Court Decisions on Ohio Constitutional Issues
Lingo v. State, 2014-Ohio-1052. Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court did not have jurisdiction to review a case claiming improper fees charged by a municipal court. Ohio Constitution Article IV, sections 1-4. Docket. Oral Argument Summary. Oral Argument. Opinion Summary.
Panther II Transp., Inc. v. Seville Bd. of Income Tax Rev., 2014-Ohio-1011, When the Ohio General Assembly exercises its right under the Ohio Constitution to limit municipal taxing authority, it must do so explicitly. The language of a statute prohibiting municipal taxation need not be specific as to the type of tax limited, if the language of the statute explicitly prohibits a broad range of taxes. Ohio Constitution, Article XIII, Section 6 (general assembly may limit municipal taxing power); Article XVIII, Section 13 (laws limiting municipal taxing power); Article XVIII, Section 3 (municipal powers). Docket. Oral Argument Summary. Oral Argument.
City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, 2014-Ohio-86. The state law governing tow-truck operations (R.C. 4921.25) is a general law, however, the second sentence of the statute violates the Ohio Constitution’s Home Rule Amendment. The following language is severed from the statute, “Such an entity is not subject to any ordinance, rule, or resolution of a municipal corporation,county, or township that provides for the licensing, registering, or regulation of entities that tow motor vehicles.” Docket. Oral Argument Summary Oral Argument video.
State ex rel. Cleveland Right to Life, Inc., 2013-Ohio-5632. Docket. Funding for Medicaid Expansion approved by the Ohio Controlling Board did not violate legislative powers as set out in Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Legislation as enacted after the Governor's veto permitted such funding. To strike down such funding would in fact be a violation of the Governor's Veto power as set out in the Ohio Constitution, Art. II section 16.
Gesler v. Worthington Income Tax Bd. of Appeals,138 Ohio St.3d 76, 2013-Ohio-4986. R.C. 718.01, which defines net profits to include Schedule C income, did not explicitly restrict a municipality from exempting Schedule C income. Additionally, the Ohio Constitution grants the General Assembly the power to limit or restrict the municipal power to tax, but does not confer on the General Assembly the authority to command a municipality to impose a tax when it chooses not to do so. Thus, the Court did not have to reach the question of whether the Revised Code section violated Home Rule, because the General Assembly did not exercise its power to limit or restrict the municipal power of taxation through R.C. 718.01. Docket. Oral Argument Preview. Oral Argument. Opinion Summary.
State v. Boykin, 2013-Ohio-4582 (Ohio Oct. 22, 2013). When the governor grants an unconditional pardon of an offender’s criminal convictions, the Ohio Constitution does not require that the conviction be sealed. Ohio Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 11. Docket. Oral Argument 4/10/13. Oral Argument Preview. Oral Argument Video. Oral Argument Video.
State v. Kareski, 2013-Ohio-4008, 416 (Ohio 2013) - When a trial judge improperly takes judicial notice of a fact after the prosecution fails to prove that element at trial, the appellate court can NOT consider this evidence in determining whether sufficient evidence existed. Double jeopardy bars retrial when the appellate court finds judicial notice was improper, and without the judicially noticed evidence, the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The court distinguished State v. Brewer (Feb. 18, 2009), 121 Ohio St.3d 202, because in that case, the trial judge improperly admitted hearsay testimony and the prosecution relied upon that ruling. In Kareski, the prosecutor did not present sufficient evidence and can not be rescued by an erroneous taking of judicial notice.
The concurring judge stated she would overrule State v. Brewer, and hold that the Ohio Constitution double jeopardy provision requires that the appellate court only consider the properly admitted evidence in making the sufficiency of evidence determination.
The dissent would hold that the appellate court can consider all the evidence presented at trial, whether properly admitted or not, in making the sufficiency of evidence determination. According to the dissent, this rule should apply in cases of admission of evidence presented and judicial notice. Docket. Oral Argument. Oral argument preview. Opinion summary
Longbottom v. Mercy Hospital Clermont, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4068. Court interprets retroactivity provision (Article II, Section 28, Ohio Constitution): Law re. calculating prejudgment interest applies to claims filed after effective date, even if action accrued before effective date. Docket. Oral argument preview. Oral Argument Video. Opinion Summary.
State v. Ricks, 2013-Ohio-3712. Admitting an alleged accomplice’s statements through the testimony of an investigating officer violated a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution. Docket. Oral argument preview. Oral Argument Video. Opinion Summary.
State v. Graham, 2013-Ohio-2114. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution concerning self-incrimination require the suppression of statements made by employees of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (“ODNR”) during an investigation conducted by the Ohio inspector general (“OIG”). The employees' statements were coerced because they were given an interview form saying if they did not cooperate, they were subject to discipline. Docket. Oral argument preview. Oral Argument video. Opinion Summary.
State v. Noling, 2013 Ohio 1764, Provision of the DNA testing statute does not violate the Ohio Constitution (Article IV, sections 2(B)(2)(c) and 3(B)(2)) by mandating that the denial of applications for postconviction DNA testing in death penalty cases must be appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Ohio rather than to an intermediate court of appeals. Docket. Oral argument preview. Oral Argument Video.
State v. Brunning, 2012-Ohio-5752, 12/6/12. Because the address change notification requirements in Megan’s Law and the Adam Walsh Act are identical, an indictment for violating the AWA address change requirement also validly charged a violation of the Megan’s Law requirement. Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10. Docket, Oral Argument Video, Oral Argument Preview.
State v. Hampton, 2012-Ohio-5688, 12/6/12. Insufficient proof of venue, as required by Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10, entitled defendant to an acquittal under Crim.R. 29. Docket, Oral Argument Video, Oral Argument Preview.
Smith v. Landfair, 2012 -Ohio- 5692, 12/6/12, This case was NOT decided on open courts provision of the Ohio Constitution, Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16,because the parties did not raise the issue in briefs or oral arguments. According to the dissent, R.C. 2305.321 , the equine activities immunity statute, violates the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16. Docket, Oral Argument Video, Oral Argument Preview.
State v Roberts, 2012 -Ohio- 5684, 12/6/12, The obligation to preserve and catalog criminal-offense-related biological evidence imposed upon certain government entities by R.C. 2933.82 applies to evidence in the possession of those entities at the time of the statute’s effective date. Applying the statute to evidence in possession of the government does not amount to retroactive application of the statute, even though the evidence was collected before the effective date of the statute. Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 28, the retroactivity provision, does not apply to this case. Docket, Oral Argument Video, Oral Argument Preview.
State v. Gardner: 2012 -Ohio- 5683, 12/6/12, Mere existence of an outstanding warrant does not render a later unjustified seizure lawful. Interpreting Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 19. Docket, Oral Argument Video, Oral Argument Preview.
Beaver Excavating Company v. Levin, 2012-Ohio-5776, 12/7/12. The allocation under R.C. 5751.20 of commercial-activity-tax revenues derived from the gross receipts of the sale of motor-vehicle fuel to nonhighway purposes violates the Ohio Constitution, Article XII, Section 5a. Docket , Oral argument 7/11/12 video, Oral Argument Preview. Opinion Summary.
Ruther v. Kaiser, 2012-Ohio-5685, 12/ 6/12. The medical-malpractice statute of repose found in R.C. 2305.113(C) does not extinguish a vested right and thus does not violate the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16. (Hardy v. VerMeulen, 32 Ohio St.3d 45, 512 N.E.2d 626 (1987), overruled.)Docket and Briefs. Argument Preview. Argument Video. Opinion Summary.
In re Bruce S., 2012-Ohio-5696 12/ 6/ 12. Senate Bill 10’s (Ohio's Adam Walsh Act) classification, registration, and community-notification provisions cannot be constitutionally applied to a sex offender who committed his sex offense between July 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, the last day before January 1, 2008, the effective date of S.B 10’s classification, registration, and community-notification provisions. Application of these Adam Walsh Act provisions to offenses before their effective date violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Docket. Oral Argument Preview. Oral Argument Video. Opinion Summary.
State v. Howard, 2012-Ohio-5738 (12/6/12). For a defendant whose sex-offender classification was determined under Megan’s Law, the penalty for a violation of the reporting requirements of former R.C. 2950.05 that occurs after Megan’s Law was
supplanted by the AWA is the penalty set forth in the version of R.C. 2950.99 in
place just before the effective date of the AWA. (Interpreting the retroactivity provision, Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution). Docket Oral Argument Preview. Oral Argument Video. Opinion Summary.
Ohio Trucking Association v. Charles, 2012-Ohio-5679, 12/6/12. 2009 legislation raising the fee charged by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles for a driver license abstract from $2 to $5, and allocating revenues from that increase to five funds not directly related to highways or motor vehicle law enforcement, did not violate Section 5(a), Article XII of the Ohio Constitution because these fees did not relate to “operation or use of vehicles on public highways” for a non-highway purpose? Docket , Oral Argument Video (7/11/12), Oral Argument Preview. CNO Article
State v. Jackson, 134 Ohio St.3d 184, 2012-Ohio-5561.(Dec. 4, 2012). Indictment for a drug trafficking offense is sufficient under Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution if it names the schedule in which the drug appears, even though the specific drug is not named. Docket. Oral Argument Video. Oral Argument Preview.
Wilson v. Kasich, (Original Action) 2012-Ohio-5017. 11/27/12. Redistricting plan did not violate Article XI of the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Constitution does not mandate political neutrality in the reapportionment of legislative districts, but does require that partisan considerations cannot prevail over the nonpartisan requirements set forth in Article XI. The Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 7(D) is coequal with Article XI, Sections 7(A), (B), and (C), and the court will not order the apportionment board to correct a violation of Sections 7(A), (B), and (C) by violating Section 7(D). Docket and Complaint. Oral Argument Video Argument Preview. Opinion Summary.
Stockberger v. James, 2012-Ohio-5392, 11/27/12. Article XII, Section 5a of the Ohio Constitution requiring that revenues from state motor vehicle and gasoline taxes may be used only for “highway purposes” does not bar a county engineer from transferring vehicle tax revenues from his office account to the county’s general fund to reimburse the county for its cost of obtaining self-insurance coverage for the engineer’s office. Docket & Briefs. Argument Preview. Oral argument Video Opinion Summary.
In re Complaint of Reynoldsburg, 2011-Ohio-1274. 11/15/12. Public utility tariff did not violate the Home Rule provision of the Ohio Constitution, although it conflicted with city ordinance requiring electric utility to bear costs of relocating overhead electric lines underground. Docket. Argument Video. Oral Argument Summary. Opinion Summary.
State v. Emerson, 2012-Ohio-5047, 11/1/12. A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her DNA profile
extracted from a lawfully obtained DNA sample, and a defendant lacks standing to object to its use by the state in a subsequent criminal investigation. While the Court mostly analyzed the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it stated, We have interpreted Article I, Section 14 “to protect the same interests and in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” Docket. Argument Video. Oral Argument Summary. Opinion Summary.
Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 2012 -Ohio- 5017 (10/31/12). The Ohio Constitution provides in Article IV, Section 4(B): “The courts of common pleas and divisions thereof shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters and such powers of review of proceedings of administrative officers and agencies as may be provided by law". Reasoning that standing/subject matter jurisdiction must be determined at the time a suit is commenced, the court holds that a plaintiff without an interest in a note or mortgage at the time it filed a foreclosure action did not cure the lack of standing by subsequently obtaining an interest in the subject of the litigation. Docket. Argument Video. Oral Argument Summary. Opinion Summary.
In re J.V., 2012-Ohio-4961, 10/30/12. Upheld as constitutional provisions of the state’s “Serious Youthful Offender” (SYO) statute that: 1) authorize a juvenile court to invoke (activate) the previously stayed adult portion of a blended SYO sentence based on factual findings made by a judge rather than by a jury; and 2) allow a juvenile judge to make the required findings to invoke the adult portion of an SYO sentence under a “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof, rather than a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. Rejecting the argument that the invocation of an adult prison sentence upon a juvenile, pursuant to R.C. 2152.14, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution. Docket. Argument Video. Oral Argument Summary. Opinion Summary.
Liming v. Damos, 2012-Ohio-4783 10/24/12. The Due Process Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions do not guarantee an indigent parent the right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt purge hearing. Docket. Argument Video. Oral Argument Summary. Opinion Summary.
State ex rel. Brecksville v. Husted, 2012-Ohio-4530. (10/1/12) Secretary of State and Board of Elections did not violate the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 1f by certifying an initiative petition to be voted upon by the Brecksville electorate. The initiative petition proposed ordinances, which among other things, would require mayor to write a letter to state and federal legislative leaders stating that Brecksville citizens in November 2012 voted in support of a constitutional amendment that would effectively overrule Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm., 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and for the city to hold hearings concerning the impact of certain political donations. Docket.
State ex rel. JobsOhio v. Goodman, 2012 -Ohio- 4425.Ohio Supreme Court dismissed mandamus action by JobsOhio which asked the Court to rule on the constitutionality of the legislation creating JobsOhio. The court dismissed because it lacked original jurisdiction to grant a motion for a declaratory judgment. Docket.
State ex. rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Board, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4149. The ballot language for the Redistricting amendment must be rewritten by the Ballot Board, because it does not properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted upon, as required by the Ohio Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1. Opinion Summary. .Docket.
State v. Maxwell D. White, (June 14, 2012), 2012-Ohio-2583, Case No. 2009-1661. A 2005 law, allowing death penalty defendants whose sentence was overturned to be resentenced to death, does not violate the Ohio Constitution's retroactivity provisions when applied to defendants sentenced to death on or before March 23, 2005 . Docket and Briefs. Court of Appeals decision. Oral Argument Nov. 16, 2011. Argument Preview. Argument Video. Opinion Summary.
Drees Co. v. Hamilton Twp., 2012-Ohio-2370, 132 Ohio St. 3d 186, 970 N.E.2d 916 (2012). A development impact fee enacted by an Ohio township with “limited home rule” powers was an unconstitutional tax under Art. XII, sec. 2. Docket and Briefs. Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video. Opinion Summary.
State ex rel. Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage v. DeWine, Judgment Entry of Dismissal, May 25, 2012, Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2012-0592. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Attorney General's certification of summary language of a proposed initiative petition, The Freedom to Marry and Religious Freedom Amendment. The complaint alleged that the proposed language was not a fair and truthful statement of the proposed constitutional amendment. . The Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction and the Relator fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Docket and Complaint. The Supreme Court's order of dismissal did not state on what grounds the court rested its decision.
The Attorney General asserted that, "the pre-petition certification process is statutory, not part of the Article II initiative process over which this Court has original jurisdiction." Nor is there jurisdiction under R.C. 3519.01, because "Relators cannot establish that they are "aggrieved" persons as that term is used in R.C. 3519.01(C)." , and the jurisdiction of the Court can not be enlarged by statute anyway. Additionally, relators failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, because the summary was in fact fair and truthful.
Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc. (May 23, 2012), 2012-Ohio-2187. R.C. Chapter 3794, the Smoke Free Workplace Act, is a valid exercise of the state’s police power by Ohio voters and does not amount to a regulatory taking. Docket and Briefs. Oral argument preview. Oral argument Oct. 19, 2011. Argument Video. . Opinion Summary.
In re C.P., (Apr. 3, 2012),2012-Ohio-1446 Applying automatic lifetime sex offender registration and community notification requirements imposed by the AWA against an Athens County 15-year-old violated the prohibitions in the U.S. and Ohio constitutions against cruel and unusual punishment, and also violated the defendant’s constitutional right to due process of law. Dockets and Briefs, Oral Argument Preview, Argument Video, Opinion Summary.
Clifton v. Blanchester, (Mar. 1, 2012), 2012-Ohio-780, A property owner lacks standing to bring a regulatory-taking claim against a municipality when the affected property is outside the municipality’s corporate limits. Docket and Briefs, Oral Argument Preview, Argument Video, Opinion Summary.
State v. Carrick (Feb. 22, 2012), 2011-0230. Relying on state and federal due process principles, the court ruled that noise statute, ORC 2917.11(A)(2) is not void for vagueness. Docket and Briefs, Oral Argument Preview, Argument Video, Opinion Summary.
Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, (Feb. 15, 2012) 2012-Ohio-552. ORC 2315.21(B) as amended by S.B. 80, effective April 7, 2005 (re. bifurcation of compensatory and punitive damages issues), is constitutional, and does not violate Section 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, separation of powers. The statute is substantive, not procedural, and thus is not a procedural law that conflicts with Civil Rule 42(B). Docket and Briefs. Oral argument Sept. 21, 2011. Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video. Opinion Summary.
|State ex rel. Ohioans for Fair Districts v. Husted, (October 14, 2011) 2011-Ohio-5333 HB 319 which creates new congressional districts is subject to referendum under Ohio Constitution Article II, Section 1(c). Section 1(d) which creates an exception for appropriations for current expenses of state government and state institutions does not apply. Docket and Briefs.|
|State v. Davis, (October 4, 2011) 2011-Ohio-5028 Ohio’s intermediate courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review a trial court’s judgment denying a defense motion for a new trial in a death penalty case. The 1994 amendment to the Ohio Constitution that eliminated intermediate appellate review of capital cases does not require death penalty defendants to appeal such rulings directly to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Case no. 2009-2028. Docket. Oral argument: June 8, 2011. Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video. Opinion Summary.|
|ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. Kasich, (Aug. 19, 2011) 2011-Ohio-4101. "Insofaras Section 3 of H.B. 1, which attempts to confer exclusive, original jurisdiction on this court to consider the constitutionality of the act’s provisions it is un- constitutional. Neither legislation nor rule of court can expand our jurisdiction under Section 2, Article IV of the Ohio Constitution." (P 5)|
|State v. Williams, (July 13, 2011) 2011-Ohio-3374 . Retroactive imposition of sex-offender registration requirements enacted in 2007, as part of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA), on offenders whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the AWA violates the provision of the Ohio Constitution prohibiting retroactive laws. Opinion Summary. Docket. Argument Preview. Oral Argument: 3-1-2011 Oral Argument Video.|
|State v. Adkins, (July 5, 2011), 2011 Ohio 3141. Repeat offender statute R.C. 2901.08 which requires counting juvenile offenses as a prior offense,effective Jan. 1, 1996, can apply to a juvenile offense that was committed before 1996, and does not violate the retroactivity provisions of the Ohio Constitution, Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Docket. Oral Argument Preview. Oral argument: April 20, 2011. Argument Video.|
|State ex rel. Zeigler v. Zumbar, (June 23, 2011), 2011-Ohio-2939 - Because R.C. 321.38 does not require a complaint and hearing before authorizing a board of county commissioners to remove a county treasurer, it is incompatible with Section 38, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, and thus is unconstitutional on its face. Docket. Oral Argument Preview. Oral Argument Video|
|State v. Goff, (Dec. 30, 2010), 2010-Ohio-6317 ,128 Ohio St.3d 169. A court order compelling a defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination conducted by a state expert in response to the defendant raising a defense of self-defense supported by expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome does not violate the defendant's right against self-incrimination under Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the examination of the defendant and the subsequent testimony from the state’s expert must be limited to information related to battered-woman syndrome and whether the defendant’s actions were affected by the syndrome. Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Oral Argument Preview. Docket.|
|Cleveland v. State, (Dec. 29, 2010), 2010-Ohio-6318 , 128 Ohio St.3d 135. The 8th Dist found Ohio Revised Code 9.68 (requiring uniform laws across the state concerning firearms) to be unconstitutional and reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the State. The Ohio Supreme Court found that R.C. 9.68 is a general law and does not unconstitutionally infringe on municipal home-rule authority. Opinion Summary. Oral Argument (Oct 12, 2010).Oral Argument Preview , Docket|
|Board of Trustees of the Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Foundation v. Boyce, (Dec. 22, 2010), 2010-Ohio-6207 , 127 Ohio St.3d 511. 2008 legislation in which the General Assembly withdrew proceeds of Ohio’s Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Endowment Fund and appropriated those funds to pay for non-tobacco related expenditures did not violate the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution or the contracts clauses of the U.S. and state constitutions. Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Oral Argument Preview. Docket and Briefs.|
|Scott v. Houk , (Dec. 2, 2010), 2010-Ohio-5805, 127 Ohio St.3d 317. There is no state-authorized procedure for challenging the validity under the Ohio Constitution of methods of execution.Argument video. Oral Argument Preview. Docket and Briefs.|
|Doe v. Ronan, (Oct. 26, 2010), 2010-Ohio-5072, 127 Ohio St.3d 188. 2007 state legislation that required non-licensed public school staff to submit to a criminal background check, and required school districts to terminate any employees found to have past convictions for certain offenses, did not violate the Ohio Constitution's prohibition against retroactive laws that impair a vested substantive right of an individual, nor did the legislation unconstitutionally interfere with the obligations of a pre-existing contract. Argument video. Oral Argument Preview. Docket and Briefs.|
|Pickaway County Skilled Gaming LLC v. Cordray (Oct. 12, 2010), 2010-Ohio-4908, 127 Ohio St. 3d 104. The prize-value limit set forth in R.C. 2915.01(AAA)(1) (for skill based amusement machines) is rationally related to legitimate government interests and does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.|
|Ohio Apt. Assn. v. Levin (Sept. 23, 2010), 2010-Ohio-4414, 127 Ohio St.3d 76. State tax rules adopted in 2005 (H.B. 66) that grant a 10 percent rollback in property taxes for real property occupied by single-family, two-family or three-family dwellings but not for property occupied by four or more residential units are reasonable and do not violate provisions of the Ohio Constitution that require uniform taxation of real property and equal protection of the laws. Argument Video. Oral Argument Preview. Docket and Briefs .|
|State v. Horner (Aug. 27, 2010), 2010-Ohio-3830, 126 Ohio St.3d 466. Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution not violated when indictment failed to state a mens rea, when indictment tracks language of the statute and the statute itself fails to specify mental state. Additionally, by failing to timely object to a defect in an indictment, a defendant waives all but plain error on appeal. Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Oral Argument Summary. Docket and Briefs.|
|State v. Rohrbaugh (July 20, 2010), 2010-Ohio-3286, 126 Ohio St.3d 421. Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution prohibits amending a felony indictment if the name or identity of the crime charged is changed, absent proper waiver. The defendant in this case did not object to the change in the indictment from breaking and entering to receiving stolen property, thus waiving all but plain error. Plain error did not occur. Defendant invited the error because the amended indictment was part of a plea bargain and also defendant was not prejudiced by the change. . Opinion Summary. (Oral argument waived) Docket and Briefs. ( Note that 5th Amendment Grand Jury indictment provision is one of the few protections of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not applied to the states . Therefore, when the issue involves the grand jury and the constitution, in the state courts it is the state constitution or nothing.)|
|State v. Williams (June 8, 2010), 2010-Ohio-2453, 126 Ohio St.3d 65, 930 N.E.2d 770. An involuntary commitment under R.C. 2945.39 does not violate the equal protection clause of the Ohio Constitution or U.S. Constitution. Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Oral Argument Summary. Docket and Briefs.|
|State v. Bodyke (June 3, 2010), 2010-Ohio-2424,126 Ohio St.3d 266. Two sections of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) that authorize the state attorney general to reclassify sex offenders who had already been classified by judges under a previous version of the law, “Megan’s Law”, are unconstitutional as they violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Oral Argument Summary. Docket and Briefs.|
|State ex rel. Ohio Liberty Council v. Brunner (Apr. 29, 2010), 2010-Ohio-1845, 125 Ohio St. 3d 315. Petitioners' proposed Constitutional amendment regarding healthcare was split into two parts by the Ohio Ballot Board. The Court granted Petitioners' petition for writ of mandamus and required the Ohio Ballot Board to approve the proposed Constitutional amendment as one part. The proposed amendment, as written by petitioners, complied with the separate-vote requirement of Section 1, Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution.|
|State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Henry Cty. Court of Common Pleas, (Apr. 13, 2010), 2010-Ohio-1533, 125 Ohio St.3d 149. Gag order issued by common pleas judge preventing the media from reporting on a manslaughter trial until a jury was empaneled in a separate criminal case, violated the Ohio Constitution, Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution (free speech and free press, and the‘open courts’ provision of Section 16, Article I. Opinion Summary. Docket and Briefs.|
|State ex rel. Associated Builders & Contrs. of Cent. Ohio v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (Mar 25, 2010), 2010-Ohio-1199, 125 Ohio St.3d 112, 926 N.E.2d 600. Preemption analysis for home rule did not apply to county board resolution which set criteria for evaluating bids for public works contracts on basis of prevailing-wage in disappointed bidder's action against county. Home rule applied expressly only to municipalities, not to counties, and evaluation criterion challenged by bidder was not municipal ordinance or similar municipal provision having force of law. Ohio Const. Art. 18, § 3. Opinion Summary. admitted, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions will not bar retrial." (Paragraph 1 of the Syllabus) Opinion Summary. Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video, Court Docket & Briefs.|
|State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, (Oct. 6, 2009), 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 2009-Ohio-5327. Section 3, Article II of the Ohio Constitution says “[s]enators and representatives shall have resided in their respective districts one year next preceding their election, unless they shall have been absent on the public business of the United States, or of this State.” This supports state senator's claimed residency in Montgomery County because the uncontroverted evidence is that his presence in Franklin County is primarily because of his employment as a state legislator.|
|Oliver v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co. , (Oct. 1, 2009), 2009-Ohio-5030 . A tort reform statute capping the amount of noneconomic damages that a civil plaintiff may recover from a political subdivision at $250,000 other than in wrongful death cases does not violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to equal protection of the law and to have all factual issues in their cases, including the amount of damages, decided by a jury. Opinion Summary. Oral argument, June 16, 2009. Argument Video. Oral argument preview. Court Briefs & Dockets.|
|State v. Hoover, (Sept. 30, 2009), 2009-Ohio-4993. R.C. 4511.19(A)(2), which imposes criminal penalties upon persons who refuse to consent to chemical testing upon being arrested for DUI does not violate Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Opinion Summary. Argument Video. Oral Argument Preview. Court Briefs & Docket.|
|State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Hon. Jennifer Brunner, (Sept. 21, 2009), 2009-Ohio-4900. Provisions in the state’s 2010-2011 budget bill authorizing installation of up to 17,500 video lottery terminals (VLTs) at Ohio horse racing tracks are subject to a statewide voter referendum because they do not fall within any of the exceptions to the right of referendum set forth in the Ohio Constitution. Opinion Summary. Argument video.Oral argument: 9/2/2009. Docket &. Oral argument preview.|
|Ohio Grocers Association et al. v. William W. Wilkins (Sept. 17, 2009), 2009-Ohio-4872. Ohio's Commercial Activities Tax (CAT), which taxes grocers based on their gross receipts, does not violate a 1936 Ohio Constitutional ban on taxing food for offsite consumption. Opinion Summary. Argument Video. Docket. Oral argument preview.|
|Youngstown v. Traylor (Aug. 26, 2009), 2008-Ohio-2971. Youngstown ordinance regarding vicious dogs does not violate procedural due process under the Ohio or US Constitutions. Opinion Summary. Argument Video. Oral Argument Preview. Court Briefs & Docket.|
|State ex rel. Scioto Downs, Inc. v. Brunner, (July 31, 2009), 2009-Ohio-3761Section 1g, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, as amended as approved by voters in 2008, requires the Secretary of State to approve the signatures collected for an initiative petition within 150 days before the election. The Secretary of State has no additional duty or authority to further investigate and invalidate additional partpetitions and signatures following the expiration of the constitutional deadline.|
|Williams v. Spitzer Autoworld Canton, L.L.C., (July 28, 2009), 2009-Ohio-3554. Administrative Code section requiring automobile dealers to integrate all prior oral representations into the written contract is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the parol evidence rule as codified by R.C. 1302.05, and usurps the legislature's power. The legislature did not specify in the Consumer Sales Practices act that the parole evidence rule does not apply in CSPA cases. Opinion Summary. Argument Video. Oral Argument Preview. Court Briefs & Docket.|
|State v. Evans, (July 7, 2009), 2009-Ohio-2974. Modifies the Deem test regarding lesser included offenses, removing the word "ever" from the second prong of the Deem test, "the greater offense cannot, as statutorily defined, ever be committed without the lesser offense, as statutorily defined, also being committed" (Section 10, Article I of Ohio Constitution, re indictment.) Opinion Summary. Argument Video. Oral argument preview. Court Briefs & Docke|
|City of Lima v. State of Ohio, (June 10, 2009),2009-Ohio-2597 . Ohio S.B. 82 banning city residency requirements is constitutional. Case No. 2008-0128. (Appellate decision: City of Lima v. State of Ohio (Dec. 3, 2007), 2007-Ohio-6419, Allen County App. No. 1-07-21 - Held that S.B. 82 is unconstitutional.) Opinion Summary. Argument Video. Oral Argument Preview
State of Ohio v. City of Akron, Case No. 2008-0418. Appellate decision: City of Akron v. State of Ohio, (Jan. 9, 2008), 2008-ohio-38 held that S.B. 82 is unconstitutional, reversing the trial court decision: City of Akron v. State of Ohio (March 30, 2007), Summit County Common Pleas Case Nos. CV2006-05-2759, CV2006-05-2797. Argument Video. Oral Argument Preview.
City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, (Aug. 20, 2009), 2009-Ohio-4118. Reversed, based on City of Lima v. State of Ohio. Eight District: City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, (May 22, 2008), 2008-Ohio-2655. Case decided in favor of the City.
|Eppley v. Tri-Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., (May 5, 2009), 122 Ohio St.3d 56, 2009-Ohio-1970,908 N.E.2d. 401.- The saving statute for wrongful-death actions, R.C. 2125.04, does not violate the right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Opinion Summary. Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video. Court Docket & Briefs.|
|Sogg v. Zurz, (Apr. 8, 2009), 121 Ohio St.3d 449, 2009-Ohio-1526, 905 N.E.2d. 187. ORC 169.08(D), which states that interest is not payable upon unclaimed funds held by the state violates Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Opinion Summary. Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video. Court Docket & Briefs.|
|State ex rel. Blank v. Beasley (Mar. 5, 2009),121 Ohio St.3d 301, 2009-Ohio-835, 903 N.E.2d. 1196. (Original mandamus action). Compensable taking under Ohio Constitution Section 19, Article I does not result when public contractor damages property, but the government did not foresee or deliberately inflict the damage. The owner must recover from the government in a separate tort action. Court Docket & Briefs.|
|State v. Brewer (Feb. 18, 2009), 121 Ohio St.3d 202, 2009 -Ohio- 593, 903 N.E.2d. 284. "When evidence admitted at trial is sufficient to support a conviction, but on appeal, some of that evidence is determined to have been improperly
admitted, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions will not bar retrial." (Paragraph 1 of the Syllabus) Opinion Summary. Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video, Court Docket & Briefs.
Brewer follows the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lockhart v. Nelson (1988), 488 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265. Thus, Brewer held the double jeopardy clauses of the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions offer the same protections. According to the dissenting judges in Brewer, the Ohio Supreme Court had already decided this same issue in State v. Lovejoy (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 440, 683 N.E.2d 1112, and reached a conclusion opposite to Lockhart, presumably because the Ohio Double Jeopardy clause offers more protection. The majority opinion in Brewer maintains that Lovejoy is distinguishable. Brewer involved inadmissible hearsay, while in Lovejoy, the the trial judge found that there was insufficient evidence, but reopened the case to allow judicial notice of a fact necessary to prove the essential elements of the crime.
|State v. D.H., (Jan. 8, 2009), 120 Ohio St.3d 540, 2009-Ohio-9, 901 N.E.2d. 209.In cases where a juvenile is charged as a “serious youthful offender,” a section of state law authorizing a juvenile judge, rather than a jury, to consider certain factors in determining whether to impose a “blended” juvenile and adult sentence does not violate the defendant’s jury trial rights under the U.S. or Ohio constitutions. Opinion Summary. Oral argument preview .Argument Video.Court Docket and Briefs.|
Ackison v. Anchor Packing Co.., (Oct. 15, 2008), 897 N.E.2d 1118, 120 Ohio St.3d 228 , 2008-Ohio-5243. (holding that legislation establishing new evidentiary requirements for asbestos cases was remedial and did not violate the Retroactivity Clause of Art. II, §28 of the Ohio Constitution) Opinion Summary. Oral argument - 11/28/2007, Oral argument preview. Argument video. Court docket & Briefs.
State v. Veney, (Oct. 9, 2008), 897 N.E.2d 621, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200 (2008) (construing the Ohio and United States Constitutions as requiring strict compliance by trial courts with Ohio Criminal Rule 11(C)(2)(c) when accepting guilty pleas, and holding that a guilty plea must be voided when trial courts fail to explain orally that a defendant has the right to have guilt proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt; rejecting the substantial compliance standard and requiring strict compliance with constitutionally-required notifications). Opinion Summary Oral argument video. Oral argument preview. Court Docket & Briefs.
McFadden v. Cleveland State University (Oct. 2, 2008), 896 N.E.2d 672, 120 Ohio St.3d 54, , 2008-Ohio-4914. (holding that an appellate court's convening of an en banc proceeding to resolve an intra-district conflict in the case law of that appellate district does not violate Art. IV, §3(A) of the Ohio Constitution) Oral argument April 23, 2008. Oral Argument Summary. Argument Video. Court Docket & Briefs).
State v. Ferguson (Oct. 1, 2008), 896 N.E.2d 110, 120 Ohio St.3d 7, 2008-Ohio-4824. (holding that the retroactive application of the 2003 amendments to Ohio’s “Megan’s Law” to sexual offenders whose crimes took place before the effective date of those amendments does not violate the prohibition in the United States and Ohio Constitutions against ex post facto laws) Opinion Summary. Oral argument preview. Court Docket and Briefs. Argument Video.
|State ex. rel Colvin v. Brunner ( Sept. 29, 2008), 120 Ohio St. 3d 110, 2008-Ohio-5041, 896 N.E.2d 979. The electors contested the secretary's directives that absentee voters be registered for 30 days as of an election. The supreme court held the secretary correctly interpreted the law because, among other reasons, neither Ohio Const. art. V, Section One,nor RC 3503.01(A) tied the 30-day registration period to requesting, receiving, or submitting absentee ballots.|
Ohioans For Concealed Carry, Inc., et al. v. City of Clyde (Sept. 18, 2008), 896 N.E.2d 967, 120 Ohio St.3d 96, 2008-Ohio-4605, (holding that ordinance prohibiting guns in municipal parks was not a valid exercise of the city’s home rule power in that the ordinance conflicted with a general state law that permits licensed individuals to carry a concealed weapon on any public property other than at locations specified in the state statute) Opinion Summary. Oral argument summary. Court Dockets and Briefs. Argument Video.
|Burnett v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. (June 17, 2008), 118 Ohio St.3d 493, 890 N.E.2d 307,2008 -Ohio- 2751 (2008) (treating the limitations placed upon governmental action by the federal and state Equal Protection Clauses as essentially the same, and holding that the former statutory definition of uninsured and underinsured motor vehicles, which excluded a motor vehicle owned by, furnished to, or available for the regular use of a named insured, spouse, or resident relative of a named insured, did not violate equal protection). Oral Argument Summary, Argument Video, Court Docket and Briefs.|
|State v. Hairston (May 21, 2008), 118 Ohio St.3d 289, 888 N.E.2d 1073, 2008-Ohio-2338 (2008) (holding that a sentence of consecutive prison terms totaling 134 years for home invasion robberies does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under Art. I, §9). Opinion Summary. Oral argument 1-9-2008. Oral argument preview. Argument video. Court Docket and Briefs.|
|McKinley v. Ohio Bureau of Worker's Comp., (Apr. 16, 2008), 2008-Ohio-1736 (court docket & briefs ) - Workers' compensation subrogation statute, ORC 4123.931 does not violate the Ohio Constitution. Decided on the basis of Groch, infra .|
|State v. Colon,118 Ohio St.3d 26, 885 N.E.2d 917, 2008-Ohio-1624 (2008)(holding that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to grand jury indictment and to notice of all the essential elements of the offenses with which he or she is charged under Art. I, §10; ruling that a defendant who has failed to object to the failure of a criminal indictment to state the mens rea that the state must prove to secure a conviction for a charged offense may raise the defect for the first time on appeal). Opinion Summary. Oral Argument preview. Argument video. Court Docket & Briefs.|
|State ex rel. Sautter v. Grey (Apr. 9, 2008), 117 Ohio St.3d 465, 884 N.E.2d 1062, 2008-Ohio-1444 (2008)(stating that “failure to give reasonable notice of final appealable orders is a denial of the right to legal redress of injuries created by Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution” and ordering Court of Appeals to reissue its judgment with appropriate notice) Court Docket & Briefs.|
|State v. Fugate (Mar. 6, 2008), 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 883 N.E.2d 440, 2008-Ohio-856 (2008) (reasoning that the state and federal Equal Protection clauses require that all time spent in jail prior to trial by a prisoner unable to make bail because of indigency must be credited to his sentence, noting that this principle has been codified, and holding that the application of jail time credit to only one of three concurrent sentences would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause). Opinion Summary, Oral Argument Video, Oral Argument Preview, Court Docket and Briefs.|
|Groch v. Gen. Motors Corp. (Feb. 21, 2008) , 117 Ohio St.3d 192, 883 N.E.2d 377, 2008-Ohio-546 (2008) (certified question)(holding that workers' compensation subrogation statutes, ORC 4123.93 and 4123.931, and statute of repose for products liability claims, R.C. 2305.10(C) and former 2305.10(F), are facially valid and do not violate Art. I, §§2, 16, or 19, and that the statute of repose does not the one-subject rule of II §15(D); but holding that former R.C. 2305.10(F) (now (G) is unconstitutionally retroactive under Art. II, §28 insofar as it affects an accrued substantive right by providing an unreasonably short period of time in which to file suit for certain plaintiffs whose injuries occurred before the effective date of the amendment and whose causes of action therefore accrued) Opinion Summary. Oral Argument preview, Argument video, Court Docket & Briefs.|
|Hyle v. Porter (Feb. 20, 2008), 117 Ohio St.3d 165, 882 N.E.2d 899, 2008-Ohio-542 (2008) (not reaching whether the retroactive application of the sex offender residency law violates Art. II, §28 because the General Assembly had not expressly made the statute retroactive) Opinion Summary. Oral argument preview, Court Docket & Briefs|
|Mendenhall v. City of Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33, 881 N.E.2d 255, 2008-Ohio-270 (2008) (certified question)(permitting cities to exercise home rule power under Art. XVIII, §3 to impose civil penalties for violations captured by traffic cameras as long as they do not alter statewide traffic regulations) Opinion Summary. Oral argument - 9/18/2007Oral argument preview. Argument video. Court Docket & Briefs|
|Marich v. Bob Bennett Construction Co. (Jan. 17, 2008), 116 Ohio St.3d 553, 880 N.E.2d 906, 2008-Ohio-92 (2008) (holding that a city ordinance exempting city roads from state limits on vehicle size was an exercise of police power, not local self-government power, in conflict with state general laws and was thus not a valid exercise of home rule power under Art. XVIII, §3) Oral argument preview. Argument video. Court Docket & Briefs|
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson (Dec. 27, 2007), 116 Ohio St.3d 468, 880 N.E.2d 420, 2007-Ohio-6948 (2007)(certified question) (distinguishing, but not overruling, tort reform precedents, and holding the statutory limitation on non-economic damages for all but the most serious injuries and the statutory limitations on punitive damages in certain tort actions adopted in Am. Sub. S.B. No. 80 of the 125th General Assembly are facially valid and do not violate the right to jury trial under Art. I, §5, the open courts, right to remedy, and due process provisions of Art. I, §16, the equal protection provision of Art I, §2, or the doctrine of separation of powers under Art. II, §32; not reaching the claimed violation of the single-subject rule of Art. II, §15(D); and not reaching whether the statute governing the admissibility of collateral-benefit evidence was constitutional on its face because of the lack of standing) Opinion Summary. Oral argument. Court Docket & Briefs
State v. Frazier (Oct. 10, 2007), 115 Ohio St.3d 139, 873 N.E.2d 1263, 2007-Ohio-5048 (2007) (recognizing that an accused has a fundamental right under Art. I, §10 to be present at all critical stages of his criminal trial, but holding that the absence of the accused only results in prejudicial or constitutional error when the absence thwarts a fair and just hearing). Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Oral Argument Preview. Court Dockets & Briefs.
Proctor v. Kardassilaris (Oct. 3, 2007), 115 Ohio St.3d 71, 873 N.E.2d 872, 2007-Ohio-4838 (2007) (holding that the statutory rules governing the litigation of claims for which the state has waived sovereign immunity under Art. I, §16 are substantive and control over the procedural rules on counterclaims in Civ.R. 13). Oral Argument Video, Oral Argument Preview, Court Docket & Briefs.
Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko (Sept. 27, 2007), 115 Ohio St.3d 291, 874 N.E.2d 1198, 2007-Ohio-4918 (2007) (holding that under Art. IV, §3(B)(3) a court of appeals could not reverse a jury verdict under a civil manifest weight of the evidence standard without the concurrence of all three judges; rejecting the argument that the constitutional amendment providing that courts of appeals may not accept jurisdiction of any case in which sentence of death has been imposed superseded Art. IV, §3(B)(3)) Opinion Summary, Oral argument. Court Docket & Briefs.
State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner (Aug. 31, 2007) , 115 Ohio St.3d 103, 873 N.E.2d 1232, 2007-Ohio-4460 (2007) (holding that the 90-day period for citizens to file a referendum petition, pursuant to Art. II, §1c, begins to run on the date Supreme Court issued its decision treating a disputed bill as having been duly enacted) Opinion Summary. Court Docket & Briefs. On motion for reconsideration - no oral argument.
City of Toledo v. Tellings (Aug. 1, 2007) , 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 871 N.E.2d 1152, 2007-Ohio-3724 (2007) (holding that a city ordinance that limited ownership of pit bulls to one per household and required owners to have liability insurance for “vicious dogs” did not violate the rights to procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection under Art. I, §16, and were not void for vagueness). Opinion Summary, CourtDocket & Briefs.
State ex rel. Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner (Aug. 1, 2007), 114 Ohio St.3d 386, 872 N.E.2d 912, 2007-Ohio-3780 (2007) (construing Art. II, §16 to calculate the time period in which the governor may veto a bill as running from the date of adjournment sine die by the General Assembly and not from the date of presentment). Opinion Summary, Oral argument, Court Docket & Briefs.
State v. Carswell (July 25, 2007) , 114 Ohio St.3d 210, 871 N.E.2d 547, 2007-Ohio-3723 (2007) (holding that the state domestic violence criminal statute, R.C. 2919.25. does not violate Art. XV, §11, the Defense of Marriage Amendment) Opinion Summary, Oral argument. Court Docket .
State v. Boczar (Apr. 4, 2007), 113 Ohio St.3d 148, 863 N.E.2d 155, 2007-Ohio-1251 (2007) (holding that a state statute permitting the admissibility of field sobriety tests does not supersede an existing judicially-prescribed evidentiary rule but rather replaces a common-law standard of admissibility and thus does not encroach on the exclusive rule-making authority of the judiciary under Art. IV, §5(B)) Opinion Summary, Oral argument. Court Docket.
In re C.F. (Mar. 28, 2007) , 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 862 N.E.2d 816, 2007 -Ohio- 1104 (2007) (“We have held that our “procedure for certified conflicts does not apply to conflicts within an appellate district, Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Ohio Constitution, and such conflicts should be resolved through en banc proceedings.”) Oral Argument, Court Docket & Briefs.
Cincinnati v. Baskin (Dec. 8, 2006), 112 Ohio St.3d 279, 859 N.E.2d 514, 2006-Ohio-6422 (2006) (holding that Cincinnati’s gun control ordinance prohibiting possession of any semiautomatic rifle with a magazine capacity of more than ten rounds does not conflict with state law and thus was within the city’s home rule power under Art. XVIII, §3). Opinion Summary, Oral argument. Court Docket .
American Financial Services Association v. City of Cleveland (Nov. 20, 2006) , 112 Ohio St.3d 170, 858 N.E.2d 776, 2006-Ohio-6043 (2006) (holding that Cleveland’s predatory lending law conflicted with state law and thus was not within the city’s home rule power under Art. XVIII, §3) Opinion Summary, Oral argument. Court Docket .
State ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents and Teachers v. State Bd. of Edn. (Oct. 25, 2006), 111 Ohio St.3d 568, 857 N.E.2d 1148, 2006-Ohio-5512 (2006)(rejecting a state constitutional challenge to state laws authorizing charter schools). Opinion Summary. Oral argument. Court Docket.
Norwood v. Horney (July 26, 2006), 110 Ohio St.3d 353, 853 N.E.2d 1115, 2006-Ohio-3799 (2006) (requiring courts to apply heightened scrutiny when reviewing statutes that regulate the use of eminent domain; permitting consideration of economic factors but holding that the fact that an appropriation of property would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not satisfy the public-use requirement of Art. I, §19; holding that the void for vagueness doctrine applies to laws and ordinances regulating the use of eminent domain, and concluding that the use in a city ordinance of “deteriorating area” as a standard for determining whether private property is subject to appropriation is inherently speculative and void for vagueness; further holding that the statutory prohibition on stays or injunctions against the taking and using of appropriated property after the compensation has been deposited with the court but prior to appellate review violates the doctrine of separation of powers) Opinion Summary. Oral argument -1/11/2006 . Oral argument 9-28-2005. Court Docket.
Smith v. Smith (May 31, 2006), 109 Ohio St.3d 285, 847 N.E.2d 414, 2006-Ohio-2419 (2006) (holding that a state statute permitting a parent to set aside child support arrearages violated the bar on retroactive legislation under II, §28) Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Court Docket.
State v. Foster (Feb. 27, 2006), 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 845 N.E.2d 470, 2006-Ohio-856 (2006) (citing Ohio constitutional provisions protecting the right to trial by jury, but relying on United States Supreme Court cases in holding hat portions of the Ohio Felony Sentencing law are unconstitutional) Opinion Summary. Oral argument. Court docket. Which decided 3 other cases, including: State v. Quinones Case No. 2004-1771- Oral argument , Docket.
State ex rel. Loyd v. Lovelady (Feb. 1, 2006), 108 Ohio St.3d 86, 840 N.E.2d 1062, 2006-Ohio-161(2006) (concluding that the General Assembly did not violate separation of powers principles of Art. IV, §5(B) through its adoption of a statute that conferred a substantive right under which men against whom paternity judgments have been entered could obtain relief from those judgments through DNA testing without complying with Civ. R. 60(B)) Opinion Summary. Oral argument. Court Docket.
Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Moreland Hills (Jan. 11, 2006), 107 Ohio St.3d 339, 839 N.E.2d 903, 2006-Ohio-4(2006)(holding that Art. I, §19 did not prevent the adoption of a local zoning ordinance that specified a minimum lot size of two acres thus preventing a developer from building homes on half-acre lots) Opinion Summary. Oral argument. Court Docket.
Smith v. Leis (Oct. 12, 2005), 106 Ohio St.3d 309, 857 N.E.2d 138, 2005-Ohio-5125. (2005)(relying on the history of Art. I, §9 and the text and purpose of the 1998 amendment to the section to hold that a cash-only bail bond is unconstitutional) Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Docket.
McNamara v. City of Rittman (Dec. 21, 2005) , 107 Ohio St.3d 243, 838 N.E.2d 640, 2005-Ohio-6433. (2005)(certified question) (interpreting Ohio law as providing that landowners have a property interest in the groundwater underlying their land and that governmental interference with that right can constitute an unconstitutional taking) Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Court Docket.
In re Nowak (Dec. 22, 2004), 104 Ohio St.3d 466, 820 N.E.2d 335, 2004-Ohio-6777. (2004) (certified question) (reviewing the purposes of the adoption of the single-subject rule of Art. II, §15(D) and making clear that a “manifestly gross and fraudulent violation of the one-subject provision of the Ohio Constitution will cause an enactment to be invalidated”) Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Court Docket.
Shimko v. Lobe (Aug. 25, 2004), 103 Ohio St.3d 59, 813 N.E.2d 669, 2004-Ohio-4202. (2004) (holding that the provision of code of professional responsibility requiring mediation or arbitration of fee disputes between lawyers was a lawful exercise of the court’s inherent and plenary power to regulate the practice of law and neither created tribunals unauthorized by law nor denied the right to a jury trial under Art. I, §5). Opinion Summary. Oral Argument. Court Docket.
State v. Peoples (Aug. 11, 2004), 102 Ohio St.3d 460, 812 N.E.2d 963, 2004-Ohio-3923. (2004) (relying exclusively on state cases and holding that former sentencing law that precluded offenders sentenced to exactly five years from applying for judicial release violates the Equal Protection Clause of Art. I, §2 and thus not reaching whether it also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) Opinion Summary. Oral Argument 12/16/03 - no video online. Docket.
Modzelewski v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. (May 26, 2004), 102 Ohio St.3d 192, 808 N.E.2d 381, 2004-Ohio-2365. (2004)(holding that the statutory requirement that injured workers subrogate workers' compensation benefits out of lawsuit proceeds violated Art I. §§2, 16, and 19, because it distinguished between claimants who try their tort claims and claimants who settle their tort claims) Opinion Summary. Oral argument 1/13/04 - no video online. Docket.
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler (Apr. 14, 2004), 101 Ohio St.3d 382, 805 N.E.2d 1094, 2004-Ohio-1581. (2004) (holding that the expungement statute, which permits a court to seal a record in order to protect privacy interest of a person acquitted of a criminal charge, does not violate the open courts provision of Art. I, §16) Opinion Summary. Oral Argument 10/8/03 - no video online. Docket.
Klein v. Leis (Sept. 24, 2003), 99 Ohio St.3d 537, 795 N.E.2d 633, 2003-Ohio-4779. (2003) (looking to the text of the constitutional provision, its history, the debates at the 1851 Constitutional Convention, and post-convention legislation to conclude that the right to bear arms is fundamental but there is no constitutional right to bear concealed weapons under Art. I, §4) Opinion Summary. Court Docket.
State v. Brown (Aug. 6, 2003), 99 Ohio St.3d 323, 792 N.E.2d 175, 2003-Ohio-3931 (2003) (holding that Art. I, §14 provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment against warrantless arrests for minor misdemeanors) Opinion Summary. Court Docket.
DeRolph v. State (Dec. 11, 2002), 97 Ohio St.3d 434, 780 N.E.2d 529, 2002-Ohio-6750. (2002) (holding Ohio's elementary and secondary public school financing system violates Art. VI, §2, and requiring the General Assembly to make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise to secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools) Court Docket. -Oral argument mp3.
State ex rel. Shemo v. City of Mayfield Heights, 95 Ohio St.3d 59, 765 N.E.2d 345, 2002-Ohio-1627 (2002) (holding that a compensable temporary taking occurs under Art. I, §19 and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, when zoning fails to substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies the owner all economically viable use of the land). Court Docket.
State v. Thompson (May 15, 2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 264, 767 N.E.2d 251, 2002 -Ohio- 2124 (2002) (construing the Equal Protection Clauses of Art. I, §2 and the Fourteenth Amendment as being “functionally equivalent” and necessitating the same analysis, and holding that the state importuning statute, which prohibits solicitation of homosexual activity when the solicitor knows person being solicited will be offended, is facially invalid as a content-based restriction on speech in violation of the equal protection guarantees of both the United States and Ohio Constitutions) Opinion Summary. Court Docket.
State v. Murrell (Apr. 3, 2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 489, 764 N.E. 2d 986, 2002-Ohio-1483 (2002) (holding that it does not violate the Ohio Constitution when police open closed containers in a suspect's car once the suspect has been arrested for a traffic violation and is confined in a police cruiser. (Overruling State v. Brown (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 483). Opinion Summary. Court Docket.
State v. Burnett (Oct. 17, 2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 419, 755 N.E.2d 857, 2001-Ohio-1581. (2001) (treating lower federal court decisions as only persuasive and holding that a city ordinance prohibiting drug offenders from traveling to certain areas does not violate the right of freedom of association under the First Amendment but does violate the Fourteenth Amendment due process right of intra-state travel; further holding that the drug exclusion policy conflicted with state general laws and thus was not within the city’s home rule power under Art. XVIII, §3) Court Docket
State v. Thompson (Aug. 22, 2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 584, 752 N.E.2d 276, 2001-Ohio-1288 (2001)(holding that because judges have discretion to determine the weight, if any, to give to each of the statutory sentencing guidelines and to consider additional relevant evidence, the guidelines do not encroach upon the trial court's fact-finding authority and do not violate the doctrine of separation of powers)Court Docket.
State v. Orr (May 2, 2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 389, 745 N.E.2d 1036, 2001-Ohio-50. (2001) (interpreting the nearly identical language of the search and seizure provisions of Art. I, §14 and the Fourth Amendment as affording the same protection, and holding that a driver’s license checkpoint is not an unconstitutional seizure under either provision)Court Docket.
Painesville Bldg. Dept. v. Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A. (Sept. 6, 2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 564, 733 N.E.2d 1152, 2000-Ohio-48 (2000) (holding that a city ordinance prohibiting political yard signs except for a 19-day window at election time violates the First Amendment and not separately examining the ordinance under Art. I, §11)Court Docket
State ex rel. Bray v. Russell (June 14, 2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 132, 729 N.E.2d 359, 2000-Ohio-116 (2000)(holding that “bad time” statute permitting the executive branch to extend prisoners’ sentences violated the doctrine of separation of powers). Court Docket.
Humphrey v. Lane (May 24, 2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 62, 728 N.E.2d 1039, 2000-Ohio-435. (2000) (construing Art. I, §7 more broadly than the First Amendment and holding that a generally applicable religion-neutral grooming regulation for state corrections officer serves a compelling state interest but is not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest and thus violates the state constitutional right to free exercise of religion) Court Docket.
State v. Williams (Apr. 28, 2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 513, 728 N.E.2d 342, 2000-Ohio-428 (2000)(holding that sex offender classification and registration statute does not violate rights guaranteed by the Double Jeopardy, Bill of Attainder, and Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio Constitution or the rights contained in the non-self-executing Art. I, §1). Court Docket.