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

 

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.  Hopki