Ohio Law

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

Thursday, April 20, 2006

4/20/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2005-1966. In re A. B., J. B., T. B., and C.B.
Summit App. No. 22659, 2005-Ohio-4936. This cause is pending
before the court on the certification of a conflict involving parental
rights or adoption from the Court of Appeals for Summit County.
Upon consideration of the joint motion of amicus curiae Justice for
Children Project and appellee Charles Brown for divided argument time,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted, and the amicus
curiae shall share the time allotted to appellee

2006-0628. State v. Williams.
Trumbull App. No. 2004-T-0136, 2006-Ohio-617. This cause is
pending before the court as a death penalty postconviction case.
Upon consideration of appellant's motion for stay of the court of
appeals' judgment,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.

2006-0645. State v. Ice.
Columbiana App. No. 05CO72, 2006-Ohio-1470. This cause is
pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and a claimed
appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant's motion for stay
of the court of appeals' judgment,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2006-0164. State v. Marshall.
Pickaway App. No. 05CA21, 2005-Ohio-7106. This cause is pending
before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right.
Upon consideration of appellant's application for dismissal,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is
granted.
Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.

Later

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

4/19/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Decisions

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

2004-1186. State v. Olson, 2006-Ohio-1704.
Stark App. No. 2003CA00371, 2004-Ohio-2965. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in State v. White , 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989, 817 N.E.2d 393.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1704.pdf

2004-1187. State v. Glosser, 2006-Ohio-1705.
Stark App. No. 2003CA00374, 2004-Ohio-2966. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in State v. White , 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989, 817 N.E.2d 393.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1705.pdf

2004-1188 and 2004-1688. State v. Cantwell, 2006-Ohio-1706.
Stark App. No. 2003CA00367, 2004-Ohio-2964. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in State v. White , 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989, 817 N.E.2d 393.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1706.pdf

2004-1239. Coleman v. Dogra, 2006-Ohio-1707.
Cuyahoga App. No. 83522, 157 Ohio App.3d 530, 2004-Ohio-3109. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer and O'Connor, JJ., concur.
Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1707.pdf

2004-1274 and 2004-1689. State v. Massey, 2006-Ohio-1708.
Stark App. No. 2003CA00373, 2004-Ohio-3257. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in State v. White , 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989, 817 N.E.2d 393.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1708.pdf

2004-1275 and 2004-1697. State v. Owens, 2006-Ohio-1709.
Stark App. No. 2003CA00370, 2004-Ohio-3262. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in State v. White , 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989, 817 N.E.2d 393.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1709.pdf

2004-1320 and 2004-1699. State v. Williams, 2006-Ohio-1710.
Stark App. No. 2003CA00369, 2004-Ohio-3525. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in State v. White , 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989, 817 N.E.2d 393.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1710.pdf

2004-1324 and 2004-1692. State v. Carter, 2006-Ohio-1711.
Stark App. No. 2003CA00372, 2004-Ohio-3523. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in State v. White , 103 Ohio St.3d 580, 2004-Ohio-5989, 817 N.E.2d 393.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1711.pdf

2005-0272. Fowee v. Wesley Hall, Inc., 2006-Ohio-1712.
Hamilton App. No. C-040188, 2004-Ohio-7002. Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Resnick and O'Donnell, JJ., concur in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1712.pdf
Summary: ‘Saving Statute’ Time Limit Applies in Employer’s Appeal of Workers’ Compensation Award

2005-0311. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Titanium Metals Corp., 2006-Ohio-1713.
Cuyahoga App. No. 83540, 159 Ohio App.3d 338, 2004-Ohio-6618. Judgment vacated and cause remanded. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1713.pdf

2005-0428. State v. Durham , 2006-Ohio-1714.
Cuyahoga App. No. 84132, 2005-Ohio-202. Sua sponte, cause dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1714.pdf

2005-2029. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris, 2006-Ohio-1715.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 04-075. Cynthia June Harris, Attorney Registration No. 0059755, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-1715.pdf
Summary: Court Indefinitely Suspends Columbus Attorney

Later

Supreme Court of Ohio Announces that E-Filing Standards are Available for Comment

The Supreme Court of Ohio's Advisory Committee on Technology and the Courts has announced that the Electronic Filing Work Group of the Standards Subcommittee has released a draft of their proposed e-filing standards for comment. Comments will be accepted on the document through June 30, 2006.

Instructions for Commenting on the Proposed E-Filing Standards (PDF)

Proposed E-Filing Standards Draft (PDF)

Later

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

New Opinions from the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

OPINION 2006-3
Issued April 7, 2006


SYLLABUS: A probate judge may teach a six hour course on the topic of adult protective services at a training program for employees of county departments of job and family services, provided the activity does not interfere with the performance of judicial duties, but the probate judge should not accept compensation. Compensation for such activity is prohibited under both the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law. Compensation to the probate judge from the state department of job and family services does not uphold the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary as required under Canons 1 and 2 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and would be an honorarium, improper compensation, and an unlawful interest in a public contract under Ohio Ethics Law. Prospective application of this opinion is recommended.

OPINION 2006-4
Issued April 7, 2006

SYLLABUS: In announcing the opening of a law practice, an attorney may send an announcement card and a biography to members of the bar, business entities, and others. If the attorney wishes to announce the opening of a law practice by sending a personalized letter and a biography to fellow members of the bar, the letter is not subject to the requirements for direct mail solicitation in DR 2-101(F)(2). But, if an attorney wishes to announce the opening of a law practice by sending a personalized letter and a biography to business entities or others that might need legal services in the areas of law in which the attorney will practice, the letter is subject to the requirements for direct mail solicitation in DR 2-101(F)(2).

Later

4/18/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2005-0945. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 03-2341-EL-ATA,
03-2405-EL-CSS, and 04-85-EL-CSS. This cause is pending
before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission.
Upon consideration of appellant's motion to consolidate this
case with 2006-0646, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util.
Comm., Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-792-EL-ATA,
or purposes of oral argument and opinion,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.

2005-1621. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 04-1931-EL-AAM. This cause
is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities
Commission. Upon consideration of appellant's motion to consolidate
2005-1621, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public
Utilities Commission, No. 04-1931-EL-AAM, 2005-1679, Ohio
Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities Commission,
No. 04-1645-EL-AAM, 2006-0536, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v.
Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-844-EL-ATA,
and 2006-0600, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.,
Public Utilities Commission, No. 04-1932-EL-ATA,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.

2005-1679. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 04-1645-EL-AAM. This cause
is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities
Commission. Upon consideration of appellant's motion to consolidate
2005-1621, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public
Utilities Commission, No. 04-1931-EL-AAM, 2005-1679,
Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities
Commission, No. 04-1645-EL-AAM, 2006-0536, Ohio Consumers'
Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities Commission,
No. 05-844-EL-ATA, and 2006-0600, Ohio Consumers' Counsel
v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities Commission, No. 04-1932-EL-ATA,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.

2006-0536. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-844-EL-ATA. This cause
is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities
Commission. Upon consideration of appellant's motion to consolidate
2005-1621, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public
Utilities Commission, No. 04-1931-EL-AAM, 2005-1679, Ohio
Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities Commission,
No. 04-1645-EL-AAM, 2006-0536, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v.
Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-844-EL-ATA,
and 2006-0600, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.,
Public Utilities Commission, No. 04-1932-EL-ATA,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this
cause be consolidated with 2006-0600, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v.
Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities Commission, No. 04-1932-EL-ATA,
and briefing is stayed.

2006-0600. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 04-1932-EL-ATA. This cause
is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities
Commission. Upon consideration of appellant's motion to consolidate
2005-1621, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public
Utilities Commission, No. 04-1931-EL-AAM, 2005-1679,
Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities
Commission, No. 04-1645-EL-AAM, 2006-0536, Ohio Consumers'
Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities Commission,
No. 05-844-EL-ATA, and 2006-0600, Ohio Consumers' Counsel
v. Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities Commission, No. 04-1932-EL-ATA,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this c
ause be consolidated with 2006-0536, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v.
Pub. Util. Comm., Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-844-EL-ATA,
and briefing is stayed.

2006-0646. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-792-EL-ATA. This cause
is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities
Commission. Upon consideration of appellant's motion to consolidate
this case with 2005-0945, Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util.
Comm., Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 03-2341-ELATA,
03-2405-EL-CSS, and 04-85-EL-CSS, for purposes of oral argument
and opinion,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that briefing is
stayed.

Later

Monday, April 17, 2006

4/17/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

1987-0327. State v. Clark.
Lucas App. No. L-84-443. This cause came on for further
consideration ofappellant's motion for stay of execution
scheduled for May 2, 2006,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.

2005-1461. Ohio Govt. Risk Mgt. Plan v. Harrison.
Auglaize App. Nos. 2-04-37 and 2-04-38, 161 Ohio App.
3d 726, 2005-Ohio-3235.
This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the
Court of Appeals forAuglaize County.
IT IS ORDERED, sua sponte, that the stay of briefing is
dissolved, and this cause is no longer held for the decision in
2004-1735, Sharonville v. Am. Employers Ins. Co., Hamilton
App. No. C-030905, 158 Ohio App.3d 576, 2004-Ohio-4664.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the Clerk shall
issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the Court
of Appeals for Auglaize County and that briefing shall proceed
in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. VI.

2005-2162. Bellman v. Am. Internatl. Group.
Lucas App. No. L-03-1301. This cause is pending before the
court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County.
Upon consideration of the motions to withdraw of appellees
Universal Underwriters Insurance Company and American
Family Insurance Company,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions are granted.
Resnick, J., dissents.

MEDIATION REFERRALS

The following case has been referred to mediation pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6):
2006-0559. State ex rel. Basile v. Dublin Suites, Inc.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-464, 2006-Ohio-1029.

The following cases have been returned to the regular
docket pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6)(E):
2006-0052. State ex rel. Poneris v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-111, 2005-Ohio-6208.
2006-0569. State ex rel. Kelsey-Hayes Co. v. Heinlen.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-360, 2006-Ohio-428.

Later