Alice Robie Resnick

This case is an appeal from a Wood County conviction for third-degree felony cocaine trafficking, where the defendant received a three-year prison sentence after pleading guilty. The defendant challenged the sentence as exceeding the statutory minimum without adequate record findings and as contrary to law under Blakely v. Washington and related Ohio precedent. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's on-record findings about offense seriousness, organized activity, and public protection satisfied R.C. 2929.14(B), that Blakely does not apply to Ohio's greater-than-minimum sentencing scheme, and that the sentence was not improperly based on uncharged conduct.

criminal law

In State v. McDonald, the appellant challenged the 2003 dismissal of his postconviction relief petition under R.C. 2953.21 and the denial of his motion for a new trial following his 1994 convictions for aggravated murder and related charges arising from a drive-by shooting. The trial court granted summary judgment to the state, ruling the petition untimely under the 180-day filing deadline added by 1995 amendments and also barred by res judicata, while rejecting constitutional challenges to the statute's retroactive application and denying the new trial motion for lack of newly discovered evidence meeting the required standards. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the current version of R.C. 2953.21 applied without violating retroactivity or due process protections, that the appellant failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence or that it would likely change the outcome, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. The decision rested on established precedent regarding statutes of limitations for postconviction claims and the criteria for new trials based on impeaching or newly discovered evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved whether Ohio's saving statute (R.C. 2305.19), which permits refiling of an action dismissed without prejudice within one year if the original filing period has expired, applies to will-contest actions subject to a four-month limitations period under former R.C. 2107.76. Plaintiff Patsy Allen filed a will-contest action in probate court regarding a decedent's will, voluntarily dismissed it, and refiled the next day; the trial court dismissed the refiled action on the ground that the saving statute does not apply to will contests. The court of appeals reversed that dismissal. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that R.C. 2305.19 applies to will-contest actions because the saving statute's broad language covers actions that fail otherwise than on the merits, without exception for statutory claims like will contests.

procedure

The case involved a township police officer discharged for violating residency requirements whose union pursued arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement, resulting in a reduced suspension without back pay. The officer then sought to vacate the award in common pleas court under R.C. 2711.10, but the trial and appellate courts dismissed the action for lack of standing. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when an employee's grievance is arbitrated between the employer and union pursuant to a CBA, the employee lacks standing to petition to vacate the award unless the agreement expressly grants the employee an independent right to invoke arbitration. The court reasoned that the relevant CBA provisions required union approval and control over the process, making the union the party to the arbitration rather than the individual employee.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over prejudgment interest on a $29,000 jury verdict awarded to Brian Snow against his insurer Allstate in an uninsured motorist claim arising from two 1995 car accidents. Snow sought interest under R.C. 1343.03(C) accruing from the accident dates, citing the insurer's alleged bad faith in settlement negotiations, but the trial court applied R.C. 1343.03(A) and started interest from the verdict date. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that uninsured motorist claims are contractual under Ohio precedent so subsection (A) governs, that the amount became due upon the court's judgment, and that bad faith is irrelevant under (A); it also presumed the trial court's handling of settlement evidence was proper due to the absence of transcripts.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Lawrence L. Walls, who was indicted on charges of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and robbery. During his jury trial on September 11, 2001, the trial judge declared a mistrial sua sponte after learning of the terrorist attacks, citing concerns that jurors could not focus on the evidence amid national events and uncertainty about courthouse operations; the defendant objected and later moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. A visiting judge denied the motion, a bench trial followed, and Walls was convicted and sentenced to 11 years. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion because manifest necessity supported the mistrial declaration after considering alternatives like continuing the trial. The decision rested on precedents allowing sua sponte mistrials when public justice requires it and the judge is best positioned to assess courtroom circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a real estate broker who sold a home under a land installment contract with a repair addendum and the buyers who performed repairs in exchange for a reduced down payment. After disagreements over payments, utilities, and repairs, the seller sought eviction, obtained a default judgment for possession without providing the required seven-day notice under Civ.R. 55(A) despite the buyers' appearance via a continuance motion, and the trial court later awarded damages to the buyers on their breach counterclaim after finding the agreement was a land contract rather than a rental. The appellate court reversed the default judgment and remanded, holding that the lack of proper notice violated due process and rendered the subsequent damages determination premature.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Thomas Larkins, who was convicted of first-degree felony cocaine possession after police entered his motel room without a warrant, seized drugs in plain view, and later obtained a search warrant. Larkins appealed, claiming the trial court should have suppressed the evidence from the room, that jury selection violated Criminal Rule 24(D), and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the warrantless entry lawful under exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement including exigent circumstances and the plain-view doctrine, and rejecting the other assignments of error for lack of prejudice or merit.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved employees of the Ottawa County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities suing the board for employer intentional torts, alleging that the board knowingly exposed them to toxic mold and contaminated items in the workplace, causing physical ailments. The trial court granted the board's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the board, as a political subdivision, was engaged in a governmental function under R.C. Chapter 2744 and thus generally immune from tort liability, with employer intentional tort claims not falling under any statutory exceptions to that immunity.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved a plaintiff injured in a vehicle accident who settled with the tortfeasor and then sought underinsured motorist coverage from insurers, including Personal Service Insurance Company under a city policy. The insurers denied coverage, citing the insured's failure to provide prompt notice of the claim and to obtain consent before settling and releasing the tortfeasor. The Ohio Supreme Court held that an insurer is relieved of its obligation to provide UIM coverage for breach of a prompt-notice provision only if prejudiced by unreasonable delay, which is presumed prejudicial absent contrary evidence, and similarly for breach of consent-to-settle or subrogation provisions only if prejudiced by the failure to protect subrogation rights, also presumed absent contrary evidence. The court overruled prior precedent allowing denial without a prejudice showing and remanded the case for further proceedings applying this standard.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case challenged the constitutionality of Ohio's R.C. Chapter 4116, enacted by Am.H.B. No. 101, which prohibited public authorities from entering into or enforcing project labor agreements (PLAs) on public construction projects. Labor unions sued the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners and the state after the board abandoned plans for a PLA on a juvenile detention center project due to the new law. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that sections 8(e) and (f) of the National Labor Relations Act preempt the state statute under the Supremacy Clause. The court reasoned that the NLRA authorizes certain PLAs in the construction industry, and a state law flatly banning public entities from using them conflicts with federal policy. As a result, the court enjoined enforcement of R.C. Chapter 4116.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involved a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Joseph Baumgartner on behalf of Elsebeth Baumgartner, with the respondent filing a motion to dismiss and the petitioner filing a motion to strike. The court addressed whether a non-attorney could initiate such proceedings under Ohio law. It denied the habeas corpus petition, ruling that Joseph Baumgartner was not a licensed attorney and thus prohibited by R.C. 4705.01 from commencing or conducting an action on behalf of another person. The petitioner's motion to strike was deemed moot as a result. Costs were assessed to the petitioner.

procedurecriminal law

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by the widow of a polisher who died from cancer after long-term workplace exposure to nickel and chrome dust at Supreme Bumpers, Inc. The Industrial Commission allowed the death claim and granted an additional 15% award based on the employer's violation of specific safety requirements (IC-5-10 and IC-5-11) for failing to provide adequate respiratory equipment or effective alternative controls like ventilation. The employer sought a writ of mandamus to vacate the award, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge or violation, but the court of appeals and Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the commission's order. The core reasoning was that the record contained evidence of injurious dust exposure, ineffective controls, and the employer's awareness, supporting the VSSR finding without abuse of discretion.

labor & employment

This case was a direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court by James R. Taylor, who had been convicted by a jury on two counts of aggravated murder, one count of attempted aggravated murder, and one count of attempted murder after shooting and killing Ronald and Carolyn Rihm and wounding another person at a lodge on Valentine's Day 1998; he was sentenced to death. The court reviewed the appellant's 14 propositions of law and determined that none justified reversal of his convictions. It also independently weighed the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.04, finding that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigators beyond a reasonable doubt, and concluded that the death sentence was appropriate and proportionate to similar capital cases. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and death sentence.

criminal law

In State v. Martello, the defendant was placed on postrelease control after serving a prison term for burglary and theft; after failing to report to his parole officer, he received a 91-day incarceration sanction from the parole board for the violation and was separately indicted on a felony escape charge for the same conduct. The trial and appeals courts dismissed the escape prosecution on double jeopardy grounds, but the Ohio Supreme Court reversed. The court held that R.C. 2967.28(F)(4) allows both the postrelease control sanction and criminal prosecution for escape without violating the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions. The reasoning was that double jeopardy bars only multiple criminal punishments for the same offense in successive proceedings, and the postrelease sanction did not qualify as such a punishment under applicable precedents.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute in a subdivision where the owners of Lot 45 sought a mandatory injunction against the homeowners association to widen a private road (Crest Drive) to the full 50-foot width shown on the recorded plat and to remove landscaping and a driveway that allegedly obstructed their access. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the lot owners and ordered the association to take those actions. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that while the lot owners had a vested right of access, they failed to show immediate and irreparable harm given the existing 14.4-foot access point, and that material facts remained disputed regarding the necessity of removing the encroachments and compliance with architectural review requirements under the subdivision declarations. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Patrick D. Price, who suffered severe industrial injuries in 1969 while employed by Central Services, Inc. Price received temporary total disability benefits based on his 1968 average weekly wage, returned to work for over 26 years, and later applied for permanent total disability (PTD) compensation after leaving the workforce in 1997. The Industrial Commission raised his average weekly wage to reflect 1996 earnings but capped his PTD award at the 1969 statutory maximum rate under R.C. 4123.58. Price sought a writ of mandamus, which the court of appeals granted to require recalculation of the PTD award using the statutory cap in effect when he was forced from the job market. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed this judgment, clarifying the application of State ex rel. Lemke v. Brush Wellman, Inc. to allow such an adjustment under the special circumstances provision of R.C. 4123.61.

labor & employment

The case concerned a traffic stop by Bowling Green police of a vehicle in which Derek Tomor was a passenger, prompted by an anonymous tip about a suspicious white car in an area with recent vehicle break-ins; the stop led to discovery of underage occupants possessing alcohol and a citation for Tomor. The municipal court granted Tomor's motion to suppress all evidence from the stop on Fourth Amendment grounds, and the city appealed. The appeals court affirmed the suppression, holding that the anonymous tip provided insufficient indicia of reliability and that the officer's observations and surrounding facts did not amount to reasonable suspicion justifying the investigatory stop.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage limits after PIE Mutual Insurance Company became insolvent, leaving the Ohio Insurance Guaranty Association (OIGA) to handle claims against Dr. Katz in a medical malpractice wrongful death and survival action brought by the estate of Teri Sue Robinson on behalf of multiple family members. Dr. Katz sought a declaratory judgment that OIGA must treat the claims of the three beneficiaries plus the survival claim as separate covered claims under both the primary ($200,000 per claim) and excess ($1 million aggregate) policies. The trial court granted summary judgment to Katz and the estate administrator, finding four distinct covered claims, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the policy language did not limit all losses from injury to one person to a single claim, that Ohio wrongful death law permits separate claims by different beneficiaries, and that the excess policy similarly allowed multiple claims without a single-claim restriction. OIGA's appeal challenging the multiple-claim determination was rejected.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a relator who filed a complaint seeking writs of prohibition and procedendo against two judges in the Fulton County Common Pleas Court. The underlying matter was a quiet title action in which one judge recused himself due to a conflict, leading to the assignment of another judge by the Ohio Supreme Court. The relator sought to vacate orders authorizing service by publication and a default judgment, while also requesting orders barring the judges from further action and compelling rulings on pending motions. The court outlined the legal standards for obtaining such extraordinary writs, which require a clear right to relief and no adequate remedy at law. Finding that the relator had an adequate remedy through appeal to challenge any procedural issues, the court dismissed the complaint.

procedureproperty