Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Klembus (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2016-03-22 · cited 23×
In State v. Klembus, the defendant was charged with fourth-degree felony OVI under R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d) and a repeat-OVI specification under R.C. 2941.1413 after his fifth OVI conviction in 20 years; he moved to dismiss the specification on equal-protection grounds, arguing the statutes imposed different penalties based on identical proof. The trial court denied the motion, convicted the defendant, and imposed consecutive one-year terms for the OVI and specification. The court of appeals reversed, holding the statutes violated equal protection. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the appellate judgment and reinstated the sentence, reasoning that the provisions form part of a logical, graduated penalty system for repeat OVI offenders that is rationally related to public protection and offender punishment.
criminal law
Haight v. Minchak (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2016-03-17 · cited 10×
This case concerned whether Ohio's statutory definition of 'employee' under R.C. 4111.14(B)(1), which incorporates federal exemptions including for outside salespersons, conflicts with the broader definition in Article II, Section 34a of the Ohio Constitution for minimum-wage purposes. Sales representatives sued their employers, alleging that reduced draws fell below the constitutional minimum wage and that the statute unconstitutionally narrowed who qualifies as an employee. The trial court upheld the statute, but the appeals court reversed, finding the General Assembly had impermissibly restricted the constitutional term. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed again, holding that the statutory definition is constitutionally valid because it does not clearly conflict with or restrict the meaning under the state constitution. The court therefore applied the statutory exemptions to claims brought under the constitutional provision.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory
State v. Broom (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2016-03-16 · cited 55×
The case involved Romell Broom, who was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death in 1985; after his appeals were exhausted, an execution attempt on September 15, 2009, failed when medical team members could not successfully insert and maintain IV catheters despite multiple painful attempts over more than an hour. Broom filed a postconviction petition arguing that a second execution attempt would violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions. The Ohio Supreme Court held that neither constitutional provision bars the state from carrying out the death sentence after an unsuccessful prior attempt, relying on precedents such as Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber and concluding that the failed procedure did not constitute punishment or place Broom in jeopardy a second time. The court also affirmed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition without further discovery or an evidentiary hearing.
criminal law
State v. Broom (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2016-03-16 · cited 55×
The case involved Romell Broom, who was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death in 1985; after his appeals were exhausted, an execution attempt on September 15, 2009, failed when medical team members could not successfully insert and maintain IV catheters despite multiple painful attempts over more than an hour. Broom filed a postconviction petition arguing that a second execution attempt would violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions. The Ohio Supreme Court held that neither constitutional provision bars the state from carrying out the death sentence after an unsuccessful prior attempt, relying on precedents such as Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber and concluding that the failed procedure did not constitute punishment or place Broom in jeopardy a second time. The court also affirmed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition without further discovery or an evidentiary hearing.
criminal law
Clayton v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2016-02-23 · cited 8×
The case concerned disciplinary proceedings by the Ohio Board of Nursing against nurse Beverly Clayton for alleged failures in patient care that contributed to a patient's death, specifically challenging the hearing examiner's decision to limit one of Clayton's subpoena requests for additional evidence. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that hearing examiners appointed by the Board have discretion under R.C. 119.09 to limit or quash subpoenas in such administrative proceedings and that the limitation in this instance did not result in reversible error or invalidate the adjudication order. The core reasoning focused on the statutory language granting hearing examiners authority over evidence and subpoenas, the board's rules implementing that authority, and the absence of prejudice to Clayton from the ruling on her specific subpoena.
procedurehealthcare
Clayton v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2016-02-23 · cited 8×
The case concerned disciplinary proceedings by the Ohio Board of Nursing against nurse Beverly Clayton for alleged failures in patient care that contributed to a patient's death, specifically challenging the hearing examiner's decision to limit one of Clayton's subpoena requests for additional evidence. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that hearing examiners appointed by the Board have discretion under R.C. 119.09 to limit or quash subpoenas in such administrative proceedings and that the limitation in this instance did not result in reversible error or invalidate the adjudication order. The core reasoning focused on the statutory language granting hearing examiners authority over evidence and subpoenas, the board's rules implementing that authority, and the absence of prejudice to Clayton from the ruling on her specific subpoena.
procedurehealthcare