200011, 2021-Ohio-2750.  On appellant’s notice of filing a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  Cause stayed pending the federal court’s determination.  The parties shall notify this court immediately upon conclusion of the federal-court proceedings.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1393.  State v. Gannon.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-013, 2021-Ohio-483. Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due February 28, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2021-1443.  State v. Fulford.

Muskingum App. No. CT2020-0021, 2021-Ohio-356. Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due March 3, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/08/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-662.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to petitioners’ motion to enforce the court’s order no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 10, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motion to enforce the court’s order shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/08/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-660.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0622.  State v. Weaver.

Muskingum App. No. CT2019-0034, 2021-Ohio-102.  On motion of amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted. Amicus curiae shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2021-0864.  Maple Hts. v. Netflix, Inc.

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 1:20-CV-01872.  On motion of amicus curiae, state of Ohio, for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae, state of Ohio, shall share time allotted to petitioner.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2022-0061.  State ex rel. Hicks v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-637.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF MARCH 7, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the March 7, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2007-0492.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Squire, 165 Ohio St.3d 1299, 2021-Ohio-3438.

 

2014-0008.  In re Complaint of Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Ohio Edison Co., 165 Ohio St.3d 510, 2021-Ohio-2300.

 

2019-0303.  State v. Brinkman, 165 Ohio St.3d 523, 2021-Ohio-2473.

 

2020-1193.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vagotis, 165 Ohio St.3d 1290, 2021-Ohio-2756.

 

2020-1199.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Barbera, 165 Ohio St.3d 502, 2021-Ohio-2209.

 

2020-1418.  State ex rel. Wesley v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 165 Ohio St.3d 574, 2021-Ohio-3489.

 

2020-1438.  State ex rel. Pike Cty. Convention & Visitor’s Bur. v. Pike Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 165 Ohio St.3d 590, 2021-Ohio-4031.

 

2020-1497.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Deters, 165 Ohio St.3d 537, 2021-Ohio-2706.

 

2020-1573.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Doe, 165 Ohio St.3d 577, 2021-Ohio-3626.

 

2021-0198.  In re Application of Steinberg, 165 Ohio St.3d 518, 2021-Ohio-2402.

 

2021-0219.  State ex rel. Davidson v. Beathard, 165 Ohio St.3d 558, 2021-Ohio-3125.

 

2021-0256.  In re Application of Heckman, 165 Ohio St.3d 532, 2021-Ohio-2474.

 

2021-0353.  Dunkle v. Hill, 165 Ohio St.3d 580, 2021-Ohio-3835.

 

2021-0757.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Repp, 165 Ohio St.3d 582, 2021-Ohio-3923.

 

2021-1072.  State ex rel. Grumbles v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 165 Ohio St.3d 552, 2021-Ohio-3132.

 

2021-1123.  State ex rel. Rhoads v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 165 Ohio St.3d 562, 2021-Ohio-3209.

 

21-AP-080.  In re Disqualification of Cooperrider, 165 Ohio St.3d 1280, 2021-Ohio-3569.

 

21-AP-091.  In re Disqualification of Mallory, 165 Ohio St.3d 1282, 2021-Ohio-3572.

 

21-AP-095.  In re Disqualification of Schmidt, 165 Ohio St.3d 1287, 2021-Ohio-3571.

 

21-AP-097.  In re Disqualification of Goldberg, 165 Ohio St.3d 1285, 2021-Ohio-3628.

 

21-AP-102.  In re Disqualification of Lewis, 165 Ohio St.3d 1292, 2021-Ohio-3910.

 

21-AP-114.  In re Disqualification of Jenkins, 165 Ohio St.3d 1294, 2021-Ohio-4355.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Bozsik.

On motion for leave to institute a legal proceeding.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0053.  In re Application of Angelina Solar I, L.L.C.

Power Siting Board, No. 18-1578-EL-BGN.  On motion of Alamo Solar I, L.L.C., for leave to intervene as appellee.  Motion granted.  

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0230.  In re Romer.

On certified entry of felony conviction.  Shawn Alexander Romer, Attorney Registration No. 0084251, last known business address in Independence, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 5, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/05/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-646.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1428.  Adams v. DeWine.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to petitioners’ motion to enforce court’s order no later than 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 8, 2022.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motion to enforce court’s order shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 3, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/03/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-609.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0652.  State v. Drain.

Warren C.P. No. 19CR35870.  On appellant’s motion to correct docket to reflect appellant’s legal name change.  Motion granted.

 

2021-0579.  State v. Bunch.

Mahoning App. No. 18 MA 0022, 2021-Ohio-1244.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2021-0706.  Ames v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trustees.

Portage App. No. 2020-P-0063, 2021-Ohio-1369.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost to participate in oral argument.  Motion denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0128.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Owens.

On certification of default.  Robert Morris Owens, Attorney Registration No. 0069866, last known address in Delaware, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/02/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-596.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0864.  Maple Hts. v. Netflix, Inc.

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 1:20-CV-01872.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of John Bergmayer.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2021-1414.  Arnoff v. State.

Miscellaneous case.  On relator’s motion for production and motion for an evidentiary hearing and oral arguments.  Motions denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/01/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-588.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0209.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Dusing.

On relator’s motion for immediate interim remedial suspension.  Benjamin Dusing, Attorney Registration No. 0078572, last known business address in Fort Wright, Kentucky, immediately suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 Kennedy, J., would impose an immediate reciprocal suspension as respondent has consented to.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/01/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-586.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

 

In re Slusher, Pike County Auditor.

On February 14, 2022, the state of Ohio presented a request that the chief justice establish a special commission of three retired judges pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C).  Pursuant to R.C. 3.16, the special commission shall be established by the chief justice, not sooner than 14 days after receipt of the request, to consider the suspension from public office of Kayla N. Slusher, auditor of Pike County, Ohio, in relation to felony charges pertaining to official conduct in office. 

Accordingly, the following three retired judges are hereby appointed and directed to proceed as provided by R.C. 3.16:

 

Judge David E. Cain

 

Judge L. Alan Goldsberry

 

Judge James L. Kimbler

 

 Pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C)(1) at least one member of the special commission is of the same party as the public official and all members of the special commission shall receive compensation for their services and reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with special-commission functions, from funds appropriated by the attorney general’s office.

 It is further ordered that Jesse Mosser, legal counsel in the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel at the Supreme Court of Ohio, shall serve as secretary to the special commission, with authority to contact the parties, schedule hearings, and sign orders on behalf of and at the direction of the special commission.

 All documents in this matter shall be filed with the secretary to the special commission either by mail or in another manner directed by the secretary.  The original and five copies of all documents shall be filed.  All documents filed with the special commission shall also be served on all other parties to this matter on the day of filing with the secretary. 

 Pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C)(2), all meetings of the special commission shall be closed to the public and the records shall not be made available to the public for inspection or copying until the special commission issues its written report or otherwise concludes its proceedings.

 

  CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

March 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/01/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-585.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

 

In re Reynolds, Butler County Auditor.

On February 14, 2022, the state of Ohio presented a request that the chief justice establish a special commission of three retired judges pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C).  Pursuant to R.C. 3.16, the special commission shall be established by the chief justice, not sooner than 14 days after receipt of the request, to consider the suspension from public office of Roger Reynolds, auditor of Butler County, Ohio, in relation to felony charges pertaining to official conduct in office. 

Accordingly, the following three retired judges are hereby appointed and directed to proceed as provided by R.C. 3.16:

 

Judge David E. Cain

 

Judge L. Alan Goldsberry

 

Judge James L. Kimbler

   

 Pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C)(1) at least one member of the special commission is of the same party as the public official and all members of the special commission shall receive compensation for their services and reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with special-commission functions, from funds appropriated by the attorney general’s office.

 It is further ordered that Jesse Mosser, legal counsel in the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel at the Supreme Court of Ohio, shall serve as secretary to the special commission, with authority to contact the parties, schedule hearings, and sign orders on behalf of and at the direction of the special commission.

 All documents in this matter shall be filed with the secretary to the special commission either by mail or in another manner directed by the secretary.  The original and five copies of all documents shall be filed.  All documents filed with the special commission shall also be served on all other parties to this matter on the day of filing with the secretary. 

 Pursuant to R.C. 3.16(C)(2), all meetings of the special commission shall be closed to the public and the records shall not be made available to the public for inspection or copying until the special commission issues its written report or otherwise concludes its proceedings.  

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

March 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 03/01/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-554.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2022-0031.  Smith v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0041.  Tentman v. Barbarette.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1580.  State v. Moore.  

Montgomery App. No. 28640, 2021-Ohio-1114.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2022-0020.  State v. Monaco.  

Tuscarawas App. No. 2021 AP 01 0002, 2021-Ohio-3888.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., dissents. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1484.  Scott v. Durrani.  

Hamilton App. No. C-180641, 2021-Ohio-5351.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1352, Elliot v. Durrani.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.

 

2021-1485.  Schuster v. Durrani.  

Hamilton App. No. C-180687, 2020-Ohio-3789.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-1352, Elliot v. Durrani.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.

 

2021-1529.  EMOI Servs., L.L.C. v. Owners Ins. Co.  

Montgomery App. No. 29128, 2021-Ohio-3942.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

2021-1561.  State v. Cobb.  

Allen App. No. 01-20-43, 2021-Ohio-3877.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-1189 and 2020-1250, State v. Brooks.

 Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1328.  State v. Vanover.  

Geauga App. No. 2020-G-0268, 2021-Ohio-3172.

 

2021-1493.  State v. Jones.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110405, 2021-Ohio-3930.

 

2021-1494.  State v. Robinson.  

Logan App. No. 8-21-30.

 

2021-1496.  Sammons v. Keystone Am., Inc.  

Licking App. Nos. 2021 CA 00038 and 2021 CA 00039, 2021-Ohio-3885.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1500.  State v. Cooper.

Portage App. No. 2020-P-0086, 2021-Ohio-4057.

 

2021-1503.  Thomson v. Boss Excavating & Grading, Inc.  

Franklin App. No. 20AP-263, 2021-Ohio-3743.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1514.  State v. Kidd.  

Hamilton App. No. C-200356, 2021-Ohio-3838.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1520.  State v. Blackburn.  

Jackson App. No. 20CA8, 2021-Ohio-4040.

 

2021-1522.  Verbillion v. Enon Sand & Gravel, L.L.C.  

Clark App. No. 2021-CA-1, 2021-Ohio-3850.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1530.  G.E. v. Fortner.

Summit App. No. 28992, 2021-Ohio-1049.

 DeWine, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

 

2021-1531.  Helms v. Dept. of Neighborhood Assistance.   

Summit App. No. 29791, 2021-Ohio-2667.

 

2021-1534.  Columbus v. Wynn.  

Franklin App. No. 20AP-479, 2021-Ohio-3934.

 

2021-1535.  State v. Boler.

Athens App. No. 20CA09, 2021-Ohio-4081.

 

2021-1541.  State v. Feathers.  

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0004, 2021-Ohio-4137.

 

2021-1543.  State v. Feathers.  

Portage App. No. 2020-P-0068, 2021-Ohio-2886.

 

2021-1544.  State v. Feathers.  

Portage App. No. 2020-P-0069, 2021-Ohio-2886.

 

2021-1545.  State v. Feathers.  

Portage App. No. 2020-P-0070, 2021-Ohio-2881.

 

2021-1546.  State v. Feathers.  

Portage App. No. 2020-P-0071, 2021-Ohio-2881.

 

2021-1547.  State v. Feathers.  

Portage App. No. 2020-P-0072, 2021-Ohio-2881.

 

2021-1550.  Jaroscak v. State Pharmacy Bd.  

Lorain App. No. 20CA011672, 2021-Ohio-3867.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1553.  State v. Krouskoupf.  

Muskingum App. No. CT2021-0036, 2021-Ohio-3968.

 

2021-1554.  State v. Hulbert.

Van Wert App. No. 15-19-07, 2021-Ohio-2298.

 

2021-1556.  State v. Carroll.  

Coshocton App. No. 2021CA0020, 2021-Ohio-3937.

 

2021-1559.  In re A.J.  

Hamilton App. No. C-210111, 2021-Ohio-3917.

 Stewart, J., dissents.

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1565.  State v. Fisher.  

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200461 and C-200463 through C-200465.

 Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

DeWine, J., not participating.

 

2021-1566.  Solon v. Solon.  

Stark App. No. 2020CA00116.

 

 

2021-1570.  State v. Van Horn.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 98751, 2021-Ohio-4129.

 

2021-1571.  State v. Homa.  

Lake App. No. 2021-L-038, 2021-Ohio-3974.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II and would hold the cause for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox

 

2021-1576.  State v. Terry.  

Warren App. No. CA2021-04-029, 2021-Ohio-4043.

 

2021-1582.  Bankers Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. Moyer.  

Lake App. No. 2021-L-029, 2021-Ohio-4058.

 

2022-0005.  State v. Lynch.  

Hamilton App. No. C-210234, 2021-Ohio-4094.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

 Lisa L. Sadler, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

2022-0010.  Beckett v. Rosza.  

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0003, 2021-Ohio-4298.

 Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would hold the cause for the decision in 2020-0773 and 2020-0861, Fonzi v. Brown.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-1274.  State v. Salyers.  

Allen App. No. 1-20-55, 2021-Ohio-2978.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1494, 2021-Ohio-4515, 178 N.E.3d 529.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/28/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-587.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1405 and 2021-0043.  State ex rel. McKenney v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-583.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Writs denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/28/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-557.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-0608.  State v. CSX Transp., Inc.

Union App. Nos. 14-19-07 through 14-19-11, 2020-Ohio-2665.  On notice of automatic exclusion filed by Office of Attorney Services.  Andrew Tauber has not complied with the pro hac vice registration requirements as outlined in Gov.Bar R. XII.  Pro hac vice admission of Andrew Tauber revoked. 

 

2021-0382.  State v. Yontz.

Guernsey App. No. 20CA000010, 2021-Ohio-382.  On notice of automatic exclusion filed by Office of Attorney Services.  Maria Morris has not complied with the pro hac vice registration requirements as outlined in Gov.Bar R. XII.  Pro hac vice admission of Maria Morris revoked.

 

2021-0719.  Navistar, Inc. v. Dutchmaid Logistics, Inc.

Licking App. No. 2020 CA 00003, 2021-Ohio-1425.  On notice of automatic exclusion filed by Office of Attorney Services.  Shannon Grammel has not complied with the pro hac vice registration requirements as outlined in Gov.Bar R. XII.  Pro hac vice admission of Shannon Grammel revoked.   

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 26, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/26/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-560.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0209.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Dusing.

On relator’s motion for immediate interim remedial suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(19).  Respondent ordered to file a response, if any, to relator’s motion no later than 4:00 p.m. on February 28, 2022.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/25/2022 Case Announcements #4, 2022-Ohio-559.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  In accordance with this court’s February 7, 2022 entry, petitioners shall file objections, if any, to the General Assembly plan filed on February 25, 2022, no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February 28, 2022.  Respondents shall file responses, if any, to the objections by 9:00 a.m., three days after the objections are filed.  Petitioners shall not file a reply or a motion for leave to file a reply.  The clerk of this court shall refuse to accept any filings that are untimely or prohibited.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  In accordance with this court’s February 7, 2022 entry, petitioners shall file objections, if any, to the General Assembly plan filed on February 25, 2022, no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February 28, 2022.  Respondents shall file responses, if any, to the objections by 9:00 a.m., three days after the objections are filed.  Petitioners shall not file a reply or a motion for leave to file a reply.  The clerk of this court shall refuse to accept any filings that are untimely or prohibited.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  In accordance with this court’s February 7, 2022 entry, petitioners shall file objections, if any, to the General Assembly plan filed on February 25, 2022, no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February 28, 2022.  Respondents shall file responses, if any, to the objections by 9:00 a.m., three days after the objections are filed.  Petitioners shall not file a reply or a motion for leave to file a reply.  The clerk of this court shall refuse to accept any filings that are untimely or prohibited.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

  February 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/25/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-558.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, the hearing scheduled for March 1, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., is continued.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, the hearing scheduled for March 1, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., is continued.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, the hearing scheduled for March 1, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., is continued.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/25/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-548.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaints invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On February 24, 2022, this court ordered respondents to appear in person for a hearing on March 1, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

Fischer, J., dissents.

__________________

KENNEDY, J., dissenting.

                        {¶ 1} I dissent from the February 24, 2022 administrative orders setting this matter for a contempt hearing.  The chief justice, acting alone, does not have the authority to reject the answers filed by respondents, the Ohio Redistricting Commission and the commission members, to the show-cause orders in these cases and order the commission members to appear in person.  Rather, such orders require the assent of at least three other justices of this court.  See Article IV, Section 2(A), Ohio Constitution.   __ N.E.3d __.  The commission adopted a second plan on January 22, 2022, but a majority of this court invalidated it, holding that it too violated Sections 6(A) and 6(B).  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-342, __ N.E.3d __.  The majority ordered the commission to adopt a new plan by February 17, 2022, and to file it with this court by 9:00 a.m. on February 18, 2022.  Id. at ¶ 68.  Petitioners were then given three days after the filing of the maps to present objections.  Id. at ¶ 69.

                        {¶ 4} The commission reconvened, but it reached an impasse and adopted no new plan.  It then filed a “Notice of Impasse” with this court on February 18, 2022.  On that same day, the petitioners filed motions in the three cases before the court.  

                        {¶ 5} Petitioners in case No. 2021-11931 requested that this court “order Respondents to show cause why they failed to comply” with the court’s February 7, 2022 order and further requested that “Respondents be required to file their response by Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 9:00 am Eastern Time.”  Petitioners in case No. 2021-11982 asked this court to “order Respondents to show cause with a detailed written response and evidence, no later than 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 22, 2022, as to why, given the Commission’s assertion that it was unable to pass a constitutionally compliant plan.”  (Footnote deleted.)  In addition, petitioners in 2021-12103 asked this court to “order the Commission, and all of its members, to show cause by 9:00 am on February 22, 2022, as to why they should not be held in contempt of court, with appropriate remedies to follow.”  

                        {¶ 6} Without calling for a vote of the court, the chief justice, acting alone, issued an administrative order in each case, stating:

{¶ 2} Because the administrative orders were not approved by four members of the court, I dissent.

{¶ 3} On January 12, 2022, a divided court held that the General Assembly-district plan adopted by the commission on September 16, 2021, violated Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution, and it directed the commission to adopt a new plan within ten days.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-65,

1. Petitioners in case No. 2021-1193 are the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, and six individual voters: Tom Harry, Tracy Beavers, Valerie Lee, Iris Meltzer, Sherry Rose, and Bonnie Bishop.

 

2.  Petitioners in case No. 2021-1198 are ten individual voters: Bria Bennett, Regina C. Adams, Kathleen M. Brinkman, Martha Clark, Susanne L. Dyke, Carrie Kubicki, Meryl Neiman, Holly Oyster, Constance Rubin, and Everett Totty.

 

3. Petitioners in case No. 2021-1210 are the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, the Ohio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Ohio Environmental Council, and six individual voters: Pierrette Talley, Samuel Gresham Jr., Ahmad Aboukar, Mikayla Lee, Prentiss Haney, and Crystal Bryant.

 

                        {¶ 7}  The commission filed a timely response to the show-cause orders, as did each of the commission members.  The commission argued that none of its members should be held in contempt, and it asked this court to “withhold judgment on any finding of contempt, allowing the Commission a few additional days to attempt to adopt a compliant General-Assembly plan, file any such plan with the Court, and allowing the Court to consider any objections and responses thereto.”  application for the dismissal of a case and to issue an interim order suspending an attorney for committing a felony.  However, we have never, other than in attorney-discipline cases, authorized the chief justice to make a determination on behalf of the court that there is a prima facie case that a party is in contempt of one of our orders and that it must show cause why it is not.  Our precedent reveals that in cases other than those involving attorney discipline, a motion to show cause why a party is not in contempt involves the vote of the entire court.  See, e.g., McDougald v. Greene, 157 Ohio St.3d 1468, 2019-Ohio-4419, 133 N.E.3d 543 (the respondent was ordered to show cause within 14 days why he should not be held in contempt for failing to provide the records under the terms of the preemptory writ or produce evidence that the records did not exist); State ex rel. Stuart v. Greene, 157 Ohio St.3d 1413, 2019-Ohio-3797, 131 N.E.3d 941 (sua sponte, the respondent was ordered to show cause within five days why he should not be held in contempt); State ex rel. Doner v. Logan, 133 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2012-Ohio-4958, 977 N.E.2d 663 (ordering a show-cause hearing).  

                        {¶ 11}  The chief justice, acting alone, has made a prima facie finding of contempt and set the matter for a hearing.  This is not authorized by the Constitution, our rules, or the precedent of this court.  I therefore dissent from the administrative orders issued in these cases yesterday.

{¶ 8}  The following morning, February 24—again without calling for a vote of the court—the chief justice issued another administrative order in each case, this time requiring the members of the commission (the governor of Ohio, the secretary of state, the auditor of state, the president of the Ohio Senate, the speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, the minority leader of the Ohio Senate, and the minority leader of the Ohio House of Representatives) to “appear in person in this court for a hearing on March 1, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.”  __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-518, __ N.E.3d __.

{¶ 9}  Nothing in the Ohio Constitution grants the chief justice of this court authority to rule on motions on behalf of the full court.  Rather, Article IV, Section 2(A) states: “The supreme court shall, until otherwise provided by law, consist of seven judges, who shall be known as the chief justice and justices.”  It further provides that “[a] majority of the supreme court shall be necessary to constitute a quorum or to render a judgment.”  Article IV, Section 2(A), Ohio Constitution.

{¶ 10}  Nonetheless, we have delegated authority to the chief justice to issue administrative orders in certain instances.  For example, we have allowed the chief justice to grant an appellant’s

This cause originated in this court upon the filing of a complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that respondents show cause by filing a response with the clerk of this court no later than 12:00 p.m. on February 23, 2022, why respondents should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s February 7, 2022 order.  The clerk shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.

__ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-498, __ N.E.3d __.

__________________

  

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/25/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-536.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1297.  Howson v. Delaware Cty. Jail.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to stay discovery.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2022-0196.  State ex rel. Johnson v. Foley.

Lorain App. No. 21CA011789, 2022-Ohio-36.  On memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  This case originated in the court of appeals and therefore should proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.01.  The clerk shall issue an order for the transmission of the record from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/24/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-518.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On February 7, 2022, this court ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to adopt a new General Assembly redistricting plan and file it with the secretary of state by February 17, 2022, and to file a copy of that plan with this court by 9:00 a.m. on February 18, 2022.  On February 18, 2022, this court ordered, sua sponte, that respondents show cause why they should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s February 7, 2022 order.  Respondents have timely filed responses to the court’s order to show cause.  All respondents shall appear in person in this court for a hearing on March 1, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.  The hearing will continue until the matter is heard.  Respondents may be accompanied by their counsel.  No continuances will be granted.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On February 7, 2022, this court ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to adopt a new General Assembly redistricting plan and file it with the secretary of state by February 17, 2022, and to file a copy of that plan with this court by 9:00 a.m. on February 18, 2022.  On February 18, 2022, this court ordered, sua sponte, that respondents show cause why they should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s February 7, 2022 order.  Respondents have timely filed responses to the court’s order to show cause.  All respondents shall appear in person in this court for a hearing on March 1, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.  The hearing will continue until the matter is heard.  Respondents may be accompanied by their counsel.  No continuances will be granted.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On February 7, 2022, this court ordered the Ohio Redistricting Commission to adopt a new General Assembly redistricting plan and file it with the secretary of state by February 17, 2022, and to file a copy of that plan with this court by 9:00 a.m. on February 18, 2022.  On February 18, 2022, this court ordered, sua sponte, that respondents show cause why they should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s February 7, 2022 order.  Respondents have timely filed responses to the court’s order to show cause.  All respondents shall appear in person in this court for a hearing on March 1, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.  The hearing will continue until the matter is heard.  Respondents may be accompanied by their counsel.  No continuances will be granted.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/24/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-517.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1297.  Howson v. Delaware Cty. Jail.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s emergency request for injunctive relief, motion to supplement complaint, motion to strike memorandum in support of the writ filed November 23, 2021, and request for production denied.  Cause dismissed.

 Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent and would grant an alternative writ and would grant the motion to supplement the complaint.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/24/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-512.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0743.  Jezerinac v. Dioun, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-509.

Franklin App. No. 18AP-479, 2020-Ohio-587.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Piper, JJ., concur.

Robin N. Piper III, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Brunner, J.

 

2021-0229.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Whipple, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-510.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-013.  Douglas Paul Whipple, Attorney Registration No. 0025754, last known business address in University Heights, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for one year with six months stayed on conditions.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1073.  Boler v. Hill, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-507.

Marion App. No. 9-21-08.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion for an order of discharge or appropriate relief, motion to extend the record under Evid.R. 201, and motions for oral argument denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0036.  Fontain v. Sandhu.

Hamilton App. No. C-200011, 2021-Ohio-2750.  Sua sponte, pages 19 and 20 of appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (requiring that a memorandum “not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and the certificate of service”).  Appellees’ motion to strike memorandum in support of jurisdiction denied as moot.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2022-0122.  Krantz v. Pahnke.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0043, 2022-Ohio-15.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due February 22, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.  Appellant’s updated emergency motion to stay writ of restitution denied as moot.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/23/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-508.]

 

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to this case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2021-0999.  State ex rel. House v. Dir. of Job & Family Servs.

In Mandamus.

__________________

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for the case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of the case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0179.  State ex rel. Fix v. Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 23, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/23/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-461.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0031.  Siltstone Resources, L.L.C. v. Ohio Pub. Works Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-483.

Belmont App. No. 18 BE 0042, 2019-Ohio-4916.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

 DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy and Fischer, JJ.

 

2021-0911.  Davis v. Hill, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-485.

Marion App. No. 9-21-06.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0973.  Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schriver, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-486.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-079.  Respondent, Andrew Charles Schriver, Attorney Registration No. 0096887, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, publicly reprimanded.

Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Stewart, JJ., concur in the finding of a violation but dissent in part on the sanction and would suspend respondent for six months, all stayed, and would require a monitoring attorney for one year to ensure respondent’s continuing compliance with his Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program obligations, which he had fallen out of compliance with for a period of time, as noted in the opinion.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-0659.  State ex rel. Siedle v. State Teachers Retirement Sys.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2021-1159.  State ex rel. Grendell v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2021-1204.  Dickerson v. Social Sec. Commr.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1409.  State v. Baxter.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1414.  Arnoff v. State.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1416.  State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny respondents Auditor Keith Faber’s and Attorney General Dave Yost’s motions to dismiss and would grant an alternative writ as to those respondents.

Donnelly, J., not participating.  

 

2021-1422.  State ex rel. Wylie v. Cuyahoga Cty. Probate Court.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1437.  Murrey v. Turner.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1482.  State ex rel. Ware v. Wine.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, alternative writ granted.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

 O'Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2021-1498.  Hopkins v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2021-1499.  Johnson v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1501.  Johnson v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

 

2021-1508.  Nolan v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ amended motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1510.  Cantor v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1552.  Nolan v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2005-2436.  State v. Trimble.

Portage C.P. No. 2005CR0022.  On appellee’s motion to set date for execution.  Motion granted.  Sentence ordered to be carried into execution by the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the deputy warden on Thursday, March 12, 2026, in accordance with the statutes so provided.

Brunner, J., dissents.

 

 

2015-0080.  State ex rel. McIntyre v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On relator’s “renewal motion to show cause against respondents.”  Motion denied.

O’Connor, C.J., not participating.

 

2022-0038.  Crawford v Ohio Dept. of Health.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0033, 2021-Ohio-4302.  On appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal.  Motion denied.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1432.  State v. Bailey.

Hamilton App. No. C-200386, 2021-Ohio-3664.

 

2021-1491.  State v. Ashcraft.

Knox App. No. 21CA000002, 2021-Ohio-3842.

 Fischer, J., dissents. 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 22, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/22/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-484.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 21, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, were published in the February 21, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-0487.  State v. Lawson, 165 Ohio St.3d 445, 2021-Ohio-3566.

 

2019-1511.  State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 165 Ohio St.3d 368, 2021-Ohio-1762.

 

2020-0338.  State v. Glenn, 165 Ohio St.3d 432, 2021-Ohio-3369.

 

2020-0612.  Gabbard v. Madison Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 165 Ohio St.3d 390, 2021-Ohio-2067.

 

2020-1389 and 2020-1390.  Chapman Ents., Inc. v. McClain, 165 Ohio St.3d 428, 2021-Ohio-2386.

 

2021-0184.  In re Application of Lenarz, 165 Ohio St.3d 425, 2021-Ohio-2108.

 

2021-0751.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Long, 165 Ohio St.3d 498, 2021-Ohio-3967.

 

2021-1220.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews, 165 Ohio St.3d 1276, 2021-Ohio-3949.

 

21-AP-074.  In re Disqualification of Paschke, 165 Ohio St.3d 1267, 2021-Ohio-3235.

 

21-AP-125.  In re Disqualification of Helmick, 165 Ohio St.3d 1272, 2021-Ohio-4410.

 

21-AP-133.  In re Disqualification of Brown, 165 Ohio St.3d 1275, 2021-Ohio-4478.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0255.  State v. Bates, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-475.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107868, 2020-Ohio-267.  Judgment reversed and trial-court order vacated in part.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J., except for paragraphs 64 and 65 and basis No. 3 in paragraph 66.

 

2021-0624.  State ex rel. Parker Bey v. Byrd, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-476.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107909, 2021-Ohio-1413.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0796.  State ex rel. Harris v. Hamilton Cty. Clerk of Courts, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-477.

Hamilton App. No. C-210241.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0138.  State ex rel. Byron v. Collins.

In Habeas Corpus.  On petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/18/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-498.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to show cause by filing a response with the clerk of this court no later than 12:00 p.m. on February 23, 2022, why respondents should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s February 7, 2022 order.  The clerk shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  Petitioners shall not file a response or motion for leave to respond unless this court issues an order authorizing them to do so.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to show cause by filing a response with the clerk of this court no later than 12:00 p.m. on February 23, 2022, why respondents should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s February 7, 2022 order.  The clerk shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  Petitioners shall not file a response or motion for leave to respond unless this court issues an order authorizing them to do so.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to show cause

by filing a response with the clerk of this court no later than 12:00 p.m. on February 23, 2022, why respondents should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s February 7, 2022 order.  The clerk shall refuse to file a response that is untimely.  Petitioners shall not file a response or motion for leave to respond unless this court issues an order authorizing them to do so.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 18, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/18/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-472.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0670.  State v. Barnes.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109442, 2021-Ohio-842.  On appellant’s motion for leave to file supplement.  Motion granted.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 17, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/17/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-459.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0047 and 2021-0169.  State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-448.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Writs granted.  Parties’ joint request to direct the clerk of this court to supplement the record in this case with the unredacted affidavit of M.R. that is part of the record in 2020-1131, M.R. v. Niesen, granted.  Motion asking that the affidavit be filed under seal denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only.

 

2021-0443.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hillman, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-447.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-042.  Steven Edward Hillman, Attorney Registration No. 0002578, last known business in Dublin, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years, fully stayed on conditions.

DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by O’Connor, C.J.

 

2021-0457.  Karr v. McClain, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-449.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2020-1041.  Decision abating penalty reversed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1373.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bulson.

On respondent’s motion to file under seal.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s response to February 4, 2022 show-cause order stricken as untimely. 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/16/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-445.]

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1352.  Elliot v. Durrani.

Hamilton App. No. C-180555, 2021-Ohio-3055.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the cross-appeal.

 W. Scott Gwin, J., of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

 William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 16, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/16/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-453.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0026.  State v. Kidd, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-424.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110093.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

 Kennedy, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

 

2021-0151.  Barrow v. New Miami, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-423.

Butler App. Nos. CA2019-07-112 and CA2019-08-136, 2020-Ohio-4873.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly and Brunner, JJ.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1457.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Burgess.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Andrew Thomas Burgess, Attorney Registration No. 0094128, last known address in Bellevue, Washington.  Application denied.

 

 

 

 

2021-0216.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kathman.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Edward Timothy Kathman, Attorney Registration No. 0055446, last known address in Norwood, Ohio.  Application denied.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2014-0192.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Bancsi.

On respondent’s application for termination of probation.  Respondent has substantially complied with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D) and with this court’s order dated September 22, 2016, reinstating respondent to the practice of law and ordering him to serve a two-year term of monitored probation.  Probation of respondent, Joseph Bancsi, Attorney Registration No. 0025450, last known business address in Rocky River, Ohio, terminated.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/15/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-440.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0812.  Peppertree Farms, L.L.C. v. Thonen, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-395.

Stark App. No. 2019CA00159, 2020-Ohio-3042.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J.

 

2020-0814.  Peppertree Farms, L.L.C. v. Thonen, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-396.

Stark App. No. 2019CA00161, 2020-Ohio-3043.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer and Brunner, JJ.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties to this case have reached a settlement.  The case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Relator shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement within 60 days.  The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.

 

2021-1492.  State ex rel. Wilson v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 15, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/15/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-397.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1555.  McMahon v. Chambers-Smith.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2021-1573.  Dixon v. Shoop.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.  Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel denied.  Petitioner’s motion to stay execution of sentence and for release on home-detention confinement pending adjudication denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy and Donnelly, JJ., would deny petitioner’s motion to stay execution of sentence and for release on home-detention confinement pending adjudication.

 

2021-1574.  Cantor v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0007.  Hopkins v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

2022-0015.  State v. Blair.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2022-0019.  State ex rel. Ellis v. Hill.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2022-0034.  Blair v. Summit Behavioral Mental Health.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1523.  State v. Osborne.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110237, 2021-Ohio-3352.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2021-1539.  State v. Wolfe.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 0009, 2021-Ohio-3223.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., dissents. 

 

2021-1542.  State v. Hawkins.

Montgomery App. No. 29013, 2021-Ohio-3373.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1336.  State v. Gapen.

Montgomery App. No. 28808, 2021-Ohio-3252.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-0648, State v. Bethel.

 Donnelly, J., would also accept the appeal on proposition oof law No. I.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2021-1415.  State v. Williams.

Coshocton App. No. 2021CA0003, 2021-Ohio-3579.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1440.  TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200411 and C-210125, 2021-Ohio-3665.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart, J., dissent. 

 

2021-1540.  State v. Waltz.

Muskingum App. No. CT2021-0012, 2021-Ohio-3895.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox.

 DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1051.  State v. Mobley.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-25.

 

2021-1147.  State v. N.S.

Franklin App. Nos. 20AP-66 and 20AP-67, 2020-Ohio-5318.

 

2021-1408.  State v. Haynie.

Muskingum App. No. CT2016-0057.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

 

2021-1418.  State v. Gray.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110283, 2021-Ohio-3670.

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1420.  Wiltz v. Cleveland Clinic.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 109147 and 109483, 2021-Ohio-62.

 

2021-1423.  4030 W. Broad, Inc. v. Neal.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-31, 2021-Ohio-3685.

 

2021-1426.  State v. Gibson.

Montgomery App. No. 287692, 2021-Ohio-3614.

 

2021-1431.  CHS-Lake Erie, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid.

Franklin App. No. 18AP-897, 2020-Ohio-505.

 Brunner, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1436.  State v. Knight.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109302, 2021-Ohio-3674.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1439.  State v. Allison.

Stark App. No. 2021CA00006, 2021-Ohio-3723.

 

2021-1451.  State v. Conard.

Ashtabula App. No. 2019-A-0065, 2020-Ohio-6673.

 

2021-1454.  State v. Gaffin.

Adams App. No. 20CA1115, 2021-Ohio-2659.

 

2021-1470.  State v. Crews.

Muskingum App. No. CT2021-0011, 2021-Ohio-3799.

 

2021-1471.  Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Bowman.

Montgomery App. No. 29175, 2021-Ohio-3944.

 

2021-1474.  Westfield Twp. Zoning Inspector v. Emerald Bioenergy, L.L.C.

Morrow App. No. 2021 CA 0001, 2021-Ohio-3843.

 Kennedy and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1475.  State v. Cartlidge.

Seneca App. No. 13-21-06, 2021-Ohio-3787.

 

2021-1477.  State v. Craig.

Wood App. No. WD-20-034, 2021-Ohio-2790.

 

2021-1480.  State ex rel. Esrati v. Dayton Metro Library.

Montgomery App. No. 29050, 2021-Ohio-3753.

 

2021-1481.  State v. Reyes.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0014, 2021-Ohio-3478.

 

2021-1495.  State v. Cephas.

Hamilton App. No. C-200303.

 

2021-1512.  In re J.C.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-358, 2021-Ohio-3716.

 Stewart and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1513.  Roe v. Boland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110497, 2021-Ohio-4017.

 Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

2021-1527.  State v. Cutright.

Ross App. No. 21CA3749, 2021-Ohio-4039.  Appellant’s motion for stay denied.

 DeWine, J., would deny the motion as moot. 

 

2021-1532.  Cleveland Internatl. Fund Med. Mart Hotel v. Optima 777, L.L.C.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110930.

 Donnelly, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1549.  State v. Harris.

Muskingum App. No. CT2020-0052, 2021-Ohio-4007.

 

2021-1557.  State v. Hill.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-16, 2021-Ohio-3899.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

 

2021-1562.  State v. Prater.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-308, 2021-Ohio-3988.

 Brunner, J., not participating.

 

2021-1564.  State v. Davis.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110301, 2021-Ohio-4015.

 

2021-1578.  In re R.W.H.

Montgomery App. No. 28880, 2021-Ohio-4024.

 

2022-0013.  K.M. v. R.P.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0086.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-1039.  State v. Hoover.

Belmont App. No. 20 BE 0002, 2021-Ohio-2485.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1464, 2021-Ohio-4108, 177 N.E.3d 277.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1100.  State v. Harmon.

Pickaway App. No. 20CA6, 2021-Ohio-2610.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1465, 2021-Ohio-4109, 177 N.E.3d 279.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1168.  Ohio Power Co. v. Burns.

Washington App. Nos. 20CA19 through 20CA22, 2021-Ohio-2714.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1478, 2021-Ohio-4289, 177 N.E.3d 996.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion granted.  The case shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1183.  Gibbs v. Firefighters Community Credit Union.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109929, 2021-Ohio-2679.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1478, 2021-Ohio-4289, 177 N.E.3d 994.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

 

2021-1282.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

In Mandamus.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1489, 2021-Ohio-4409, 178 N.E.3d 516.  On motion for reconsideration and for sanctions.  Motion denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/14/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-399.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1172.  In re J.F.

Jackson App. Nos. 21CA2 and 21CA3, 2021-Ohio-2713.  On motion to appoint counsel for appellant.  Motion granted.  Mark J. Miller, Attorney Registration No. 0076300, appointed to represent appellant.  

 

2021-1594.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Botts.

On relator’s motion to show cause why respondent Tort Division should not be held in contempt.  Motion granted.  Respondents found in contempt.  Respondents ordered to comply with the subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.  Respondents’ “motion for discovery conditions/acceptance” and motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction denied.  Relator’s motion to restrict public access to its motion to strike granted.  Relator’s motion to strike granted.    

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2001-1208.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartsock.

On petition for reinstatement by respondent, Walter D. Hartsock, Attorney Registration No. 0031434, last known address in Jacksonville, Florida.  Petition granted.  Walter D. Hartsock reinstated to the practice of law.

 

 

 

 

2022-0072.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. James.

On relator’s motion for an interim remedial suspension.  Krishna James, Attorney Registration No. 0089891, last known business address in Youngstown, Ohio, immediately suspended from the practice of law for an interim period, pending final disposition of disciplinary proceedings.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/11/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-392.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Hill.

On motion for leave to institute a legal proceeding.  Motion denied.

 

2020-1126.  State v. Burns.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108468, 2020-Ohio-3966.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file supplemental briefs as to the impact of State v. Smith, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-274, __ N.E.3d __, on the proposition of law that this court has accepted in this case.  Appellant shall file his supplemental brief within 20 days.  Appellee’s supplemental brief due within 15 days of the filing of appellant’s supplemental brief.  No reply briefs, stipulations, or requests for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk shall refuse to file any stipulations or requests for extension of time.

 

2021-1068.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co. to Establish a Standard Service Offer.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 08-1094-EL-SSO, 08-1095-EL-ATA, 08-1096-EL-AAM, and 08-1097-EL-UNC.  On appellant’s motion to strike nonrecord materials from cross-appellant’s supplement and second merit brief.  Motion granted in part and denied in part.  Pages 1-46, 47-57, 58-69, 70-80, 81-92, 205-207, and 208 of the supplement to cross-appellant’s second merit brief and references to the supplement at pages 5-6, 29, and 33 of the second merit brief stricken.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/10/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-370.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1163.  In re Adoption of A.K., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-350.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 108521 and 108522, 2020-Ohio-3279.  Judgment affirmed and cause remanded to the trial court.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur.

DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J.

O’Connor, C.J., dissents, with an opinion.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Donnelly, J.

 

2021-0952.  State ex rel. Bradford v. Bowen, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-351.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0025, 2021-Ohio-2336.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1146.  Simmons v. Black, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-352.

In Habeas Corpus.  Writ denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

21-AP-147.  In re Disqualification of Stormer, 2021-Ohio-4671 (decided Nov. 2, 2021).

 

21-AP-150.  In re Disqualification of Brudzinski, 2021-Ohio-4672 (decided Nov. 30, 2021).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0967.  State v. Martin.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108996, 2021-Ohio-1096.  On appellant’s motion for appointment of the Ohio Public Defender as counsel.  Motion granted.  Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellant.

 

2021-1284.  Dawson v. Thalheimer.

Miscellaneous case.  On relator’s “motion to strike, as sham and false and to be adjudged frivolous conduct for filing the motion(s) to dismiss.”  Motion denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 9, 2022

 

Cite as 02/09/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-363.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

21-AP-140.  In re Disqualification of Bonfiglio, 2022-Ohio-4669 (decided Nov. 23, 2021).

 

21-AP-144.  In re Disqualification of English, 2022-Ohio-4670 (decided Nov. 16, 2021).

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1583.  State ex rel. Gomez v. Welch.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss amended complaint.  Motion granted.  Relator’s amended motion for stay of execution and amended motion for issuance of peremptory writ denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 8, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/09/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-364.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1186.  State v. Lewis.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108463, 2020-Ohio-5265.

Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.

Donnelly, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Stewart, J.

Stewart, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. II and III.

_________________

DONNELLY, J., dissenting.

                        {¶ 1} The facts of this case are tragic.  It is difficult to read them without feeling great sympathy for tiny, abused A.D., the victim in this case.  It is sad to think of how slow and painful her death must have been, and it is heart-rending to know that none of her potential will be realized.  Nothing can change what happened to A.D.  It is possible, however, that this court is making this tragic situation even worse by permitting the conviction and imprisonment of a man who did not cause A.D.’s death. {¶ 3} Because this court declines to accept jurisdiction in this case, we do not have the trial- and appellate-court records before us.  Accordingly, I must rely on the facts as stated by the Eighth District Court of Appeals below.  The court of appeals described the facts as follows:

                        {¶ 4} Lewis was convicted of aggravated murder, a violation of R.C. 2903.01(C), which states that “[n]o person shall purposely cause the death of another who is under thirteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.”  A.D. was under the age of 13, so the only issue was whether Lewis purposely caused her death.  A person acts purposely “when it is the person’s specific intention to cause a certain result.”  R.C. 2901.22(A).

                        {¶ 5} The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, stating that Lewis had done “nothing to help [A.D.],” had “made concerted efforts with Sierra to conceal A.D.’s plight,” “never told police there was an injured child in the apartment,” had “neglected to tell the dispatcher that she

                        had stopped breathing until he had been on the phone for almost four minutes,” and had “further concealed the harm done to A.D. when he falsely told police that she became ill after dining at a Red Lobster a few days before she died.”  2020-Ohio-5265 at ¶ 28.  Based on this evidence, the court concluded that Lewis had “collaborated with Sierra in purposely causing [A.D.’s] death.”  Id.

                        {¶ 6} Without the benefit of a full record to review, it is difficult to draw conclusions as to the propriety of Lewis’s conviction.  But I am not sure that the litany of Lewis’s inactions, some of which occurred after A.D. was already dead, is sufficient evidence upon which to conclude that he specifically intended to cause her death.  The state might also be troubled in that regard.  In addressing that issue in its memorandum in response to Lewis’s request for this court to hear his appeal, the state has not made a substantive argument but instead has merely quoted the same facts from the court of appeals’ opinion quoted above.  Whether the state considers the court of appeals’ resolution of the issue to be so obviously correct that no explanation is necessary, so vexing that there is no way to defend the conclusion, or something else, is unknown.  The bottom line is that the state has neither explained nor defended the conclusion that was reached by the court of appeals.

                        {¶ 7} There is nothing admirable about Deonte Lewis’s behavior in this case.  At a minimum, he acted with extreme callousness.  But it is unclear to me whether he purposely caused A.D.’s death through his inactions, and this court should examine the issue and provide guidance to lower courts that will address similar issues in the future.  Therefore, I would accept Lewis’s appeal to consider his second proposition of law, which concerns the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for aggravated murder.

                        {¶ 8} I am also concerned that Lewis and A.D.’s mother were tried together.  Lewis moved to have their trials severed and has argued that severance should have been granted because the evidence of prior acts of abuse that was admitted at trial was admissible against A.D.’s mother but was not admissible against him.  The court of appeals summarily rejected this argument: “[B]ecause this evidence applied only to [A.D.’s mother’s] case, it could not have affected the outcome of Lewis’s case.”  2020-Ohio-5265 at ¶ 68.

                        {¶ 9} Given the horrific nature of A.D.’s abuse by her mother and A.D.’s related death, it is difficult to defend such an unexplained conclusion.  And, once again, the state has not even tried to do so here.  In addressing the severance issue, the state has merely recited boilerplate law

                        concerning the necessity of joinder or severance and concludes that “the Eighth District held that the trial court did not err when the trial court chose not to sever the cases.”  The quoted statement is indeed true, but the interests of justice cry out for an explanation as to why joinder was permissible, which neither the court of appeals nor the state has provided.  Therefore, I would accept Lewis’s appeal to also consider his third proposition of law, which concerns whether his trial should have been severed from that of A.D.’s mother.

                        {¶ 10} I would accept jurisdiction over Lewis’s appeal to consider his second and third propositions of law.  I dissent.

 

{¶ 2} What is missing in this case is evidence that appellant, Deonte Lewis, did anything to harm A.D.  Although it is obvious that A.D. was abused, all of the evidence of that abuse relates to her mother.  No evidence suggests that Lewis abused A.D.  But appallingly, it is also clear that he did not do anything to help A.D.

 

 

Lewis was charged with one count of aggravated murder, one count of murder, one count of felonious assault, one count of permitting child abuse, three counts of child endangering, and one count of tampering with evidence in connection with the death of four-year-old A.D.  A.D.’s mother, Sierra Day (“Sierra”), was charged as a codefendant in the indictment.  Lewis pleaded not guilty and asked the trial court to sever his case from Sierra’s, arguing that a joint trial would compromise his ability to confront and cross-examine witnesses and deprive him of a fair trial.  The trial court denied the motion, and the cases were tried together.

A.D. was born on September 2, 2013.  Following A.D.’s birth, Sierra and A.D. lived with A.D.’s father, Mickhal Garrett (“Garrett”).  Sierra and Garrett were not married, and they ended their relationship when A.D. was less than two years old.  Sierra obtained custody of A.D., and Garrett paid child support.

In January 2016, Sierra and A.D. moved to the Harbor Crest Apartments in Euclid, Ohio.  Garrett had custody of A.D. for visitation on weekends “almost every other week.”  Garrett testified that during a visit in September 2017, he and his fiancée discovered bruises on A.D.’s chest and lower back.  Garrett asked A.D. about the bruises, and A.D. told him, “Mommy pushed me up the stairs.”  Garrett took photographs of the bruises, which were admitted into evidence, and reported the bruises to Cleveland police.  Garrett also discovered that A.D. had a loose tooth that was starting to rot.  Garrett confronted Sierra about the bruises and the tooth, but Sierra was unable to provide an explanation for the injuries.  Thereafter, Sierra obtained a temporary protection order against Garrett to prevent him from visiting A.D.

Sierra’s brother, Isaiah Day (“Isaiah”), and her sister, Erica Johnson (“Johnson”), testified that Sierra became romantically involved with Lewis in July 2017.  Multiple witnesses testified they believed Lewis lived with Sierra because

they were together every day.  Before Sierra started dating Lewis, A.D. regularly saw relatives on her maternal side of the family, and she acted like an ordinary child.  After Sierra became involved with Lewis, Sierra became estranged from her family and A.D. became withdrawn and stopped acting like a normal child.  Johnson testified that she also noticed that A.D. was becoming smaller.  She explained: “I thought maybe that just had something to do with her getting taller; you know, when toddlers grow, they slim out a little bit.  She was getting littler and littler to the point you can see the extension of her stomach sticking out, so to speak.”

Several child-care workers who cared for A.D. at the Harbor Crest Day Care Center testified that A.D. was “energetic,” “outgoing,” and a “happy little girl” when they first met her in late 2016 and early 2017.  One daycare worker, April Goode, described her as “verbal,” meaning she could tell someone when she needed to go to the bathroom.  Goode also stated that A.D. “interacted fine with other children.”  However, A.D.’s behavior and demeanor changed over time.  Johnson testified that A.D. came to her daughter’s birthday party on July 30, 2017, but A.D. did not interact with the other children.  Johnson explained: “It was a normal kid party.  Everyone was having fun.  We adults were, you know, watchin’ the kids and they were playin’ in the pool and chasing each other, just havin’ fun, and [A.D.] was just pretty much off to herself, not really interactin’ with the other kids.”

Daycare workers at Harbor Crest Day Care Center noticed that A.D. often came to school with bruises and scratches.  Tamira Finley testified that they started making observation reports every time they saw a new injury because they noticed that A.D. had “too many bumps and bruises.”  Whenever a childcare worker noticed a new bruise or scratch, she would question A.D. about it, and A.D. would invariably say that “Mommy did it,” or “Mommy hit me, Mommy hurt me.”

On May 15, 2017, A.D. came to the Harbor Crest Day Care Center with a scrape across her face.  Michelle Marshall, one of the child-care workers, asked Sierra what happened to A.D.  Sierra told Marshall that A.D. fell at the park.  After Sierra left the building, Marshall asked A.D. if she fell at the park, and A.D. replied, “Mommy pushed me.”  Seeking clarification, Marshall asked A.D. if Mommy

pushed her down the slide.  A.D. explained, “Mommy pushed me down the steps.”  Marshall recorded her observations in an internal observation report maintained at the daycare facility.

Three days later, on May 18, 2017, A.D. complained to Marshall that her head hurt.  Marshall examined her head and discovered blood blisters on her head and dried blood in her ear.  As usual, Marshall inquired as to what happened, and A.D. replied: “Mommy hit me, Mommy hurt me.”  Marshall and the daycare director called the police to report suspected child abuse.  EMS transported A.D. to Euclid Hospital, and Marshall, who followed in her own car, joined A.D. at the hospital.  The emergency room physician suggested A.D.’s head was bleeding because her braids were too tight.  However, A.D. repeated over and over that her mother caused the injury.

As previously stated, Sierra and Lewis began dating in July 2017, and thereafter, Sierra’s family saw less of A.D.  According to Isaiah, Lewis was “possessive” of Sierra.  Isaiah also believed that A.D. did not like Lewis.  Isaiah testified that one day, in February 2018, he and Sierra were “hangin’ out” at a friend’s house for the evening.  In the midst of conversation, Sierra mentioned that A.D. could not walk.  Later that night, Lewis joined the party, and Isaiah noticed that he was nervous “[l]ike he did something.”  Isaiah was concerned for A.D.’s safety and decided to go to Sierra’s apartment to check on her.

Isaiah testified that Lewis and Sierra were both present in the apartment when he came to check on A.D. under the pretext of a visit.  He brought a bottle of Bacardi Silver and socialized for a while in the living room before asking about A.D.  Thereafter, Isaiah found A.D. laying in her bed in her bedroom.  Isaiah explained: “So I go I open the door.  I see [A.D.].  She layin’ on the bed.  And it dawn on me, like, she says she can’t walk.  She was just layin’ down like this.  Her nickname Na Na, I said, ‘Na-Na,’ she layin’ like this, she turn her head like this, ‘Uncle Isaiah, Uncle Isaiah.’  I’m like ‘You cool, you cool?’  She like, ‘Yeah, yeah.’  Everythin’ just seemed pretty cool.  I’m like, well, she can’t walk, I’m figurin’ her ankle hurts or somethin’ like that.”  Thereafter, Isaiah went to the kitchen and asked

Sierra how A.D. was doing.  Sierra told him that everything was fine, but indicated that A.D. was not eating much.

On March 11, 2018, Lewis called 911 to report that A.D. was “unresponsive.”  Nathan Lupah, a Euclid firefighter and paramedic who responded to the call, testified that Lewis opened the door to the apartment when he arrived.  When Lupah entered the apartment, he found A.D. on the floor underneath an air conditioner that was running.  Lupah testified: “I remember thinking this is odd because it’s cold outside” and noticed that the “wind was blowing on [A.D.].”  Robert Swope and Chris Wilson, of the Euclid Fire Department, also attended to A.D. at the scene.  They noticed a strong smell of bleach upon entering the apartment, and Lieutenant Wilson discerned a smell of decomposition emanating from A.D.’s mouth while he was performing CPR.  The paramedics also noticed that A.D.’s jaw and body were stiff with rigor mortis.  According to Dr. Joseph Felo, a forensic pathologist in the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office, rigor mortis develops quickly and generally disappears within a day and a half after death.

Officer Nicholas Edington of the Euclid Police Department also responded to the 911 call.  He testified that Lewis identified himself as A.D.’s stepfather.  Edington interviewed Sierra, who told him that A.D. stopped eating and became sick after the family went to Red Lobster the previous Thursday.  Sierra also told Edington that earlier that morning, A.D. fell off the toilet and hit her head.  Sierra claimed she found A.D. on the ground unresponsive.

EMS took A.D. to Euclid Hospital.  Meanwhile, Euclid police obtained a search warrant to search Sierra’s apartment.  Lewis provided police with a key to the apartment.  Detective Phil Tschetter testified that he took photographs of A.D.’s bed because it had no sheets, no pillow, and no bedding, except a single fleece blanket.  He also noticed that the mattress smelled strongly of urine.

Detective Jennifer Kroczak, the lead homicide detective, listened to a recording of Lewis’s 911 call to police.  When asked whether Detective Kroczak made any observations while listening to the call, she stated: “I noticed that there was no excitement in the voices of the callers.  Both the defendants had spoken

during that call.  There was no panic; it was very flat.  It wasn’t what I would expect for a medical emergency of a four-year-old having stopped breathing.  Heidi Hobart, the 911 dispatcher, authenticated the recording of the 911 call and testified that she had been on the phone with Lewis for three minutes and 53 seconds before he mentioned that the child was not breathing.

Detective Kroczak authenticated photographs of A.D.’s body that were taken at Euclid Hospital.  She described A.D.’s body as “extremely emaciated” and “skeletal.”  She testified that there were obvious signs of trauma and abuse, including a deep dark bruise over an entire eye that was swollen shut.  There was also a one-inch laceration above the eyelid.  A.D. had burns on her lower extremities and bruises on her body.

Kroczak reviewed videos and other evidence extracted from Lewis and Sierra’s phones and found a video of Sierra and Lewis having sex at 3:28 p.m. on March 10, 2018, the day before A.D. was found dead.  Detective Kroczak also identified a surveillance video from a nearby Chipotle, showing Lewis and Sierra purchasing burrito bowls on March 10, 2018, at 6:34 p.m.  Despite these videos, Kroczak concluded, based on the evidence in her investigation, that only Lewis and Sierra had access to A.D. at the end of her life.

Dr. Felo performed the autopsy on A.D.’s body.  Dr. Felo estimated that A.D. had been dead for a day and a half at the time of the autopsy.  Dr. Felo described A.D. as “severely malnourished” and weighing only 26 pounds.  Her skin was loose because she had lost muscle and fat below the skin.  Dr. Felo observed that A.D. had a bruise on the right side of her forehead that was approximately one week old, and a black eye that she sustained two days before her death.  A.D. also had some abrasions on her left arm and back.  Some skin had “sloughed off” her lower legs and feet, and she had bed sores on her lower legs.

An internal examination revealed that A.D. developed a subdural hematoma, or blood clot, in the brain following blunt trauma to the left side of her head.  The brain injury caused pressure to build on A.D.’s brain, which caused her to have a stroke.  Dr. Felo estimated that the stroke would have occurred somewhere between two weeks and three months before A.D.’s death.  The injury also caused

a lack of oxygen in the brain that caused the back part of the brain to die.  The back part of the brain controls muscle coordination.  Dr. Felo explained that if A.D. could walk after the back part of her brain had died, her gait would have been clumsy and uncoordinated.

According to Dr. Felo, A.D.’s body slowly withered away after the stroke because brain damage and starvation caused her organs to deteriorate.  Her lungs were collapsed because they were not taking deep breaths.  Her pancreas was digesting itself because she was not eating.  Dr. Felo also found acute hemorrhagic gastrophy, i.e., the formation of stomach ulcers, caused by excessive stomach acid and no food.

Dr. Felo opined that a lay person would have known that A.D. was dying because she was unable to walk for a period of time due to her injuries.  Moreover, her gaunt face and emaciated body made it obvious that she was dying.  Dr. Felo explained that A.D. gradually declined, having less and less appetite and becoming more and more lethargic over time.  A.D.’s ability to use motor and cognitive skills also would have gradually diminished until the time of her death.

The jury found Lewis guilty of one count of aggravated murder, one count of murder, one count of felonious assault, one count of permitting child abuse, three counts of child endangering, and one count of tampering with evidence.  The court sentenced him to life in prison with eligibility for parole after 20 years.  Lewis now appeals his convictions.

 

(Footnotes and record citations omitted and brackets sic.)  2020-Ohio-5265, ¶ 3-23. 

STEWART, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

_________________

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 9, 2022

 [Cite as 02/09/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-280.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1513.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Macejko, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-322.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-031.  Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine, J., concur.

 Kennedy, J., concurs, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

 Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer and Donnelly, JJ.

 

2021-0770.  State ex rel. Duncan v. Am. Transm. Sys., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-323.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0005, 2021-Ohio-1697.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0832.  Stewart v. Collins, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-324.

Pickaway App. No. 21CA6.  Judgment affirmed.  Appellant’s motion for reversal of judgment denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-0711.  E. Cleveland v. Ambrose.

In Prohibition.  On motion for leave to intervene of East Cleveland Firefighters, IAFF Local 500, AFL-CIO.  Motion denied as moot.  Relators’ motion to strike proffered answer denied as moot.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0807.  McElroy v. Chambers-Smith.

In Mandamus.  On respondents Annette Chambers-Smith and Earlena Shepherd’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-0854.  Ladd v. Marchbanks.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Motion granted.  Relators’ motion to compel Civ.R. 30(B)(5) deposition denied as moot.  Respondent’s motion for protective order staying discovery denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1081.  State ex rel. Bloodworth v. O’Donnell.

In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for stay pending hunger-strike termination denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2021-1134.  Tower 10, L.L.C. v. Cocroft.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On One Columbus Property, L.L.C.’s motion to intervene.  Motion denied as moot.  Respondent’s motion to dismiss granted.  ORIX Real Estate Capital Holdings, L.L.C.’s motion to intervene denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ and would grant the motions to intervene. 

 

2021-1171.  Anderson v. Walker.

In Mandamus.  On respondents Judge Theresa Dellick, Ilen Velazquez, and Brittney Averhart’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed as to all respondents.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1258.  State ex rel. Davis v. McClain.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ joint motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to clarify claims denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would deny the motion to dismiss as to respondent tax commissioner and would issue an alternative writ as to the tax commissioner.

 

2021-1279.  State ex rel. Harris v. Ninth Dist. Court of Appeals Judges.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1284.  Dawson v. Thalheimer.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Relator’s request for judicial notice denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

 

 

2021-1293.  State ex rel. Yategna v. Dept of Rehab & Corr.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondents’ motions to dismiss.  Motions granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1301.  State ex rel. Ames v. Eleventh Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Prohibition.  On respondent Eleventh District Court of Appeals’ second amended motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1310.  State ex rel. Greenlee v. Scott.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1343.  Santomauro v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Prohibition.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, claim asserted by relator Craig Santomauro in his individual capacity dismissed, claims asserted by relator Andrea Cowan in her individual capacity and capacity as beneficiary dismissed, and alternative writ granted as to claim asserted by Santomauro in his coexecutor capacity.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.  The parties shall address only the prohibition claim asserted by Santomauro in his capacity as coexecutor.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1353.  State ex rel. Maharg v. Vandervoort.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1357.  Cantor v. Greene Cty. Adult Detention Ctr. Jail Adms.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Brunner, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ. 

 

2021-1377.  State v. Harris.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1457.  Cox v. Stupica.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1758.  State v. Johnston.

Miami App. No. 2018-CA-26, 2019-Ohio-4296.  On appellant’s “motion for facts and findings of law regarding judgment on case 19-1758.”  Motion denied.

 

2021-0497.  Brandt v. Pompa.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109517, 2021-Ohio-845.  On appellant’s motion to strike.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2021-0722.  State ex rel. Polivka v. Frenchko.

In Quo Warranto.  On respondent’s motion for sanctions for frivolous action.  Motion denied.

 Kennedy and Brunner, JJ., not participating.

 

2021-0980.  Doe v. Greenville City Schools.

Darke App. No. 2020-CA-4, 2021-Ohio-2127.  Sua sponte, cause no longer held for the decision in 2020-0705, Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., and stay of briefing schedule lifted as to proposition of law No. II

only.  Cause to be scheduled for oral argument on proposition of law No. II only at a later date.

 

2021-1124.  State ex rel. Lyda v. Miller.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion for relief from judgment.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1380.  State v. Ramunas.

Delaware App. No. 20 CAA 12 0054.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  The parties are to brief the issue as stated on page 2 of the court of appeals’ October 14, 2021 entry:  “If an individual trespasses in an occupied structure when any person other than an accomplice of the offender is present or likely to be present with the sole purpose of committing a theft offense therein, are the burglary and the resulting theft offense allied offenses of similar import within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25?”  The conflict case is State v. Gillman, 2015-Ohio-4421 , 46 N.E.3d 130 (4th Dist.).

 Kennedy and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1433.  State ex rel. Doe v. Byrd.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s emergency motion to expedite decision.  Motion denied. Relator’s second emergency motion to expedite decision and motion for leave to file supplemental pleading denied.

 

2021-1569.  State ex rel. Bowie v. Bloom.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s amended motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 

2022-0017.  State ex rel. Am. Homeowner Preservation, L.L.C. v. Montgomery Cty.

Montgomery App. No. 29140.  On appellee’s motion to consolidate appeals for purposes of briefing and oral argument or, in the alternative, motion to stay.  Motion to consolidate appeals denied and motion to stay granted.  Cause held for the decisions in 2021-1090, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty.; 2021-1091, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs.; and 2021-1181, State ex rel. US Bank Trust, Natl. Assn. v. Summit Cty., and briefing schedule stayed.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1273.  State v. Beard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109630, 2021-Ohio-2512.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.  Cause remanded to the trial court for resentencing for the allied burglary and robbery offenses.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0895.  State v. Mundy.

Clark App. No. 2020-CA-23, 2021-Ohio-605.  Reported at 164 Ohio St.3d 1448, 2021-Ohio-3336, 173 N.E.3d 1243.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart, J., dissent and would grant the motion as to proposition of law Nos. II and III.

 Brunner, J., dissents.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/07/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-349.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-342.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Petitioners’ objections relating to the revised plan’s violation of Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution sustained.  Revised plan declared invalid in its entirety.  The Ohio Redistricting Commission shall be reconstituted and shall convene and draft and adopt an entirely new General Assembly-district plan that conforms with the Ohio Constitution, including Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B).  The commission shall adopt the new plan and file it with the secretary of state no later than February 17, 2022, and shall file a copy of that plan in this court by 9:00 a.m. on February 18, 2022.  This court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of reviewing the new plan.

Petitioners shall file objections, if any, to the new plan, by 9:00 a.m., three days after the new plan is filed in this court.  Respondents shall file responses, if any, to the objections, by 9:00 a.m., three days after the objections are filed.  If the deadline for the objections or responses falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the objections or responses shall be filed by 9:00 a.m. on the next business day.  Petitioners shall not file a reply or any motion for leave to file a reply.  The clerk shall refuse to accept any filings under this paragraph that are untimely or prohibited.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time shall be filed, and the clerk of this court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent, with an opinion.

  Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-315.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 7, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the February 7, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0227.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Falconer, 165 Ohio St.3d 1255, 2021-Ohio-3597.

 

2020-0337.  State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060.

 

2020-0742.  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Heller, 165 Ohio St.3d 329, 2021-Ohio-2211.

 

2020-0748.  State ex rel. Griffin v. Sehlmeyer, 165 Ohio St.3d 315, 2021-Ohio-1419.

 

2021-0565.  State ex rel. Newell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 165 Ohio St.3d 341, 2021-Ohio-3662.

 

2021-0641.  State ex rel. Fritz v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 165 Ohio St.3d 323, 2021-Ohio-1828.

 

2021-1251.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rumes, 165 Ohio St.3d 1264, 2021-Ohio-3830.

 

21-AP-069.  In re Disqualification of Wallace, 165 Ohio St.3d 1254, 2021-Ohio-2732.

 

21-AP-116.  In re Disqualification of Hawkins, 165 Ohio St.3d 1256, 2021-Ohio-4360.

 

21-AP-119.  In re Disqualification of Scott, 165 Ohio St.3d 1262, 2021-Ohio-4383.

 

21-AP-129.  In re Disqualification of Rickett, 165 Ohio St.3d 1259, 2021-Ohio-4411.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0444.  State ex rel. Shie v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-270.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator’s motion to allow peremptory writ of mandamus and motion for recovery of damages denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0634.  State ex rel. Adams v. Winkler, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-271.

Hamilton App. No. C-2100114.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1297.  Howson v. Delaware Cty. Jail.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to strike respondent’s motion to dismiss filed November 30, 2021, due to lack of service.  Motion denied.  Relator permitted to respond to motion to dismiss within ten days.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2022-0127.  In re Poole.

On certified entries of felony convictions.  Robert Lawrence Poole, Attorney Registration No. 0065547, last known business address in Florence, Kentucky, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 4, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/04/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-325.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On Attorney General Dave Yost’s motion for limited intervention and motion to convert response to amicus brief.  Motion for limited intervention granted.  Motion to convert denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., would deny the motion to intervene and would deny the motion to convert as moot.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On Attorney General Dave Yost’s motion for limited intervention and motion to convert response to amicus brief.  Motion for limited intervention granted.  Motion to convert denied.

O’Connor, C.J., would deny the motion to intervene and would deny the motion to convert as moot.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On Attorney General Dave Yost’s motion for limited intervention and motion to convert response to amicus brief.  Motion for limited intervention granted.  Motion to convert denied.

O’Connor, C.J., would deny the motion to intervene and would deny the motion to convert as moot.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 4, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/04/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-310.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2019-1373.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bulson.

On relator’s motion to file under seal and motion for issuance of show-cause order.  Motion to file under seal granted.  Respondent, Douglas Whitney Bulson Jr., ordered to show cause by filing with the clerk of this court within ten days a written response explaining why he should not be held in contempt, the stay of his suspension should not be revoked, and he should not be suspended for failure to fully comply with this court’s order of May 21, 2020.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 3, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/03/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-294.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1594.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Botts.

Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response to relator’s “motion to restrict public access to its motion to strike and memorandum contra respondent’s motion for discovery-conditions/acceptance-motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and “motion to strike and memorandum contra respondent’s motion for discovery-conditions/acceptance-motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction” no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, February 7, 2022.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 3, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/03/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-288.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2019-1813.  State v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-274.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107899, 2019-Ohio-4671.  Judgment reversed, conviction vacated, and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Fischer and DeWine, JJ.

 

 

 

Proof of Insertion by Another Required for Rape Conviction

By Dan Trevas | February 2, 2022

A conviction for rape requires evidence that the accused inserted a body part or object into another person, not that the accused compelled another to insert a body part or object into the accused, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

Applying that ruling in the case of a Highland County woman who admitted that she directed her 2-year-old son to insert a sex toy into her vagina while she filmed the act, the Supreme Court concluded that, although those actions were grounds for a charge of gross sexual imposition (GSI), they technically do not constitute rape as defined by state law.

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Patrick F. Fischer, the Court reversed a Fourth District Court of Appeals decision affirming Miranda Smith’s conviction of rape of a child under the age of 13. The Court remanded the case to the Highland County Common Pleas Court with direction to modify Smith’s sentence on the charge to GSI and resentence her for the crime.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 2, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/02/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-273.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0007.  State ex rel. Bowman v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-233.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-109, 2020-Ohio-5343.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0051.  State v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-269.

Highland App. No. 20CA8, 2020-Ohio-6694.  Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0183.  State ex rel. Bey v. Bur. of Sentence Computation, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-236.

Franklin App. Nos. 19AP-46 and 19AP-534, 2021-Ohio-70.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0266.  State v. Moore.

Erie App. No. E-18-064, 2020-Ohio-6781.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost to participate in oral argument.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost allotted five additional minutes of

oral-argument time to be argued after appellant’s 15 minutes.  Appellee granted an additional five minutes of oral-argument time for a total of 20 minutes of oral-argument time.

 

2021-0763.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Ludwig.

On respondent’s motion to purge contempt and affidavit of compliance.  Motion granted.

 

2021-1351.   Asamoah v. TS Tech Americas, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-404.  On appellant’s motion to impose sanctions.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1388.   Patterson v. Am. Family Ins. Co.

Medina App. Nos. 20CA0075-M and 20CA0078-M, 2021-Ohio-3449.  On appellees’ motion to vacate the court’s January 14, 2022 order striking appellees’ combined memorandum in opposition to jurisdiction and conditional cross-propositions of law or, in the alternative, motion for leave to file their combined memorandum pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01(A)(2) and 7.05(A), instanter.  Motion denied as moot.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1537.  State ex rel. Clemons v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0087.  State ex rel. Clemons v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

February 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/01/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-259.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0348.  State ex rel. Horton v. Kilbane, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-205.

In Mandamus.  Writ denied.  Relator awarded statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.  Relator’s request for attorney fees and costs denied.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and would award attorney fees.

 

2020-1070.  State ex rel. Grendell v. Walder, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-204.

In Mandamus.  Writ granted.  Relator’s motion for leave to file supplemental affidavit of Kimberly Laurie granted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

February 1, 2022

 

[Cite as 02/01/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-258.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1461.  State ex rel. Myers v. Turner.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1465.  Saunders v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1466.  Johnson v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1468.  Nolan v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1476.  State v. McDonald.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1502.  McComas v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1506.  Davis v. Jones.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1509.  Hopkins v. Fairborn Mun. Court.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1521.  State ex rel. Wilson v. Hildebrand.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1524.  State v. Carter.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1525.  Thornton v. Greene Cty. Court of Common Pleas.   

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1442.  State v. Brown.  

Mahoning App. No. 19 MA 0136, 2021-Ohio-2853.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2021-1443.  State v. Fulford.  

Muskingum App. No. CT2020-0021, 2021-Ohio-356.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2021-1450.  State v. Ladson.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 105914, 2018-Ohio-1299.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1395.  State v. Joyce.   

Lake App. No. 2021-L-006, 2021-Ohio-3476.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1398.  State v. Waggle.  

Muskingum App. No. CT2020-55, 2021-Ohio-3457.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1351.  Asamoah v. TS Tech Americas, Inc.  

Franklin App. No. 21AP-404.

 

2021-1359.  Huston v. Huston.  

Summit App. No. 30123.

 

2021-1360.  State v. Fry.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109593, 2021-Ohio-2838.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2021-1362.  Jaffe v. Cleveland Clinic Found.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110164.

 

 

2021-1366.  Hennessy v. Durrani.  

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200145 through C-200148.

 Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1368.  Upchurch v. Durrani.  

Hamilton App. No. C-200384.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1369.  State v. Arab.  

Lucas App. No. L-20-1119, 2021-Ohio-3378.

 

2021-1371.  Asamoah v. Capital One.   

Franklin App. No. 21AP-499.  Appellant’s motion to impose sanctions denied.

 

2021-1372.  Asamoah v. Pennsylvania Higher Edn. Assistance Agency.  

Franklin App. No. 21AP-512.

 

2021-1373.  State v. Pennington.  

Hamilton App. No. C-200358, 2021-Ohio-3365.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating.

 

2021-1378.  State v. Brenson.  

Delaware App. No. 21CAA060029.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would remand the cause for the court of appeals to consider Civ.R. 6(D) and App.R. 14(C).

 

2021-1381.  Schlegel v. Summit Cty.   

Summit App. No. 29804, 2021-Ohio-3451.

 

2021-1382.  Pollock v. Brian J. Britt, D.D.S., L.L.C.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110489, 2021-Ohio-3820.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1383.  State v. King.  

Stark App. No. 2020 CA 00064, 2021-Ohio-1636.

 

2021-1384.  Lilly v. Neal.  

Montgomery App. No. CA 29148.

 

 

2021-1385.  Dayton v. Stewart.

Montgomery App. No. 29056, 2021-Ohio-3518.

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1388.  Patterson v. Am. Family Ins. Co.  

Medina App. Nos. 20CA0075-M and 20CA0078-M.  Appellee’s motion/notice to assert conditional cross-proposition of law denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., would deny appellee’s motion as moot.

 

2021-1390.  Patrick v. Patrick.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110979.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1396.  Eaton Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Grafton.  

Lorain App. Nos. 19CA011555 and 19CA011559, 2021-Ohio-3446.

 

2021-1397.  In re Guardianship of Baker.  

Montgomery App. No. 29145, 2021-Ohio-3692.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1399.  State v. Andrews.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1199, 2021-Ohio-3507.

 Stewart, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1400.  Martcheva v. Dayton Bd. of Edn.

Montgomery App. No. 29144, 2021-Ohio-3524.

 

2021-1417.  State v. Harris.

Summit App. No. 29583, 2020-Ohio-4365.

 

2021-1429.  State v. Neff.

Ottawa App. No. OT-20-004.

 

2021-1430.  Wisehart v. Wisehart.  

Preble App. No. CA2021-01-001, 2021-Ohio-3649.

 

2021-1435.  In re J.R.  

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 110397 and 110398, 2021-Ohio-3673.

 

2021-1441.  State v. Miller.  

Lake App. No. 2021-L-040, 2021-Ohio-3882.

 

2021-1447.  Jackson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.  

Franklin App. No. 21AP-96.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1452.  State v. Davic.  

Franklin App. No. 11AP-555, 2012-Ohio-952.

 

2021-1456.  State v. Jackson.  

Montgomery App. No. 29001, 2021-Ohio-3115.

 

2021-1472.  State v. Stiver.  

Hamilton App. No. C-210229, 2021-Ohio-3713.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-1113.  C.S. v. G.T.  

Franklin App. No. 19AP-804.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1456, 2021-Ohio-4033, 176 N.E.3d 759.  On motion for reconsideration and production of a certificate of the existence of a federal question.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1115.  Taylor v. Butler Cty. Court of Common Pleas.  

In Prohibition.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2021-Ohio-4033, 176 N.E.3d 754.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Demands “for dismissal for fraud on the court” and “for validation of subscribed oath of office” denied.  “Private, international, administrative remedy demand No. GBR-04072020-ALT” denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 31, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/31/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-252.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  On petitioners’ motion for leave to file reply brief.  Motion denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 31, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/31/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-227.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0851.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony.

On certification of default.  Marcelle Rose Anthony, Attorney Registration No. 0026115, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

 

2022-0018.  In re Resignation of Druckenmiller.

On application for retirement or resignation of Steven Thomas Druckenmiller, Attorney Registration No. 0089651, last known address in Upper Arlington, Ohio.  Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 28, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/28/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-201.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1393.  State v. Gannon.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-013, 2021-Ohio-483.  On January 18, 2022, this court granted appellant’s motion for delayed appeal and ordered appellant to file his memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.  On January 26, 2022, the entry granting the motion for delayed appeal was returned to the clerk of this court and the clerk resent the entry to the parties.  In light of any delay appellant may have suffered in receiving this court’s entry, appellant is ordered to file his memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

2021-1596.  Stevens v. Hill.

Marion App. No. 9-21-27.  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 27, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/27/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-186.]

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1317.  State ex rel. Richard G. Johnson Co., L.P.A. v. Sheehan.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110306.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due January 18, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.  Appellant’s motion for referral to mediation denied.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 26, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/26/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-182.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to petitioners’ objection to the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s revised map no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, January 28, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file an untimely response.  Petitioners may not file a reply.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the objections shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to petitioners’ objections no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, January 28, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file an untimely response.  Petitioners may not file a reply.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the objections shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, respondents ordered to file a response, if any, to petitioners’ objections no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, January 28, 2022.  The clerk of the court shall refuse to file an untimely response.  Petitioners may not file a reply.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to

respond to the objections shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/25/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-181.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1068.  In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co. to Establish a Standard Service Offer.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 08-1094-EL-SSO, 08-1095-EL-ATA, 08-1096-EL-AAM, and 08-1097-EL-UNC.  Sua sponte, parties ordered to file a response, if any, to appellant and cross-appellee’s motion to strike non-record materials from cross-appellant’s supplement and second merit brief no later than January 31, 2022.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 25, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/25/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-173.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0452.  State v. Jackson.

Hamilton App. No. C-190676, 2021-Ohio-517.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost for divided oral-argument time.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2021-1172.  In re J.F.

Jackson App. Nos. 21CA2 and 21CA3, 2021-Ohio-2713.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Timothy D. Keller.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1478.  State ex rel. Clemons v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2021-1567.  State ex rel. Clemons v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

2022-0035.  State ex rel. Clemons v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2022-0061.  State ex rel. Hicks v. LaRose.

In Mandamus.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/24/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-175.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0130.  Neuro-Communication Servs., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. 4:20-CV-1275.  On motion to admit newly discovered evidence of amicus curiae Queens Tower Restaurant, Inc., d.b.a. Primavista.  Motion denied.  Petitioners’ motion to strike Queens Tower Restaurant, Inc.’s improper supplemental brief and alternative motion to admit newly discovered evidence granted.

 Brunner, J., would deny petitioners’ motion as moot.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 24, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/24/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-156.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JANUARY 24, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the January 24, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1457.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Burgess, 165 Ohio St.3d 274, 2021-Ohio-2187.

 

2020-0110.  N.A.T. Transp., Inc. v. McClain, 165 Ohio St.3d 250, 2021-Ohio-1374.

 

2020-0469.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mahin, 165 Ohio St.3d 1250, 2021-Ohio-3195.

 

2020-1050.  State ex rel. Bey v. Loomis, 165 Ohio St.3d 267, 2021-Ohio-2066.

 

2020-1120.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 165 Ohio St.3d 292, 2021-Ohio-2374.

 

2021-0208.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Cosgrove, 165 Ohio St.3d 280, 2021-Ohio-2188.

 

2021-0216.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kathman, 165 Ohio St.3d 283, 2021-Ohio-2189.

 

2021-0217.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sabol, 165 Ohio St.3d 263, 2021-Ohio-2059.

 

2021-0228.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Robinson, 165 Ohio St.3d 270, 2021-Ohio-2123.

 

2021-0399.  State ex rel. Ellison v. Black, 165 Ohio St.3d 310, 2021-Ohio-3154.

 

2021-0878.  State ex rel. Schmitt v. Bridgeport, 165 Ohio St.3d 300, 2021-Ohio-2664.

 

2021-1120.  In re Resignation of Crosby, 165 Ohio St.3d 1251, 2021-Ohio-3386.

 

21-AP-072 and 21-AP-073.  In re Disqualification of McMonagle, 165 Ohio St.3d 1246, 2021-Ohio-2833.

 

21-AP-120.  In re Disqualification of DeSanto Kellogg, 165 Ohio St.3d 1248, 2021-Ohio-4384.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

In re Harris.

On applications for leave dated January 18 and 20, 2022, to file mandamus actions in this court.  Applications denied.

 

2010-1462.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jones.

On respondent’s application to terminate probation with affidavit.  Application denied as moot.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2009-0691.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jones.

On application of James Sidney Jones, Attorney Registration No. 0064099, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, to terminate probation.  Application granted.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1280.  State ex rel. Standifer v. Cleveland.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110200, 2021-Ohio-3100.  On appellee and cross-appellant’s application for dismissal of the cross-appeal.  Application granted.  Cross-appeal dismissed.  The appeal in this case remains pending.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/21/2022 Case Announcements #3, 2022-Ohio-153.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1233.  Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buzzelli.

On respondent’s request for continuance.  Request denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/21/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-141.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-1134.  Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Hamilton App. No. C-190176, 2020-Ohio-3440.  On appellee’s motion to strike citation to relevant authority.  Motion denied.  

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 21, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/21/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-140.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1595.  State ex rel. Barnette v. Hill.

Marion App. No. 9-21-30.  On appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.  Motion denied.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1311.  State ex rel. Clemons v. DeWine.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2021-1434.  State v. Singleton.

Delaware App. No. 20 CAA 06 0026, 2021-Ohio-3010.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due January 10, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2021-1455.  State v. Berger.

Guernsey App. No. 20CA000022, 2021-Ohio-3011.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due January 13, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

 

2021-1462.  State v. Mejia.

Union App. No. 14-19-28, 2020-Ohio-4883.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due January 13, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2021-1464.  State v. Martinez.

Union App. No. 14-19-29, 2020-Ohio-4883.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due January 13, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 20, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/20/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-120.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0019.  State v. Hansard.

Gallia App. No. 19CA11, 2020-Ohio-5528.  On motion of amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association to participate in oral argument.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association shall share time allotted to appellee.

 

2021-1158.  State v. Morris.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-015, 2021-Ohio-2646.  On appellant’s motion for extension of time to transmit record on appeal.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2021-1347.  State v. Johnson.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0032, 2021-Ohio-3410.  On appellant’s motion to waive court costs and motion to waive driver-intervention program.  Motions denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/19/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-119.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0130.  Neuro-Communication Servs., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

Certified Question of State Law, United States District Court of Ohio, Eastern Division; No. 4:20-CV-1275.  Sua sponte, any response to petitioners’ motion to strike Queens Tower Restaurant Group, Inc.’s improper supplemental brief and alternative motion to admit newly discovered evidence ordered to be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, January 24, 2022.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 19, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/19/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-109.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2019-1457.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Burgess.

Sua sponte, Andrew Thomas Burgess, Attorney Registration No. 0094128, last known address in Bellevue, Washington, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before December 23, 2019.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 18, 2022

 

 

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1445.  State v. Brown.  

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1393.  State v. Gannon.  

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-013, 2021-Ohio-483.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 DeWine, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1412.  State v. Martin.  

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0044, 2021-Ohio-3163.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1299.  State v. Ramsden.  

Clinton App. No. CA2020-11-016, 2021-Ohio-3071.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law Nos. I and II.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-1429, State v. Nicholas.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

 Brunner, J., would also accept the appeal on proposition of law No. III.

 Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

 

2021-1330.  Key Realty, Ltd. v. Hall.  

Lucas App. No. L-19-1237, 2021-Ohio-1868.  Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2020-0743, Jezerinac v. Dioun.  Appellee’s request for stay denied.

 Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., would grant appellee’s request.

 Kennedy, J., dissents and would not accept the appeal.

 DeWine, J., dissents and would not accept the appeal and would deny appellee’s request as moot.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1044.  State v. Balducci.   

Cuyahoga App. No. 109262, 2021-Ohio-2276.

 

2021-1295.  State v. Staley. 

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200270, C-200271, and C-200272, 2021-Ohio-3086.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1298.  Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., Inc.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110428.

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1304.  State v. Hawkins. 

Warren App. No. CA2020-07-039, 2021-Ohio-3072.

 

2021-1306.  Morris v. Morris. 

Cuyahoga App. No. 109854, 2021-Ohio-2677.

 

 

2021-1309.  State v. Martre.  

Allen App. No. 1-21-15.

 

2021-1315.  State v. Smith. 

Cuyahoga App. No. 109963, 2021-Ohio-3099.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1316.  Gatewood v. United Steel Workers of Am.  

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0111, 2021-Ohio-3272.

 

2021-1318.  State v. Diol.  

Hamilton App. No. C-200285, 2021-Ohio-3120.

 Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1319.  State v. Ferrell.  

Delaware App. No. 20 CAA 10 0046, 2021-Ohio-2826.

 

2021-1323.  State v. Porter.  

Hamilton App. No. C-200459, 2021-Ohio-3232.

 

2021-1325.  State v. Oliver.  

Clermont App. No. CA2020-07-041, 2021-Ohio-2543.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1329.  State v. Ducan.  

Hamilton App. No. C-200079, 2021-Ohio-3229.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1332.  State v. Thompson.  

Ross App. No. 19CA3696, 2021-Ohio-3390.

 

2021-1337.  Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc. v. Smith.  

Hamilton App. No. C-190357.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1339.  State v. Graham.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109582, 2021-Ohio-3199.

 

 

2021-1342.  State v. O’Donnell.  

Champaign App. No. 2020-CA-26, 2021-Ohio-3253.

 Donnelly, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1344.  State v. Dickerson. 

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 00005, 2021-Ohio-3257.

 

2021-1345.  State v. Young.  

Butler App. No. CA2020-04-052, 2021-Ohio-2541.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1346.  R.N. v. N.N.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110971.

 

2021-1347.  State v. Johnson.  

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0032, 2021-Ohio-3410.

 

2021-1363.  State v. Reyes.  

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0014, 2021-Ohio-3478.

 

2021-1376.  State v. Jones.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110081, 2021-Ohio-3359.

 

2021-1389.  State v. Scott.  

Mahoning App. No. 02-CA-215.

 

2021-1392.  State v. Scott.  

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200385 and C-200403, 2021-Ohio-3427.

 Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating. 

 

2021-1394.  State v. Rickard.  

Wood App. Nos. WD-20-050 and WD-20-051, 2021-Ohio-3514.

 

2021-1410.  State v. Sims.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109335, 2021-Ohio-4009.

 

2021-1419.  State v. Chester.  

Stark App. No. 2020CA00028, 2021-Ohio-918.

 

 

2021-1421.  State v. Walker.  

Lucas App. No. L-20-1047, 2021-Ohio-3860.

 O’Connor, C.J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II and would hold the cause for 2021-0944, State v. Messenger.

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would hold the cause for Messenger.

 

2021-1424.  State v. Reyes.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 110126, 2021-Ohio-3599.

 

2021-1425.  State v. Guyton.  

Summit App. No. 29913, 2021-Ohio-3725.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-1043.  State ex rel. Kerr v. Collier.  

In Mandamus.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1448, 2021-Ohio-3908, 175 N.E.3d 1283.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Relator’s request for an order denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., would deny relator’s request as moot.

 

2021-1070.  Jabr v. State.  

Miscellaneous case.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1448, 2021-Ohio-3908, 175 N.E.3d 1284.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1211.  In re S.D.  

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200304 through C-200307, 2021-Ohio-2747.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1445, 2021-Ohio-3938, 175 N.E.3d 1278.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2021-0794, State v. Fuell.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1308.  Landings at Beckett Ridge, L.L.C. v. Rosalind Holmes.  

Butler App. No. CA2021-09-0118.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2021-Ohio-4101, 176 N.E.3d 753.  On emergency motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/14/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-90.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1428 and 2021-1449.  Adams v. DeWine, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-89.

On complaints invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Congressional-district plan declared invalid.  The General Assembly shall pass a new congressional-district plan, as Article XIX, Section 3(B)(1) requires, that complies in full with Article XIX of the Ohio Constitution and is not dictated by partisan considerations.

Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent, with an opinion.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 14, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/14/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-88.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1388.  Patterson v. American Family Ins. Co. Medina App. Nos. 20CA0075-M and 20CA0078-M, 2021-Ohio-3449.  Appellees’ memorandum in response fails to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.03(B)(1) (a memorandum “shall not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the certificate of service”).  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 30 of the memorandum in response are stricken.  Appellant’s motion to strike appellees’ brief denied as moot.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 13, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/13/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-69.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1060.  State v. Brasher.

Butler App. No. CA-2020-08-094, 2021-Ohio-1688.  On joint motion to supplement the record with the transcripts and presentence-investigation report.  Motion granted.  The clerk of the Butler County Court of Appeals shall supplement the record with transcripts of the sentencing hearing on October 16, 2018, and the restitution hearing on July 27, 2020, and a sealed copy of appellee’s presentence-investigation report within ten days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1126.  State ex rel. Davila v. Stark Cty. Clerk of Courts. Stark App. No. 2021CA00077.  On joint application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 12, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/12/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-68.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1193, 2021-1198, and 2021-1210.  League of Women Voters v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-65.

On complaints invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  General Assembly-district plan declared invalid.  Pursuant to Article XI, Section 9(B), the Ohio Redistricting Commission shall be reconstituted under Article XI, Section 1, to convene and to ascertain and adopt a General Assembly-district plan in conformity with the Ohio Constitution.  The commission shall adopt a new plan within ten days.  This court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of reviewing the new plan adopted by the commission.  Petitioners shall file any objections to the new plan within three days of the plan’s adoption.

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., concur.

O’Connor, C.J., concurs, with an opinion joined by Brunner, J.

Brunner, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 12, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/12/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-63.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1594.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Botts.

On relator’s motion to show cause why respondents should not be held in contempt.  Respondents shall show cause why they should not be held in contempt by filing a written response with the clerk of this court within ten days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1356.  State ex rel. Finnell v. Ruehlman.

Hamilton App. No. C-210419.  Appellant has not filed a merit brief, due January 3, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2021-1411.  State v. Parker.

Franklin App. Nos. 18AP-990 and 18AP-991, 2019-Ohio-3908.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due January 3, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/11/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-56.]

 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1109.  State v. Drake.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 109883 and 109884, 2021-Ohio-2589.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 11, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/11/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-55.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Sarah Suwanda.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0763.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Ludwig.

Sua sponte, Nancy Hampton Ludwig, Attorney Registration No. 0077952, last known business address in Cincinnati, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before December 10, 2021.

 

2021-1220.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews.

Sua sponte, Amanda Ann-Carmen Andrews, Attorney Registration No. 0088814, last known business address in Port Clinton, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender her attorney-registration card and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before December 8, 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-0839.  State ex rel. Wright v. May.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondent shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2021-1187.  State ex rel. Huth v. Animal Welfare League of Trumbull Cty., Inc. 

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to terminate mediation.  Motion granted.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/10/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-54.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0025.  State ex rel. Schlegel v. Sweeney.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file a response to the complaint no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 14, 2022.  If respondent files a responsive motion pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04, relator’s response, if any, shall be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 2022.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/10/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-54.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2022-0025.  State ex rel. Schlegel v. Sweeney.

In Prohibition.  Sua sponte, respondent ordered to file a response to the complaint no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, January 14, 2022.  If respondent files a responsive motion pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04, relator’s response, if any, shall be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 2022.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 10, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/10/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-31.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF JANUARY 10, 2022

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the January 10, 2022 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2018-0542.  Akron Bar Assn. v. Parkin, 165 Ohio St.3d 1237, 2021-Ohio-3042.

 

2021-0559.  In re Resignation of Bower, 165 Ohio St.3d 1234, 2021-Ohio-2078.

 

2021-1086.  In re Jarabek, 165 Ohio St.3d 1238, 2021-Ohio-3064.

 

2021-1106.  Akron Bar Assn. v. Fannin, 165 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2021-Ohio-3167.

 

21-AP-066.  In re Disqualification of Triggs, 165 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2021-Ohio-2731.

 

21-AP-105.  In re Disqualification of O’Farrell, 165 Ohio St.3d 1240, 2021-Ohio-3890.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1401.  State v. Green.

Hamilton App. No. C-200068, 2021-Ohio-1645.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due January 3, 2022, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 7, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/07/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-22.]

 

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0747.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Berry.

On respondent’s motion to modify this court’s November 3, 2021 order.  Motion granted.  Respondent shall complete a minimum of eight hours of continuing judicial or legal education on the subject of sexual harassment by February 1, 2022.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1438.  State ex rel. Johnson v. Fregiato.

In Prohibition and Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2022-0024.  Schlegel v. Sweeney.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 6, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/06/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-16.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sarah Suwanda has not filed a motion for admission pro hac vice pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02.  Sua sponte, Sarah Suwanda stricken from all filings for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02 and Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A).

 

2021-1569.  State ex rel. Bowie v. Bloom.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to stay and attached certificate of service.  Relator did not certify that service was made on respondent as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11(B)(1)(a).  Relator shall amend the certificate of service to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.11 within five days or the motion to stay will be stricken.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1588.  State ex rel. Shaker House, L.L.C. v. Scott.

In Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 5, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/05/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-7.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1047.  State v. Fisk.

Montgomery App. No. 28798, 2021-Ohio-1973.  On appellee’s motion for appointment of the Ohio Public Defender as counsel.  Motion granted.  Office of the Ohio Public Defender appointed to represent appellee.

 

2021-1143.  Sandpiper Hospitality v. Bey.

Miscellaneous case.  On relator’s “complaint for writ of mandamus” and “affidavit of facts and motion and declaration to vacate judgment.”  Complaint and affidavit and motion denied.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

January 4, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/04/2022 Case Announcements #2, 2022-Ohio-9.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-1403.  DuBose v. McGuffey, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-8.

Hamilton App. No. C-210489, 2021-Ohio-3815.  Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., concurs, with an opinion.

Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

Fischer, J., dissents, with an opinion.

DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 4, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/04/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-5.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1374.  In re Establishing the Solar Generation Fund Rider Pursuant to R.C. 3706.46.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 21-447-EL-UNC.  On motion of Ohio Power Company for leave to intervene as appellee.  Motion granted.

 

2021-1578.  In re R.W.H.

Montgomery App. No. 28880, 2021-Ohio-4024.  Sua sponte, pages 16 through 35 of appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction stricken for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(B) (requiring that a memorandum “not exceed fifteen numbered pages, exclusive of the table of contents and the certificate of service”).

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-1251.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rumes.

Sua sponte, Kevin Wayne Rumes, Attorney Registration No. 0067764, last known business address in Brunswick, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 29, 2021.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

January 3, 2022

 

[Cite as 01/03/2022 Case Announcements, 2022-Ohio-1.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1511.  Fannie Mae v. Dent.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-197, 2021-Ohio-3826.  This appeal should proceed as a jurisdictional appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01.  Sua sponte, this court’s order to certify the record vacated.  Appellants shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within three days.  Appellee may file a memorandum in response within 30 days after the appellants’ memorandum in support of jurisdiction is filed.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 30, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/30/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4595.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1285.  State v. Simon.

Gallia App. No. 20CA14, 2021-Ohio-3090.  On appellant’s motion for this court to take judicial notice pursuant to Civ.R. 44.1.  Motion denied.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2019-0016.  Ohio Veterans & Fraternal Charitable Coalition v. Yost. Franklin App. No. 18AP-199, 2018-Ohio-4679.  On appellants’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2021-1200.  State v. Kimbrough.

Lorain App. No. 19CA011574, 2021-Ohio-2225.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due December 23, 2021, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

2021-1340.  State v. Reeder. Clinton App. Nos. CA2020-09-012 and CA2020-09-013, 2021-Ohio-2988.  Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due December 20, 2021, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court returns the following case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.  Respondents shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

 

2021-1250.  State ex rel. Fluty v. Raiff.

In Mandamus.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

December 28, 2021

[Cite as 12/28/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4515.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

2021-1095. Smith-Szarell v. Summit Cty.

In Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto. On respondent’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Relator’s motion for stay and motion to show cause and to vacate respondent’s petition denied. Respondent’s motion to strike, motion to dismiss amendment, and motion to strike document titled "Constitutional Questions" denied as moot. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Brunner, JJ., would deny as moot relator’s motion to show cause and to vacate respondent’s petition.

DeWine, J., would grant respondent’s motion to dismiss amendment.

Donnelly, J., would deny respondent’s motion to strike and motion to dismiss amendment.

2021-1361. Martin v. Huck.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

2021-1364. State v. Jackson.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

2 12-28-2021

2021-1367. Free Inhabitant Falsely Imprisoned as U.S. Citizen v. Beel.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

2021-1379. Martin v. Welch.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2021-1375. State v. Thompson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109110, 2021-Ohio-3105. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted. Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine and Donnelly, JJ., dissent.

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

2021-1254. State v. Bortree.

Logan App. No. 8-20-67, 2021-Ohio-2873. Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law.

Kennedy, Fischer, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

2021-1355. State v. Thompson.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-200388 and C-200400. Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II. Sua sponte, cause held for the decision in 2021-0452, State v. Jackson.

Kennedy and Stewart, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

Brunner, J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law and would not hold the cause for Jackson.

O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, J., dissent.

3 12-28-2021

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

2021-1007. State v. Fabal.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-86, 2021-Ohio-1793.

2021-1023. State v. Jones.

Summit App. No. 29706, 2021-Ohio-1050.

2021-1145. State v. Bard.

Stark App. No. 2019 CA 00184, 2021-Ohio-742.

2021-1252. State v. Stonitsch.

Hamilton App. No. C-200174, 2021-Ohio-2953.

DeWine, J., dissents.

Fischer, J., not participating.

2021-1253. State v. Chambers.

Adams App. No. 20CA1125, 2021-Ohio-3388.

2021-1255. State v. Reedijk.

Warren App. No. CA2020-12-086, 2021-Ohio-2879.

2021-1257. Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal, L.P.A. v. Hilgeman.

Montgomery App. Nos. 28581 and 28838, 2021-Ohio-3049.

Fischer, J., dissents.

2021-1259. State v. Pember.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-880, 2021-Ohio-2939.

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

2021-1260. State v. Wilson.

Licking App. No. 2021 CA 0011, 2021-Ohio-3192.

2021-1261. State v. Richard.

Marion App. No. 9-20-36, 2021-Ohio-2980.

2021-1263. State v. Artis.

Lucas App. No. L-19-1267, 2021-Ohio-2965.

4 12-28-2021

2021-1264. State v. Crump.

Hamilton App. No. C-190636 and C-190637, 2021-Ohio-2574.

2021-1266. State v. Creech.

Jefferson App. No. 21 JE 0001, 2021-Ohio-3020.

2021-1274. State v. Salyers.

Allen App. No. 1-20-55, 2021-Ohio-2978.

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

2021-1277. Hicks v. Safelite Group, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-136, 2021-Ohio-3044.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

2021-1278. State v. Slaughter.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-653.

Brunner, J., dissents.

2021-1283. State v. Williams.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-824, 2021-Ohio-3006.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I and III.

2021-1285. State v. Simon.

Gallia App. No. 20CA14, 2021-Ohio-3090.

Fischer, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. II and III.

2021-1286. Franano v. Gemperline.

Delaware App. No. 21 CAE 01 0002, 2021-Ohio-2394.

2021-1289. Briceland v. Briceland.

Columbiana App. No. 20 CO 0027, 2021-Ohio-3161.

2021-1291. State ex rel. Thomas v. Sheldon.

Allen App. No. 1-21-13.

2021-1292. In re K.L.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0022, 2021-Ohio-3080.

5 12-28-2021

2021-1296. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Collins.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109555, 2021-Ohio-508.

2021-1302. In re E.G.

Guernsey App. Nos. 20CA12 and 20CA16, 2021-Ohio-917.

2021-1307. State v. Jackson.

Montgomery App. No. 29000, 2021-Ohio-3114.

2021-1314. State v. Webster.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-171, 2021-Ohio-3218.

2021-1321. State v. Peyatt.

Monroe App. No. 21 MO 0001.

2021-1331. State v. Atkinson.

Muskingum App. No. CT2021-0018, 2021-Ohio-3550.

2021-1333. State v. Kirks.

Richland App. No. 2021 CA 0005, 2021-Ohio-3194.

2021-1334. State v. Yerkey.

Mahoning App. No. 20 MA 0087, 2021-Ohio-3331.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would appoint counsel.

2021-1335. In re Guardianship of T.M.D.-D.

Washington App. No. 20CA36, 2021-Ohio-3249.

2021-1341. State v. Pope.

Hamilton App. No. C-200137.

2021-1354. State v. Gatewood.

Hamilton App. No. C-190654, 2021-Ohio-3325.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law Nos. I, II, and III.

Fischer, J., not participating.

6 12-28-2021

2021-1365. State v. Watson.

Montgomery App. No. 28914, 2021-Ohio-2218.

2021-1370. Asamoah v. Tigerpoly Mfg., Inc.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-488.

2021-1391. State v. Palmer.

Mahoning App. No. 19 MA 0108.

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

2020-0676. O’Neal v. State.

Franklin App. Nos. 19AP-260 and 19AP-289, 2020-Ohio-506. Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2021-Ohio-3663, __ N.E.3d __. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

2020-0683. O’Neal v. State.

Franklin App. Nos. 19AP-260 and 19AP-289, 2020-Ohio-506. Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2021-Ohio-3663, __ N.E.3d __. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

2021-0421. Robinson v. State.

Lorain App. No. 20CA011709, 2021-Ohio-634. Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2021-Ohio-3865, __ N.E.3d __. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

2021-0565. State ex rel. Newell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110215, 2021-Ohio-1197. Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2021-Ohio-3662, __ N.E.3d __. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

2021-0917. State ex rel. Majid v. Gallagher.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1403, 2021-Ohio-3631, 175 N.E.3d 546. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

2021-0954. State ex rel. Peterson v. Gallagher.

In Procedendo. Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1403, 2021-Ohio-3631, 175 N.E.3d 547. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

7 12-28-2021

2021-0986. Daher v. Cuyahoga Community College Dist.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109719, 2021-Ohio-2103. Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2021-Ohio-3730, 175 N.E.3d 573. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

2021-0990. Lane v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-335, 2021-Ohio-1891. Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2021-Ohio-3730, 175 N.E.3d 577. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

2021-1048. State v. Fitz.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109270, 2021-Ohio-1497. Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2021-Ohio-3730, 175 N.E.3d 580. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 27, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/27/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4535.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF DECEMBER 27, 2021

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the December 27, 2021 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2020-0092.  State ex rel. Yost v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 165 Ohio St.3d 213, 2021-Ohio-2121.

 

2020-0643.  Rancho Cincinnati Rivers, L.L.C. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision, 165 Ohio St.3d 227, 2021-Ohio-2798.

 

2020-0821.  State ex rel. Cox v. Youngstown Civ. Serv. Comm., 165 Ohio St.3d 240, 2021-Ohio-2799.

 

2021-0080.  State ex rel. Carlton v. Heekin, 165 Ohio St.3d 248, 2021-Ohio-2822.

 

2021-0327.  State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. LaRose, 165 Ohio St.3d 185, 2021-Ohio-1464.

 

2021-0410.  State ex rel. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 165 Ohio St.3d 201, 2021-Ohio-1783.

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  James Smith, Anthony P. Ashton, Anna Kathryn Barnes, Jon Greenbaum, Ezra D. Rosenberg, and Pooja Chaudhuri have not filed motions for admission pro hac vice pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02.  Sua sponte, James Smith, Anthony P. Ashton, Anna Kathryn Barnes, Jon Greenbaum, Ezra D. Rosenberg, and Pooja Chaudhuri stricken from all filings for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02 and Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A).

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. 

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  James Smith, Anthony P. Ashton, Anna Kathryn Barnes, Jon Greenbaum, Ezra D. Rosenberg, and Pooja Chaudhuri have not filed motions for admission pro hac vice pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02.  Sua sponte, James Smith, Anthony P. Ashton, Anna Kathryn Barnes, Jon Greenbaum, Ezra D. Rosenberg, and Pooja Chaudhuri stricken from all filings for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02 and Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A).

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 23, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/23/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4516.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0628.  State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4487.

Cuyahoga App. No. 107571.  Judgment reversed.  Relator awarded $1,000 in statutory damages.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-0647.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4486.

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0027, 2021-Ohio-1698.  Judgment affirmed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0497.  Brandt v. Pompa. Cuyahoga App. No. 109517, 2021-Ohio-845.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Robert S. Peck.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2021-1567.  State ex rel. Clemons v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

In Mandamus.  This case does not involve an election and thus should not proceed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.  Sua sponte, case converted into an original action in

mandamus and ordered to proceed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.  Respondents shall file a response, if any, to the complaint within 21 days of the date of service of the summons and complaint.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-0630.  State ex rel. Heiland v. Basinski. In Mandamus and Procedendo.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 22, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/22/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4409.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-1117.  State v. Harrison, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4465.

Logan App. No. 8-19-48, 2020-Ohio-3920.  Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

 Stewart, J., concurs in judgment only.

 Brunner, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 DeWine, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by Kennedy, J.

 

2021-0513.  State v. Misch, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4477.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1094, 2021-Ohio-756.  Cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-0818.  State ex rel. Powell v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

 

2021-0881.  State ex rel. Bowie v. Williams.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s motion to stay.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.  Relator’s request to substitute parties denied as moot.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Donnelly, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ and the request to substitute parties.

Fischer, J., not participating. 

 

2021-0897.  State ex rel. Harrison v. Wagner.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  City of Cincinnati’s motion for leave to intervene denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer and DeWine, JJ., not participating. 

 

2021-0908.  State ex rel. Parcher v. Perry.

In Mandamus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.

 

2021-0997.  Santomauro v. McLaughlin.

In Prohibition.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, claims asserted in relator’s individual capacity and in his capacity as manager of SUMSS Property Management, L.L.C., dismissed and alternative writ granted as to claim asserted in relator’s coexecutor capacity.  The following schedule is set for the presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days after the filing of the evidence, respondent shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondent’s brief.  The parties shall address only the prohibition claim that relator asserts in his capacity as coexecutor.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1143.  Sandpiper Hospitality v. Bey.

Miscellaneous case.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Respondent’s motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator denied.  Relator’s motion for summary judgment denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1157.  State ex rel. Morant v. Waite.

In Procedendo.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1167.  Arnoff v. State.

In Mandamus.  On state of Ohio’s motion to dismiss.  Motion denied.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1188.  State ex rel. Shaker House, L.L.C. v. Scott. 

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed due to relator’s adequate remedy at law to challenge local rules by way of appeal.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1196.  State ex rel. Natural Beind Diuus Indiges, El v. Donovan.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1197.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Stinziano.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Kennedy, DeWine, and Stewart, JJ., dissent and would grant an alternative writ.

 

2021-1222.  Jones v. Niehaus.

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

Fischer, J., not participating.

 

 

2021-1224.  State ex rel. Ames v. Geauga Cty. Budget Comm.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike motion to dismiss denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.  

 

2021-1234.  Wheeler v. Avanesyan.

In Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss amended complaint.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1236.  State ex rel. Bloodworth v. O’Shaughnessy. 

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion for stay pending hunger-strike termination.  Motion denied.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

 

2021-1247.  State ex rel. Ames v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to strike motion to dismiss denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1249.  State ex rel. Mobley v. Yost.

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1267.  State ex rel. Freed v. Wise. 

In Procedendo.  On relator’s “motion to reject respondents’ partial proceeding done without case file.”  Motion denied.  Respondents’ motion to dismiss granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

 

2021-1281.  State ex rel. Harris v. Gaul.  

In Procedendo.  On respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Relator’s motion to object to motion to dismiss denied as moot.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

2021-1282.  State ex rel. Ames v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs.  

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, and Brunner, JJ., concur. 

Stewart, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0428.  State v. Stutler.  

Stark App. No. 2020 CA 00022, 2021-Ohio-481.  On appellee’s motion to strike reply brief.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0865.  State ex rel. Bloodworth v. O’Shaughnessy.  

In Mandamus.  On respondent’s motion to deem relator a vexatious litigator.  Motion granted.  Relator declared to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B) and prohibited from instituting or continuing legal proceedings in this court without first obtaining leave.  Any request for leave shall be submitted to the clerk of this court for the court’s review.

 Kennedy, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1062.  State ex rel. Bowling v. DeWine. 

Franklin App. No. 21AP-380, 2021-Ohio-2902.  On appellees’ motion for expedited briefing schedule and argument.  Motion denied.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Brunner, J., dissent. 

DeWine, J., not participating. 

 

2021-1337.  Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc., FSB v. Smith.  

Hamilton App. No. C-190357.  On appellants’ motion for stay of the First District Court of Appeals’ judgment, temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and declaratory relief.  Motion denied.

 Fischer, J., not participating.

 

2021-1347.  State v. Johnson.  

Portage App. No. 2021-P-0032, 2021-Ohio-3410.  On appellant’s motion for stay.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1348.  State v. Woods.  

Lake App. No. 2021-L-044, 2021-Ohio-3173.  On review of order certifying a conflict.  The court determines that a conflict exists.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2021-1327, State v. Woods, cause held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox, and briefing schedule stayed.

 O’Connor, C.J., dissents. 

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2021-0821.  Stafford Law Co., L.P.A. v.  Estate of Coleman.  

Cuyahoga App. No. 109377, 2021-Ohio-1097.  Reported at 164 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2021-Ohio-3091, 173 N.E.3d 504.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 Stewart, J., dissents and would grant the motion as to proposition of law No. II.

 

2021-0918.  State v. Lazzerini.  

Stark App. No. 2019CA00142, 2021-Ohio-1998.  Reported at 164 Ohio St.3d 1448, 2021-Ohio-3336, 173 N.E.3d 1247.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Brunner, JJ., dissent.

 Stewart, J., dissents and would grant the motion as to proposition of law No. I.

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1047.  State v. Fisk.  

Montgomery App. No. 28798, 2021-Ohio-1973.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, J., would not accept the appeal.

 Brunner, J., would accept the cross-appeal.

 

2021-1327.  State v. Woods.    

Lake App. No. 2021-L-044, 2021-Ohio-3173.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2021-1348, State v. Woods, cause held for the decision in 2020-1266, State v. Maddox, and briefing schedule stayed.

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1101.  State v. Willoughby.    

Pickaway App. No. 20CA5, 2021-Ohio-2611.

 Brunner, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1215.  Johnston v. N. Kingsville.  

Ashtabula App. No. 2020-A-0031, 2021-Ohio-1012.

 Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 22, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/22/2021 Case Announcements #2, 2021-Ohio-4498.]

 

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinion, which was previously issued as an entry in response to an affidavit of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

21-AP-138.  In re Disqualification of Pokorny, 2021-Ohio-4488 (decided Oct. 8, 2021).

 

 

DISCIPLINARY CASES

 

2021-0441.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Ford. 

Sua sponte, Elizabeth Lorraine Ford, Attorney Registration No. 0068502, last known business address in Cincinnati, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 19, 2021.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 21, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/21/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4482.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2020-0277.  Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Cleveland, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4463.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108560, 2020-Ohio-33.  Judgment affirmed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Stewart, J., concur.

 Donnelly, J., concurs in judgment only.

 DeWine, J., concurs in judgment only in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by Fischer, J.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 Brunner, J., dissents, with an opinion.

 

2021-0234.  State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Common Pleas Court, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4453. 

Hocking App. No. 20CA9.  Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by DeWine, J.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

21-AP-132.  In re Disqualification of Halliday, 2021-Ohio-4481 (decided Oct.

20, 2021).

 

21-AP-133.  In re Disqualification of Browne, 2021-Ohio-4478 (decided Oct. 12, 2021).

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Madison Arent has not filed a motion for admission pro hac vice pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02.  Sua sponte, Madison Arent stricken from all filings for failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 2.02 and Gov.Bar R. XII(2)(A).

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

 The court refers the following case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.

 

2021-1492.  State ex rel. Wilson v. Cleveland.

In Mandamus.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 20, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/20/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4452.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0936.  State v. D-Bey.

Cuyahoga App. No. 1091000.  On appellant’s motion for expert assistance.  Motion denied as moot.

 

2021-1537.  State ex rel. Clemons v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp.

In Mandamus.  This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus requesting service pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08, which sets forth the procedure for service in expedited election cases.  Upon review of the complaint, it is evident that this case does not involve an election and thus should not proceed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08.  Sua sponte, case converted into an original action in mandamus and ordered to proceed pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04.  Respondents shall file a response, if any, to the complaint within 21 days of the date of service of the summons and complaint.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1192.  State ex rel. Feathers v. Eleventh Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus.  On relator’s application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

2021-1358.  State ex rel. Houska v. Steinhauer. 

In Prohibition.  On relators’ application for dismissal.  Application granted.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 17, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/17/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4424.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1428.  Adams v. DeWine.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Oral argument scheduled for Tuesday, December 28, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., via videoconferencing.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2021-1449, League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., for the purpose of oral argument.  Each side will be allotted 30 minutes for oral argument, and the parties for each side shall divide the allotted time by agreement between counsel in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.05(A)(2).

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. 

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Oral argument scheduled for Tuesday, December 28, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., via videoconferencing.  Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2021-1428, Adams v. DeWine, for the purpose of oral argument.  Each side will be allotted 30 minutes for oral argument, and the parties for each side shall divide the allotted time by agreement between counsel in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.05(A)(2).

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 16, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/16/2021 Case Announcements #2, 2021-Ohio-4423.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1428.  Adams v. DeWine.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On relators’ motion for oral argument.  Motion granted.  The date and time for oral argument will be released at a later date.

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. 

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On relators’ motion for oral argument.  Motion granted.  The date and time for oral argument will be released at a later date.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 16, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/16/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4420.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0671.  State ex rel. Ohio Stands Up!, Inc. v. DeWine, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4382.

In Prohibition and Mandamus.  On respondents’ motion to dismiss.  Motion granted.  Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 Kennedy, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.

 DeWine, J., not participating.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

21-AP-125.  In re Disqualification of Helmick, 2021-Ohio-4410 (decided Sept. 27, 2021).

 

21-AP-129.  In re Disqualification of Rickett, 2021-Ohio-4411 (decided Oct. 12, 2021).

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of James M. Smith.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1338.  State ex rel. Pagan v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 21AP-102.  Appellant has failed to respond to this court’s order requiring him to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2505.02.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 15, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/15/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4394.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0754.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Porter, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4352.

On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct, No. 2020-068.  Sean Richard Porter, Attorney Registration No. 0096622, last known business address in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law for two years with the second year stayed on conditions.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

21-AP-119.  In re Disqualification of Scott, 2021-Ohio-4383 (decided Oct. 27, 2021).

 

21-AP-120.  In re Disqualification of DeSanto Kellogg, 2021-Ohio-4384 (decided Sept. 14, 2021).

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-0019.  State v. Hansard.

Gallia App. No. 19CA11, 2020-Ohio-5528.  On motion of amicus curiae NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., to participate in oral argument.  Motion granted.  Amicus curiae NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., shall share time allotted to appellant.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2020-0121.  Heisa v. Butler Cty. Sheriff’s Dept.

In Mandamus.  Relator has not filed a merit brief, due December 10, 2021, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 14, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/14/2021 Case Announcements #4, 2021-Ohio-4393.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1428.  Adams v. DeWine. On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Respondents shall file a response, if any, to relators’ motion for oral argument no later than 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 15, 2021.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motion for oral argument shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 14, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/14/2021 Case Announcements #3, 2021-Ohio-4385.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  Respondents shall file a response, if any, to relators’ motion for oral argument no later than 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 15, 2021.  No requests or stipulations for extension of time to respond to the motion for oral argument shall be filed, and the clerk of the court shall refuse to file any requests or stipulations for extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 14, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/14/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4289.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

 

2021-1320.  State v. Allen.

In Habeas Corpus.  Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2018-0757.  State v. Worley.

Fulton C.P. No. 16CR000106.  On application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac.R. 11.06.  Application denied.

 

2021-1262.  State v. Shine-Johnson.

Franklin App. No. 17AP-194, 2018-Ohio-3347.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1275.  State v. Piatt.

Wayne App. No. 19AP0023, 2020-Ohio-1177.  On motion for leave to file delayed appeal.  Motion granted.  Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Donnelly, J., dissent. 

 

 

 

APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-1087.  Willow Grove, Ltd. v. Olmsted Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109319, 2021-Ohio-2510.  Appeal accepted and cross-appeal not accepted.

O’Connor, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., would not accept the appeal.

Kennedy, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., would accept the cross-appeal.

 

2021-1158.  State v. Morris.

Ashland App. No. 20-COA-015, 2021-Ohio-2646.  Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. II.

Kennedy, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., would accept the appeal on both propositions of law and would hold the cause for the decision in 2019-0912, State v. Grevious.

 

2021-1163.  Stewart v. Solutions Community Counseling & Recovery Ctrs., Inc.

Warren App. No. CA2021-01-008, 2021-Ohio-2635.

 DeWine, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1182.  State v. Troisi.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 109871, 109874, 109875, and 109876, 2021-Ohio-2678.

 O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW

 

2021-0535.  State v. Walker.

Hamilton App. No. C-190193, 2020-Ohio-1581.

 

2021-0927.  State v. Brown.

Lucas App. No. L-20-1052, 2021-Ohio-1674.

 

2021-0936.  State v. D-Bey.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109100.

 

2021-0941.  State v. Sims.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109355.

 

2021-1094.  Elizon Master Participation Trust I, U.S. Bank Trust Natl. Assn. v. Metzger.

Montgomery App. No. 29077.

 

2021-1135.  Hersh v. Grumer. 

Cuyahoga App. No. 109430, 2021-Ohio-2582.

 Kennedy and Brunner, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1160.  State v. Parks.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-021, 2021-Ohio-2883.

 

2021-1162.  Musial Offices, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Cuyahoga App. No. 108810, 2021-Ohio-2325.

 O’Connor, C.J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2021-1164.  Shoregate Towers Partners, L.L.C. v. Antebi. 

Cuyahoga App. No. 109817, 2021-Ohio-2688.

 

2021-1166.  Huber Hts. Veterans Club, Inc. v. Grande Voiture D’Ohio La Societe Des 40 Hommes Et 8 Chevaux. 

Montgomery App. No. 29078, 2021-Ohio-2695.

 

2021-1168.  Ohio Power Co. v. Burns. 

Washington App. Nos. 20CA19 through 20CA22, 2021-Ohio-2714.

 Fischer, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1173.  State v. R.L.R.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-457, 2021-Ohio-2657.

 

2021-1174.  Griffith v. Chelsea Condominium.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110550.

 

2021-1179.  State v. Thompson.

Lucas App. Nos. L-19-1077 and L-19-1244, 2020-Ohio-3131.

 

2021-1183.  Gibbs v. Firefighters Community Credit Union.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109929, 2021-Ohio-2679.

 Kennedy, DeWine, and Donnelly, JJ., dissent. 

 

2021-1185.  Rector v. Dorsey.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109835, 2021-Ohio-2675.

 

2021-1191.  State v. Clegg.

Delaware App. No. 20 CAA 09 0035, 2021-Ohio-2736.

 

2021-1194.  State v. Fowler.

Columbiana App. No. 20 CO 0002, 2021-Ohio-2854.

 Donnelly, J., dissents. 

 

2021-1201.  Reinhold v. Reinhold.

Miami App. Nos. 2020-CA-8 and 2021-CA-1, 2021-Ohio-2786.

 O’Connor, C.J., and DeWine, J., dissent. 

 

2021-1202.  Assured Admin., L.L.C. v. Young.

Warren App. Nos. CA2020-11-078 and CA2020-12-093, 2021-Ohio-2159.

 

2021-1203.  State v. Clark. 

Cuyahoga App. No. 110037, 2021-Ohio-2771.

 Donnelly, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decisions in 2021-0691, State v. Lewis, and 2021-0172, State v. Blanton.

 

2021-1207.  FV-I, Inc. v. Townsend-Young.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109191, 2020-Ohio-5184.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I. 

 

2021-1208.  State v. Lawless.

Ashland App. No. 21 COA 001, 2021-Ohio-2828.

 

2021-1212.  180 Degree Solutions, L.L.C. v. Metron Nutraceuticals, L.L.C. 

Cuyahoga App. No. 109986, 2021-Ohio-2769.

 

2021-1213.  State v. Hughes.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109563, 2021-Ohio-2764.

 

2021-1214.  State v. Phillips.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110148, 2021-Ohio-2772.

 

 

2021-1218.  Shie v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110252, 2021-Ohio-3038.

 

2021-1225.  State v. White.

Licking App. No. 21CA0045.

 

2021-1226.  Zipkin v. FirstMerit Bank, N.A.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109501, 2021-Ohio-2583.

 Fischer, J., dissents.

Donnelly, J., not participating.

 

2021-1227.  Saint Paris v. Galluzzo.

Champaign App. No. 2021-CA-7, 2021-Ohio-2861.

 

2021-1231.  State v. Giauque.

Ashland App. No. 21-COA-007.

 

2021-1237.  State v. Lee.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109215, 2021-Ohio-2925.

 

2021-1238.  State v. Rodenberger.

Lucas App. No. L-19-1163, 2020-Ohio-6979.

 

2021-1240.  State v. Merritt.

Richland App. No. 2020 CA 0063, 2021-Ohio-2847.

 

2021-1241.  State v. Snowden.

Trumbull App. No. 2021-T-0008, 2021-Ohio-2885.

 

2021-1244.  TruLogic, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.

Greene App. No. 2021-CA-3, 2021-Ohio-2860.

Fischer, J., dissents.

 

2021-1245.  Bank of Am. Corp. v. Haley.

Summit App. No. 29644, 2021-Ohio-2018.

 

2021-1246.  State v. Attia.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-003, 2021-Ohio-2890.

 

 

2021-1248.  Pietrangelo v. Hudson.

Cuyahoga App. No. 110365.

 

2021-1265.  Norton v. Dominion Energy Servs., Inc.

Summit App. No. 29543, 2021-Ohio-1278.

 

2021-1268.  State v. Wilson.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-556, 2021-Ohio-3046.

 Brunner, J., dissents and would hold the cause for the decision in 2020-0648, State v. Bethel

 

2021-1271.  State v. Pedraza. 

Medina App. No. 20CA0067-M, 2021-Ohio-2976.

 

2021-1288.  State v. Taylor. 

Montgomery App. No. 23990.

 

2021-1294.  Logan v. Access Ohio, L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 20AP-422, 2021-Ohio-3219.  Appellant’s motion to accept documents in support of memorandum denied.

 

2021-1300.  State v. Hill.

Franklin App. No. 19AP-711, 2021-Ohio-132.

 

2021-1303.  State v. Wagner.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109678, 2021-Ohio-3107.

 

2021-1305.  State v. Gross.

Lake App. No. 2021-L-042, 2021-Ohio-3289.  Appellant’s request for leave to attach supporting trial transcripts denied.

 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

 

2020-1447.  Griffin v. Sehlmeyer.

In Mandamus.  Reported at __ Ohio St.3d __, 2021-Ohio-3624, __ N.E.3d __.  On motion for court’s reconsideration brief.  Motion denied.

 Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., dissent. 

 

 

2021-0888.  RHDK Oil & Gas, L.L.C. v. Willowbrook Coal Co.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2020 AP 08 0017, 2021-Ohio-1362.  Reported at 164 Ohio St.3d 1448, 2021-Ohio-3336, 173 N.E.3d 1242.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0890.  State v. Fields.

Cuyahoga App. No. 109664, 2021-Ohio-1880.  Reported at 164 Ohio St.3d 1448, 2021-Ohio-3336, 173 N.E.3d 1246.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0912.  Hickory Hills v. Makris.

Mahoning App. No. 21 MA 0041.  Reported at 164 Ohio St.3d 1460, 2021-Ohio-3594, 174 N.E.3d 816.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellants’ emergency motion for reconsideration and motion for emergency injunctive relief and contempt denied.

 

2021-0935.  Miller v. Camillus. 

In Procedendo.  Reported at 164 Ohio St.3d 1455, 2021-Ohio-3438, 174 N.E.3d 800.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0977.  State v. Ramilla.

Greene App. No. 2021CA0019.  Reported at 164 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2021-Ohio-3336, 173 N.E.3d 1246.  On motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.

 

2021-1136.  Lakefront at W. Chester, L.L.C. v. Holmes.

Butler App. No. CA2021-09-108.  Reported at 165 Ohio St.3d 1404, 2021-Ohio-3714, 175 N.E.3d 550.  On amended motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied.  Appellant’s emergency motion for a stay and/or temporary restraining order pending appeal denied.

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 14, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/14/2021 Case Announcements #2, 2021-Ohio-4380.]

 

 

 

MERIT DECISIONS WITH OPINIONS

 

2021-0056.  State ex rel. Maxwell v. Brice, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4333.

In Prohibition.  On relator’s motion to strike portions of respondent’s evidence and portions of respondent’s merit brief.  Motion denied.  Relator’s motion for leave to submit supplemental evidence granted.   Writ denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, Fischer, DeWine, Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., concur.

 

 

AFFIDAVITS OF DISQUALIFICATION

 

The chief justice has released the following judicial-disqualification opinions, which were previously issued as entries in response to affidavits of disqualification filed pursuant to R.C. 2701.03.

 

21-AP-114.  In re Disqualification of Jenkins, 2021-Ohio-4355 (decided Sept. 22, 2021).

 

21-AP-116.  In re Disqualification of Hawkins, 2021-Ohio-4360 (decided Oct. 8, 2021).

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2020-1574.  Clawson v. Hts. Chiropractic Physicians, L.L.C.

Montgomery App. No. CA 028632, 2020-Ohio-5351.  On appellant’s motion for continuance of oral argument.  Motion denied.

 

2021-0579.  State v. Bunch.

Mahoning App. No. 18 MA 0022, 2021-Ohio-1244.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Anton Robinson.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

2021-1328.  State v. Vanover. 

Geauga App. No. 2020-G-0268, 2021-Ohio-3172.  On appellee’s motion to strike memorandum in support of jurisdiction for lack of service.  Motion denied.   Appellee may file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 13, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/13/2021 Case Announcements #2, 2021-Ohio-4381.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1193.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, the parties are ordered to file additional briefs addressing the following issue: What impact, if any, does Article XI, Section 8(C)(1) of the Ohio Constitution have on the Supreme Court of Ohio’s authority to grant the relief requested by relators when the Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted the district plan by a simple majority vote of the commission?  All briefs shall be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 17, 2021.

 

2021-1198.  Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. 

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, the parties are ordered to file additional briefs addressing the following issue: What impact, if any, does Article XI, Section 8(C)(1) of the Ohio Constitution have on the Supreme Court of Ohio’s authority to grant the relief requested by relators when the Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted the district plan by a simple majority vote of the commission?  All briefs shall be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 17, 2021.

 

2021-1210.  Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. 

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XI, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution.  Sua sponte, the parties are ordered to file additional briefs addressing the following issue: What impact, if any, does Article XI, Section 8(C)(1) of the Ohio Constitution have on the Supreme Court of Ohio’s authority to grant the relief requested by relators when the Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted the district plan by a simple majority vote of the commission? 

All briefs shall be filed no later than 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 17, 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 13, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/13/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4340.]

 

 

 

SLIP OPINIONS REPLACED BY OHIO OFFICIAL REPORTS VERSIONS AS OF DECEMBER 13, 2021

 

The official versions of the opinions listed below, which were previously released as slip opinions, are being published in the December 13, 2021 Ohio Official Reports advance sheet.  These opinions should now be cited using the Ohio Official Reports citation format.

 

2019-1104.  State v. Gideon, 165 Ohio St.3d 142, 2020-Ohio-4635.

 

2019-1104.  State v. Gideon, 165 Ohio St.3d 156, 2020-Ohio-6961.

 

2020-0227.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Falconer, 165 Ohio St.3d 1230, 2021-Ohio-2754.

 

2020-0823.  State ex rel. Johnstone v. Cincinnati, 165 Ohio St.3d 178, 2021-Ohio-3393.

 

2020-0837.  State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta, 165 Ohio St.3d 172, 2021-Ohio-1137.

 

2020-1149.  State ex rel. Meyer v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 165 Ohio St.3d 134, 2020-Ohio-4863.

 

2020-1424.  Orr v. Schweitzer, 165 Ohio St.3d 175, 2021-Ohio-1786.

 

2021-0810.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Ruffenach, 165 Ohio St.3d 1225, 2021-Ohio-2625.

 

2021-0851.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony, 165 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2021-Ohio-2690.

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Phillip J. Strach, Thomas A. Farr, Alyssa M. Riggins, and John E. Branch III.  Motions granted.   Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 9, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/09/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4288.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1386.  In the Name of the United States Monarchy v. Nagel.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.  On respondents’ notice of filing a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.  Cause stayed pending the federal court’s determination.  The parties shall notify this court immediately upon conclusion of the federal-court proceedings.

 

2021-1428.  Adams v. DeWine.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motion for admission pro hac vice of Greg McGuire.  Motion granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS 

 

December 7, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/07/2021 Case Announcements, 2021-Ohio-4266.]

 

 

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

 

2021-1449.  League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm.  On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.  On motions for admission pro hac vice of Anupam Sharma, Alexander Thomson, Donald Brown, David Denuyl, Juliana Goldrosen, Joshua Gonzales, Laura B. Bender, Robert D. Fram, Yiye Fu, and Julie A. Ebenstein.  Motions granted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days.

 

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

 

2021-1290.  State v. Jones. 

Greene App. No. 2020-CA-12, 2020-Ohio-4767. Appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due December 3, 2021, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence.  Cause dismissed.

 

 

MEDIATION MATTERS

 

The court refers the following cases to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for the cases until further order of this court.  The court will not issue any decision on the merits of the cases until mediation has concluded.

 

 

2021-1446.  Parker v. Newark Div. of Police.

In Mandamus.

 

2021-1469.  State ex rel. Balunek v. Marchbanks.  In Mandamus.

 

 

 

 

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

December 6, 2021

 

[Cite as 12/06/2021 Case Announcements #2, 2021-Ohio-4267.]

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

2021-1449. League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm

 

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution. On relators’ motion to compel expedited discovery. Motion granted in part and denied in part. Secretary of State Frank LaRose shall provide responses and documents responsive to relators’ requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission by 12:00 p.m. on December 7, 2021. Motion to compel Governor Mike DeWine and Auditor Keith Faber to provide responses and documents responsive to relators’ requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission denied. Motion to dismiss of respondents Governor Mike DeWine et al. denied as moot.

 

Sua sponte, the following respondents are dismissed from this case: the Ohio Redistricting Commission and Governor Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Auditor Keith Faber, Senator Vernon Sykes, House Minority Leader Emilia Sykes, Senate President Matthew Huffman, and House Speaker Robert Cupp in their official capacities as commission members. The claims remain pending against Secretary of State Frank LaRose in his official capacity as Secretary of State, House Speaker Robert Cupp in his official capacity as Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, and Senate President Matthew Huffman in his official capacity as President of the Ohio Senate.

Respondents’ motion to stay pending the resolution of 2021-1428, Adams v. DeWine, denied.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., would deny the motion to compel.

 

Fischer, J., would grant the motion to dismiss.

 

Donnelly and Stewart, JJ., would grant the motion to compel as to Governor DeWine and Auditor Faber and would order them to respond to relators’ requests


 

12-06-2021 2


 

 

for the production of documents as if the documents had been requested in subpoenas duces tecum.

Brunner, J., would deny the motion to dismiss and would grant the motion to compel as to Governor DeWine and Auditor Faber and would order them to respond to relators’ requests for the production of documents as if the documents had been requested in subpoenas duces tecum.

 

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2021-1428. Adams v. DeWine.

On complaint invoking this court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution. On relators’ motion to compel expedited discovery. Motion granted in part and denied in part. Secretary of State Frank LaRose shall provide responses and documents responsive to relators’ requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission by 12:00 p.m. on December 7, 2021. Motion to compel Governor Mike DeWine and Auditor Keith Faber to provide responses and documents responsive to relators’ requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission denied.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., would deny the motion.

 

Donnelly, Stewart, and Brunner, JJ., would grant the motion as to Governor DeWine and Auditor Faber and would order them to respond to relators’ requests for the production of documents as if the documents had been requested in subpoenas duces tecum.