Ohio Law

News and Announcements from the Supreme Court of Ohio and Other Governmental Entities Within the Buckeye State.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

12/21/2005 - Supreme Court of Ohio Decisions

Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005

2004-0357 and 2004-0363. McNamara v. Rittman, 2005-Ohio-6433. Certified Questions of State Law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Nos. 02-3778 and 02-3965. The certified questions are answered. See opinion. Resnick, Pfeifer, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur in judgment only. Opinion: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-Ohio-6433.pdf
Summary: Court Holds Landowners Have Property Right to Ground Water Under Their Land

2004-1078. Cleveland Mun. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2005-Ohio-6434. Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2002-R-2641 and 2002-R-2642. Decision affirmed.Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-Ohio-6434.pdf
Taxation — Real property — Value — Property owner fails to show economic duress was factor in fixing purchase price, when.

2004-2081. State ex rel. Segedy v. Arts Residential Roofing, 2005-Ohio-6429. Franklin App. No. 03AP-1235, 2004-Ohio-5945. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-Ohio-6429.pdf
Workers’ compensation – R.C. 4123.52 – Continuing jurisdiction of Industrial Commission – Staff hearing officer’s failure to identify prerequisite to invoking continuing jurisdiction is mistake of law justifying commission’s exercise of jurisdiction to reopen order.

2004-2176. Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wyandt & Silvers, Inc., 2005-Ohio-6430. On Final Report by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, No. UPL 04-02. Roland A. Wyandt and Wyandt & Silvers, Inc. are enjoined from conduct that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, and civil penalty imposed. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-Ohio-6430.pdf
Summary: Piqua Tax Services Firm, Co-Owner Fined for Unauthorized Practice of Law

2005-0043. State ex rel. Asti v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Serv., 2005-Ohio-6432. Franklin App. No. 03AP-998, 2004-Ohio-6832. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-Ohio-6432.pdf
Summary: Promoted Civil Service Employee Must Be Reinstated to Classified Position On Request

2005-0771. State ex rel. Hawthorn v. Russell, 2005-Ohio-6431. Summit App. No. 22380. Judgment affirmed. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. O'Connor, J., not participating.
Opinion: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2005/2005-Ohio-6431.pdf
Quo warranto—Corporations—Standing—R.C. 2733.05 and 2733.06—Only Attorney General and prosecuting attorneys have standing to seek writ to challenge right to nonpublic office.

Later

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Ohio Ethics Commission Finally Posts Advisory Opinions on Financial Disclosure and School District Financial Planning

The opinions are dated in June and August of this year, but they were just posted to the Ethics Commission web site. The site does, however, offer the full texts of advisory opinions dating back to 1974.

2005-01 (1) Financial disclosure provisions contained in Revised Code Sections 102.02 and 102.022 of the Ohio Ethics Law require that a public official or employee who files a financial disclosure statement must disclose all sources of income, over the applicable statutory threshold, received during the preceding calendar year by the filer in his or her own name and by any other person for the filer's use or benefit;

(2) Financial disclosure provisions contained in Revised Code Sections 102.02 and 102.022 require that a public official or employee who files a financial disclosure statement must disclose the name of every corporation, trust, business trust, partnership, or association, within the parameters of the Law, in which, during the preceding calendar year, the filer or any other person for the filer's use and benefit, had an investment of over one thousand dollars;

(3) A public official or employee who is required to file a financial disclosure statement, and who is a settlor and beneficiary of a trust, must disclose the trust, and sources of income received by the trust, as sources of income, and must disclose the trust, and investments in the trust, as investments;

(4) The conclusions in this opinion apply to financial disclosure filings made for calendar year 2005 and subsequent years.

2005-02 (1) A "financial planning and supervision commission" is an agency and instrumentality of the state created pursuant to Section 3316.05 of the Ohio Revised Code to adopt and implement a financial recovery plan for a school district in fiscal emergency, with authority set forth in Section 3316.07 to sue and be sued, enter into contracts, and make reductions in the district's work force to bring the district's budget into balance;

(2) A member of a school district financial planning and supervision commission is a "public official or employee," as that term is defined in Division (B) of Section 102.01 of the Revised Code, subject to the post-employment, confidentiality, and conflicts of interest prohibitions set forth in Section 102.03 and is an officer of an instrumentality of the state subject to the representation and contracting prohibitions set forth in Section 102.04;

(3) A member of a school district financial planning and supervision commission is a "public official," as that term is defined in Division (A) of Section 2921.01 of the Revised Code, subject to the public contract prohibitions set forth in Section 2921.42 and the supplemental compensation prohibitions set forth in Section 2921.43; and

(4) Because Division (J) of Section 3316.05 of the Revised Code requires members of a school district financial planning and supervision commission to file a statement described in that section, and exempts them from the financial disclosure filing requirement in the Ethics Law, the members of financial planning and supervision commissions are not required to file the disclosure statement described in Section 102.02 of the Revised Code.

Later

Ohio General Assembly Latest Bill Introductions

SB 239 HARASSMENT POLICY (Dann) To require school districts and community schools to implement anti-harassment policies; to require the State Board of Education to develop a model anti-harassment policy; to require the Auditor of State to determine whether anti-harassment policies are in place when conducting audits of schools and to require the State Board of Education to collect and maintain data on harassment in schools through the Education Management Information System. Am. & En. 3301.0714, 117.53, 3301.41, 3313.21 & 3314.19 Full Text

HB 451 MAYOR'S COURTS (Domenick) To eliminate the jurisdiction of a mayor to hear cases in which the person charged has been convicted of or pleaded guilty two or more times to driving under OVI suspension and to increase the penalty for a third or subsequent conviction for driving under OVI suspension. Am. 1905.01, 2929.13, 2929.14 & 4510.14 Full Text

HB 452 DAY CARE INSURANCE (Mason) To require type A and type B family day-care homes to procure and maintain liability insurance or a bond, or a signed affidavit by a parent of each child receiving child care from the day-care home acknowledging that the family day-care home does not carry such liability insurance or bond. En. 5104.041 Full Text

HB 453 HYBRID VEHICLE PURCHASES (Mason) To create a tax credit for individuals who purchase a new hybrid vehicle. Am. & En. 5747.98 & 5747.64 Full Text

Later

12/20/2005 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2004-1974. In re Estate of Mason.
Hancock App. No. 5-04-01, 2004-Ohio-6544. This cause is pending before the
court as an appeal and cross-appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hancock
County. Upon consideration of the joint motion of appellant/cross-appellee Wilma
J. Mason and amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro for divided oral
argument time,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the joint motion is granted, and
appellant/cross-appellee and amicus curiae shall share the time allotted.

MEDIATION REFERRALS

The following case has been referred to mediation pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
XIV(6):
2005-2309. State ex rel. Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Campos.
Franklin App. No. 04AP-1266, 2005-Ohio-5700.

The following case has been returned to the regular docket pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6)(E):
2005-1945. State ex rel. Williams v. Coca-Cola Ent., Inc.
Franklin App. No. 04AP-1270, 2005-Ohio-5085.


Later

Monday, December 19, 2005

12/19/2005 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements

DISCIPLINARY CASES

2004-1799. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lowden.
On May 18, 2005, this court imposed a two-year suspension upon respondent. The
suspension was stayed on condition that respondent continue his mental health
treatment, provide quarterly reports to relator, and make restitution in the Miller
matter within 90 days of the order. On December 1, 2005, relator, Toledo Bar
Association, filed a motion for show cause order and to lift the stay of respondent’s
suspension asserting that respondent has failed to comply with the conditions of
the stay of his suspension. Upon consideration thereof,
It is ordered by the court that the motion is granted to the extent that
respondent show cause by filing a written response with the Clerk of this court on
or before 20 days from the date of this order why the stay should not be lifted and
respondent ordered to serve the two-year suspension.
It is further ordered that respondent show cause, in writing on or before 20
days from the date of this order, why he should not be held in contempt and
suspended for failing to pay Board costs, as ordered, within 90 days of the court’s
May 18, 2005, order.
It is further ordered, sua sponte, that all document filed with this court in this
case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the
Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness
of filings.
MEDIATION REFERRALS

The following case has been returned to the regular docket pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6)(E):
2005-1921. State ex rel. Vaughn Industries, LLC v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-168, 2005-Ohio-5093.

Later