Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
Rejects public-duty rule shielding state from negligence liability because it conflicts with statutory text equating state to private parties in [1]. Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerc… ↗
In State v. Noling, Tyrone Noling appealed his convictions for two counts of aggravated murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary, along with his death sentence, stemming from the 1990 shooting deaths of an elderly couple during a home invasion and robbery in Portage County, Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, finding that the evidence presented at trial, including testimony from accomplices and forensic analysis linking the .25 caliber weapon to the crime scene, sufficiently supported the jury's findings of guilt. The court rejected multiple propositions of law challenging evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sentencing procedures, and constitutional claims under the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, concluding that no reversible error occurred in the trial or appellate review.
In Gutmann v. Feldman, plaintiffs alleged that defendants induced them to invest in nonexistent business opportunities and sought damages under Ohio securities law for the resulting losses. The U.S. District Court certified the question of whether an oral contract can qualify as a 'security' under R.C. 1707.01(B). The Ohio Supreme Court answered no, holding that the statutory definition begins with 'any certificate or instrument' and lists specific written examples, indicating that securities must take written form. The court reasoned that the General Assembly's selective use of 'written' modifiers for certain items, combined with the ordinary meaning of the opening language, excludes purely oral agreements from the definition.
In State v. Gross, the defendant was convicted of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and weapons charges after eyewitnesses, including juveniles on a paper route, identified him as the person who fatally shot Muskingum County Deputy Sheriff Michael Lutz during a break-in at a gas station in 1994. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible errors in the guilt phase. However, the court vacated the death sentence and remanded for resentencing on the aggravated murder conviction, holding that reversible error occurred when an alternate juror participated in deliberations over objection, resulting in an adverse outcome that the state did not prove harmless and that the trial court did not cure, in violation of Crim.R. 24(F). The decision focused on the procedural impact of the alternate juror's involvement rather than the underlying facts of the crime.
In State v. Walls, the defendant was convicted of aggravated murder for a 1985 killing committed when he was 15 years old, after being indicted in 1998 as an adult under 1997 versions of Ohio's juvenile statutes that eliminated the need for juvenile court bindover. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims that applying the later statutes constituted an unconstitutional retroactive application of law or violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and due process. The court reasoned that the statutes were remedial rather than substantive because they affected only the forum and procedures for prosecution once the defendant was apprehended as an adult, without altering any vested rights from the time of the offense, and that preindictment delay did not prejudice the defense in a manner warranting dismissal.
This case arose from a 1996 fireworks store fire that killed nine people and injured others, after which survivors sued the Ohio Department of Commerce's Division of State Fire Marshal in the Court of Claims alleging negligent inspections of the store's disabled sprinkler system and safety compliance during mandatory licensing and seasonal checks. The central legal issue was whether the state could invoke the public-duty rule as a defense to bar liability for such inspections. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the public-duty rule is incompatible with R.C. 2743.02(A)(1), which requires the state's liability in the Court of Claims to be determined in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties. Accordingly, courts must apply conventional tort principles to assess the existence of a legal duty in negligence claims against the state, rather than the public-duty rule, and the court overruled prior inconsistent decisions to that extent.
The case involved an employee, Herb Wiles, who took unpaid leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to care for his injured father and was later demoted, had his pay cut, and was transferred to another store upon return. Wiles sued his employer under Ohio common law for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, citing the FMLA but not pursuing remedies under the Act itself. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the state does not recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge based solely on a violation of the FMLA. The court reasoned that the FMLA already provides specific remedies for violations, making an additional common-law claim unnecessary to vindicate the statute's public policy goals. The lower courts' grant of summary judgment to the employer was affirmed.
