Ohio Constitution - Ohio Supreme Court Cases
| Recent Decisions | Cases to Watch | Appellate Cases | Common Pleas |
Selected Recent Decisions
| 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
Subscribe to an RSS Feed of New Ohio Supreme Court opinions dealing with the Ohio Constitution OR Subscribe by Email (via Feedburner)
Subscribe to an RSS Feed of Pending Ohio Supreme Court Opinions re. the Ohio Constitution OR
Subscribe by Email
(via Feedburner)
* To find more decisions, try the Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Search *To view oral arguments, you must have the latest version of RealPlayer installed on your computer. For more details, see Supreme Court Streaming Video Technology. *No oral argument videos available before March 2004. *Re: Opinion Summaries, per the Ohio Supreme Court's web page:
* Briefs filed after Nov. 2006 are linked from the Ohio Supreme Court docket . |
2009
| 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 & Docket |
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
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. also see these appellate court decisions:
|
| Eppley v. Tri-Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., (May 5, 2009), 2009-Ohio-1970, ____ N.E.2d. ____, ____Ohio St.3d ____.- 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), 2009-Ohio-1526, ____ N.E.2d. ____, ____Ohio St.3d ____. 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), 2009-Ohio-835, ____ N.E.2d. ____, ____Ohio St.3d ____. (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, ____ N.E.2d. ____. "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. |
State v. D.H., (Jan. 8, 2009), 2009-Ohio-9, ____ N.E.2d. ____, ____Ohio St.3d ____ . 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. |
2008
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, Argument video. 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 |
2007
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, Oral argument , 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.
2006
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.
2005
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.
2004
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.
2002
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.
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.
2000
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.
Cases to Watch- Selected Cases
Oral argument held:
| City of Cleveland v. Destiny Ventures, LLC, Case no. 2008-2230; City of Cleveland v. Washington Mutual Bank, Case no. 2009-0441. Oral argument Dec 2, 2009. Whether R.C. 2941.47 as applied in these cases violates a corporate defendant’s constitutional right to be present and/or to have the assistance of counsel at trial. Argument Video. Oral Argument Preview. Docket & Briefs - 2008-2330; 2009-0441 Kiminski [sic] v. Metal & Wire Products Company, Case no. 2008-0857. Oral Argument Feb. 18, 2009. Whether the General Assembly exceed its authority under the Ohio Constitution by enacting a statute that imposes a standard of proof for “intentional tort” lawsuits by injured workers against their employers that is more restrictive than the common law standard of proof for such claims established by decisions of the Supreme Court. Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video. Docket & Briefs. Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services LLC, Case no. 2008-0972. Oral Argument Feb. 18, 2009. If R.C. 2745.01 te is read to extinguish the common law cause of action for intentional torts based on “substantial certainty” of injury, does the statute violate the rights of plaintiffs to due process, equal protection, trial by jury, and other constitutional rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Ohio constitutions . Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video. Docket & Briefs. Klaus v. United Equity, Inc., Case no. 2008-0894. Oral Argument Feb. 18, 2009. Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video. Docket & Briefs. If the court decides in Kiminski that RC 2745.01 is constitutional under Art. II. Sections 34 and 35 of the Ohio Constituion, is an injured worker barred from pursuing an “intentional workplace tort” lawsuit against his employer if the worker cannot show by direct evidence that the employer knowingly exposed the worker to a dangerous workplace process or condition and that the employer acted with the deliberate intention of causing injury to the worker? |
| State of Ohio v. Samuel Brewer, Case no. 2007-1755. Oral argument Sept. 17, 2008. Whether Ohio's Double Jeopardy Clause forbids the retrial of a defendant when the State failed to present legally sufficient admissible evidence at the first trial to support a criminal conviction . Oral Argument Preview. Argument Video. Docket & Briefs. |
Oral argument scheduled:
|
Oral argument not yet scheduled:
State ex rel. Ohio Policy Roundtable v. Ted Strickland, Governor , Case No. 2009-1590, Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan to install video slot machines at horse-racing tracks (HB 1) should be voided because (1) the slot machines don’t fall within the definition of games that Ohio voters approved when establishing the state lottery in 1973, violating Ohio Constitution Art. XV § 6,., (2) because the plan calls for the state and track owners to split the profits, Strickland and lawmakers are violating the Ohio Constitution’s mandate earmarking lottery proceeds for K-12 education and (3) HB1 violates the one subject rule. Docket. |
Selected Appellate Court Cases in the News
Sex Offender Registration
Toney v. State, 2009-Ohio-1881, (Apr. 21, 2009), Eighth District Case Nos.
Nos. 91582-91585, 91588-91596, 91870-91872 reversed and remanded Evans v. State, and other similar cases.
Evans v. State, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-08 646797: Ohio's Adam Walsh Act, , violates the retroactivity provisions of the Ohio Constitution and U.S. Constitution. 127th Gen Assembly, Senate Bill 10. This opinion was signed by the judge on May 9, received for filing on May 12. But see the Eighth District case: State v. Holloman-Cross (May 8, 2008), 2008-Ohio-2189, which held that Ohio's Adam Walsh Act does NOT violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution.
One Subject Rule
Akron Metro. Hous. Auth. Bd. of Trustees v. State (June 12, 2008), 2008-Ohio-2836 (Franklin County): 125th Ohio General Assembly's passage of Amended Substitute Senate Bill No. 18 violates the one subject rule. (As introduced, the bill was to change the composition of metropolitan housing authorities, but provisions were added to permit counties and townships to put architectural standards in their zoning codes in any zone, and to allow charter school students to participate in extracurricular activities of the public school.)
Common Pleas Cases in the News
Madigan v. City of Cleveland (May 22, 2009), Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. CV-08-675397. The amendments to the City of Cleveland Charter concerning civil service test requirements for hiring and promotion of city employees, violated Ohio Constitution, Article VX, Section 10, which requires all appointments and promotions to "be ascertained, as far as practicable, by competitive examinations" The case is currently pending in the Eighth District Court of Appeals, Case No. 93367.
State v. Rivera (June 10, 2008), Lorain County Case Nos. 04CR065940, 05CR068067: Ohio's lethal injection method involving a three drug cocktail violates the Ohio Constitution's due process provision.
Links Checked, SA,JE 1-2010