Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Issues Accepted for Review

About |  Help
Download PDFadobe icon

  All open cases and cases closed in past 180 days.
Case No.Case CaptionCase StatusDate
Accepted
Case Issue
2014-1454 State of Ohio v. Antonia Earley OPEN 10/8/2014 When the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence in violation of R.C. 4511. 1 9(A)(1) is the predicate conduct for aggravated vehicular assault in violation R.C. 2903.08(A)(1), are the two offenses allied, and if so, does R.C. 2929.41 (B)(3) create an exception that allows a trial court to impose a sentence for both offenses?"
2014-1413 Deborah Bigelow v. American Family Insurance OPEN
(Held)
12/3/2014 Proposition of Law No. 1: OHIO REVISED CODE 1345.81 DOES NOT APPLY TO TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THEIR CUSTOMERS.
2014-1413 Deborah Bigelow v. American Family Insurance OPEN
(Held)
12/3/2014 Proposition of Law No. 2. THE ISSUANCE OF A REPAIR ESTIMATE NOT REQUESTED BY THE VEHICLE OWNER NEED ONLY COMPLY WITH OHIO REVISED CODE 1345.81(B)(2).
2014-1411 State of Ohio v. Kari A. Mercier OPEN
(Held)
10/22/2014 When a defendant is convicted of an OVI as a felony of the third degree, does Ohio's OVI statute, R.C. 4511.19, prevail such that a sentence up to five years can be imposed or does R.C. 2929.14(A) require that the sentence be limited to a maximum. of 36 months incarceration?
2014-1409 State of Ohio v. Kari A. Mercier OPEN 10/22/2014 Appellant's Proposition of Law Number One: A person convicted of OVI as a felony of the third degree under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) cannot be sentenced to a term of incarceration in excess of 36 months pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(A)(2), 2929.13(G)(2), 2929.14(A)(3)(b), and 2929.14(B)(4). A sentence in excess of that is contrary to law and violates the citizen's right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution.
2014-1368 State of Ohio v. Brian K. Washington OPEN
(Held)
11/5/2014 Proposition of Law I: The State of Ohio is a party to communty control sanctions violation and revocation proceedings and the County Prosecutor, as the State's legal representative, is entitled to notice of and an opportunity to be heard at these hearings.
2014-1363 State of Ohio v. Brian K. Washington OPEN
(Held)
11/5/2014 Proposition of Law I The State of Ohio is a party to community control sanctions violation and revocation proceedings and the County Prosecutor, as the State's legal representative, is entitled to notice of and an opportunity to be heard at these hearings.
2014-1318 State of Ohio v. Eva Christian OPEN
(Held)
10/22/2014 PROPOSITION OF LAW: IN A TRIAL FOR ENGAGING IN A PATTERN OF CORRUPT ACTIVITY, THE STATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT THE ENTERPRISE HAS A STRUCTURE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE PATTERN OF ACTIVITY IN WHICH IT ENGAGES.
2014-1315 In re: M.R., a Minor Child OPEN
(Held)
12/3/2014 FIRST PROPOSITION OF LAW: The imposition of a punitive sanction that extends beyond the age jurisdiction of the juvenile court violates the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
2014-1315 In re: M.R., a Minor Child OPEN
(Held)
12/3/2014 SECOND PROPOSITION OF LAW: The timing mechanism of R.C. 2152.83(A) is unconstitutional because the imposition of classification at any time other than disposition violates the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350, 2012-Ohio-5636, 982 N.E.2d 684.
12345678910...
Case Issue Votes
lbCaseNumber

lbCaseCaptionShort

lbCaseIssueDescription