Ohio Law

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

Friday, May 19, 2006

5/19/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements

MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS

2006-0521. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-297-RR-FED. On motion to dismiss. Motion
to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ.,
concur.
Pfeifer and O'Connor, JJ., dissent.

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2006-0945. State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd.
In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a
complaint for a writ of mandamus and prohibition. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that an alternative writ be granted
and the following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of
briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X:
The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days of
the date of this entry; relator shall file its brief within 10 days after the filing of
evidence; respondents shall file their brief within 20 days after the filing of relator's
brief; and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents
brief.
Pfeifer, J., dissents.

RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS

2006-0111. State v. Lamarr.
Logan App. No. 8-04-39, 2005-Ohio-6030. Reported at 109 Ohio St.3d 1419,
2006-Ohio-1978, 846 N.E.2d 530. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
2006-0378. State ex rel. McCray v. West.
Hamilton App. No. C-050955. Reported at 109 Ohio St.3d 1448, 2006-Ohio-
2158, ___ N.E.2d ___. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


Thursday, May 18, 2006

5/18/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2003-1572. State ex rel. Howard v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 97AP-860. This cause came on for further consideration of
appellant's motion for leave to file a response instanter to the notice of failure of
payment filed by appellee Seaway Food Town, Inc. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for leave is granted.

2006-0568. State v. Taylor.
Montgomery App. No. 20649. This cause is pending before the court on the
certification of a conflict by the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County. It
appearing to the court that appellant is without counsel,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that Charles M. Miller of Cincinnati, Ohio, is
appointed to represent appellant on a pro bono basis.
2006-0788. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-276-EL-AIR. This cause is pending before
this court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission. Upon consideration
of the motion of The Dayton Power and Light Company for leave to intervene as
an appellee,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted.

2006-0829. Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-792-EL-ATA. This cause is pending before
this court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission. Upon consideration
of the motion of The Dayton Power and Light Company for leave to intervene as
an appellee,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted.

DISCIPLINARY CASES

2005-0748. Disciplinary Counsel v. Carpino.
This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing by counsel for
respondent of a motion to reconsider imposition of costs. Upon consideration
thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by this court that the motion is granted and board costs in
this matter are hereby waived.

2006-0375. Disciplinary Counsel v. Walkden.
On Certified Order of the Supreme Court of Florida, No. SC04-1555. John
Walkden, Attorney Registration No. 0055041, is suspended from the practice of
law in Ohio for one year and placed on probation for three years.

2006-0433. Disciplinary Counsel v. Bonecutter.
On Certified Order of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Dane Bonecutter,
Attorney Registration No. 0037237, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio
until further order of the court.

2006-0693. In re Resignation of Powers.
On affidavit of resignation from the practice of law of Dallas Paul Powers,
Attorney Registration No. 0001551, and on report filed under seal by Disciplinary
Counsel.
Resignation accepted with disciplinary action pending.

Later


Wednesday, May 17, 2006

5/17/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Decisions

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 2006-Ohio-2394.
Dispositions of currently pending appeals based on the decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470. See entry.
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-2394.pdf

2004-1735. Sharonville v. Am. Employers Ins. Co., 2006-Ohio-2180.
Hamilton App. No. C-030905, 158 Ohio App.3d 576, 2004-Ohio-4664. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
O'Donnell, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-2180.pdf
Summary: Insurer Must Defend Law Enforcement Liability Claim If Alleged Conduct ‘Could’ Be Covered

2005-0245. Reading v. Pub. Util. Comm., 2006-Ohio-2181.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 02-589-RR-UNC. Order affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-2181.pdf
Summary: PUCO Authority to Close Railroad Crossings Does Not Violate City’s ‘Home Rule’ Powers

2005-1061. In re Guardianship of Peck, 2006-Ohio-2182.
Lake App. No. 2003-L-175, 2005-Ohio-2072. 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-2182.pdf

2005-1384. State ex rel. Lakeview Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2006-Ohio-2183.
In Mandamus. Writ denied.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer and O'Donnell, JJ., dissent and would grant the writ.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-2183.pdf

2005-1462. In re K.K., 2006-Ohio-2184.
Summit App. No. 22352, 2005-Ohio-3112. Judgment affirmed.
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-2184.pdf

2005-2142. In re D.P., 2006-Ohio-2185.
Franklin App. Nos. 05AP-117 and 05AP-118, 2005-Ohio-5097. Judgment affirmed.
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-2185.pdf

2005-2392. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Vild, 2006-Ohio-2186.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-010. Jeffrey Thomas Vild, Attorney Registration No. 0029535, is permanently disbarred 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-2186.pdf
Summary: Toledo Attorney Disbarred

Later

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

5/16/2006 - Supreme Court Case Announcements and Administrative Actions

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2006-0173. State v. Parks.
Carroll App. No. 04CA803, 2005-Ohio-6926. This cause is pending before the
court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On February 8, 2006,
appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court
of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration
of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither
notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist
as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals' order
certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within
fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to
consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
III(6).

2006-0174. State v. Parks.
Columbiana App. No. 04 CO 19, 2005-Ohio-6926. This cause is pending before
the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On February 8,
2006, appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the
court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed
consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas
appellant has neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a
conflict does not exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the
court of appeals' order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by
S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within
fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to
consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
III(6).

2006-0290. Jokic v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co.
Lake App. No. 2004-L-135, 2005-Ohio-7044. This cause is pending before the
court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On February 10, 2006,
appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court
of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration
of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither
notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist
as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals' order
certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within
fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to
consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.
III(6).

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

The Supreme Court of Ohio has issued orders imposing sanctions upon various
attorneys and judges for noncompliance with the provisions of various Gov.Bar
and Gov.Jud. Rules. The texts of the entries can be found here, along with lists of the
attorneys and judges who were sanctioned. The lists include each attorney’s or
judge’s Attorney Registration Number; the county and state of residence and the
county and state of the attorney’s or judge’s employer, as last registered with
the Attorney Registration Section; and the amount of the sanction fee imposed
by the Supreme Court.

Later


Monday, May 15, 2006

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Ohio Corporate Tax Breaks are OK

Story from Bloomberg.com.
"The justices, voting unanimously, today said a group of Ohio and
Michigan taxpayers and businesses lacked the legal right to challenge
the Ohio credit. The decision overturned a federal appeals court that
said the state credit illegally discriminated against Ohio corporate
taxpayers that invested in other states.
"

Here is a link to the full text of the decision.

Later

5/15/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2005-0266. State v. Moore.
Cuyahoga App. No. 83703, 2004-Ohio-6303. This cause is pending before the
court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this case is no longer held
for the decisions in 2004-1171, State v. Mathis, Cuyahoga App. No. 83311,
2004-Ohio-2982, and 2004-1267, State v. Fair, Cuyahoga App. No. 82278,
2004-Ohio-2971.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case now be held for the decision in
2005-1692, State v. Evans, 2005-Ohio-3847. The briefing schedule remains
stayed.

2005-0338. State v. Bezak.
Cuyahoga App. No. 84008, 2004-Ohio-6623. This cause is pending before the
court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this case is no longer held
for the decisions in 2004-1171, State v. Mathis, Cuyahoga App. No. 83311,
2004-Ohio-2982, and 2004-1267, State v. Fair, Cuyahoga App. No. 82278,
2004-Ohio-2971. The Clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record
from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, and the parties shall brief this
case on Proposition of Law No. I in accordance with the Rules of Practice of the
Supreme Court of Ohio.

2005-0785. State v. Cloud.
Columbiana App. No. 01 CO 64, 2005-Ohio-1331. This cause is pending before
the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Columbiana County.
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this case is no longer held
for the decisions in 2004-1171, State v. Mathis, Cuyahoga App. No. 83311,
2004-Ohio-2982, and 2004-1267, State v. Fair, Cuyahoga App. No. 82278,
2004-Ohio-2971.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case now be held for the decision in
2005-0338, State v. Bezak, Cuyahoga App. No. 84008, 2004-Ohio-6623. The
briefing schedule remains stayed.

2005-2364. State v. Perez.
Clark C.P. No. 03CR1010. This cause is pending before the court as a death
penalty appeal from the Clark County Court of Common Pleas. Upon
consideration of appellant's motion for an extension of time to transmit the
record,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted, in part, and the time for
transmitting the record is hereby extended to June 19, 2006.

DISCIPLINARY CASES

2005-2341. Disciplinary Counsel v. Mogul.
On December 14, 2005, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a motion for an
order to show cause why respondent, Michael Lott Mogul, should not be held in
contempt. On January 30, 2006, this court granted the motion to the extent that
respondent was ordered to show cause by filing a written response why he should
not be found in contempt. Respondent filed a written response to the show cause
order. On March 27, 2006, this court ordered respondent to appear before the court
on May 9, 2006. Respondent did not appear. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court that respondent, Michael
Lott Mogul, Attorney Registration No. 0003688, last known business address in
Youngstown, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law unless and until he
purges himself of contempt by complying with the order of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline to submit to a mental health
examination.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent immediately cease and
desist from the practice of law in any form and is hereby forbidden to appear on
behalf of another before any court, judge, commission, board, administrative
agency or other public authority.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent is hereby forbidden to counsel
or advise or prepare legal instruments for others or in any manner perform such
services.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent is hereby divested of each, any
and all of the rights privileges and prerogatives customarily accorded to a member
in good standing of the legal profession of Ohio.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G),
respondent shall complete one credit hour of continuing legal education for each
month, or portion of a month, of the suspension. As part of the total credit hours of
continuing legal education required by Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G), respondent shall
complete one credit hour of instruction related to professional conduct required by
Gov.Bar R. X(3)(A)(1) for each six months, or portion of six months, of the
suspension.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, by the court that, within 90 days
of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been
awarded against the respondent by the Clients' Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar
R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after the date of
this order, the Clients' Security Fund awards any amount against the respondent
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), the respondent shall reimburse that amount to
the Clients' Security Fund within 90 days of the notice of such award.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall not be reinstated to the
practice of law in Ohio until (1) respondent files a written application with the
Clerk of this court requesting that he be purged of contempt and reinstated to the
practice of law and respondent complies with the requirements for reinstatement
set forth in the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar; (2) respondent
complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio; (3)
respondent complies with this and all other orders of the court; (4) relator files
evidence with the Clerk of this court demonstrating that respondent has complied
with the orders of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline; and
(5) this court orders respondent be purged of contempt and reinstated to the
practice of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 30 days from the date of this
order, respondent shall:
1. Notify all clients being represented in pending matters and any cocounsel
of respondent's suspension and consequent disqualification to act as
an attorney after the effective date of this order and, in the absence of cocounsel,
also notify the clients to seek legal service elsewhere, calling
attention to any urgency in seeking the substitution of another attorney in
respondent's place;
2. Regardless of any fees or expenses due respondent, deliver to all clients
being represented in pending matters any papers or other property pertaining
to the client, or notify the clients or co-counsel, if any, of a suitable time and
place where the papers or other property may be obtained, calling attention
to any urgency for obtaining such papers or other property;
3. Refund any part of any fees or expenses paid in advance that are
unearned or not paid, and account for any trust money or property in the
possession or control of respondent;
4. Notify opposing counsel in pending litigation or, in the absence of
counsel, the adverse parties, of respondent's disqualification to act as an
attorney after the effective date of this order, and file a notice of
disqualification of respondent with the court or agency before which the
litigation is pending for inclusion in the respective file or files;
5. Send all notices required by this order by certified mail with a return
address where communications may thereafter be directed to respondent;
6. File with the Clerk of this court and the Disciplinary Counsel of the
Supreme Court an affidavit showing compliance with this order, showing
proof of service of notices required herein, and setting forth the address
where the respondent may receive communications; and
7. Retain and maintain a record of the various steps taken by respondent
pursuant to this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall keep the Clerk and the
Disciplinary Counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may
receive communications.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made
on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified
mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration
Section.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified
copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be
made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs
of publication.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2005-2131. State ex rel. Holland v. Gen. Motors Corp.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-49, 2005-Ohio-5649. This cause is pending before the
court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. 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.
2005-2437. Charles v. Mabe.
Franklin App. No. 05AP-410, 2005-Ohio-6106. This cause is pending before the
court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. 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.

2006-0701. Ohio Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 05-732-EL-MER. This cause is pending
before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
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