| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2020-1139
|
State of Ohio
v.
Brittany Renee Pilkington
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
11/12/2020
| Whether Ohio's Sub.S.B. No. 231, 'Sierah's Law,' R.C. 2903.42 et seq., creating a violent offender database, which became effective March 20, 2019. violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, Ohio's constitutional prohibition on retroactive statutes, when retroactively applied to an offense that occurred before March 20, 2019. |
|
2020-1057
|
Cletus Snay, et al.
v.
Matthew Burr, et al.
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: Although a landowner may generally owe no
duty to errant motorists who strike an off-road hazard, an exception exists giving
rise to a duty where the landowner consciously creates a hazardous condition in
the right-of-way, in close proximity to the traveled portion of the roadway, with
actual knowledge of the danger it presents to motorists who unintentionally, but
foreseeably, veer off the traveled portion of the roadway |
|
2020-1057
|
Cletus Snay, et al.
v.
Matthew Burr, et al.
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: The open and obvious doctrine does not apply
to obviate a landowner’s duty not to consciously place a hazardous item in the
right-of-way in close proximity to the traveled portion of the roadway |
|
2020-1057
|
Cletus Snay, et al.
v.
Matthew Burr, et al.
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 3: An accident reconstructionist’s opinion that
plaintiff’s vehicle would not have overturned upon leaving the traveled portion of
the roadway “but for” its encounter with a dangerous, unyielding mailbox post is
admissible on the issue of proximate cause and is sufficient to create a genuine
issue of material fact on that issue |
|
2020-1055
|
State of Ohio
v.
Markale Lundy
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| Proposition of Law No. I: The reasonableness requirement forces counsel to violate ethical
obligations by offering privileged explanations or curtailing due diligence to meet an
arbitrary extratextual deadline. |
|
2020-1055
|
State of Ohio
v.
Markale Lundy
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| Proposition of Law No. II: Where the paper filings provide prima facie evidence that a
defendant has satisfied Criminal Rule 33, a trial court must hold a hearing on whether the
motion for leave was filed within the judicially-constructed “reasonable” time before
denying leave |
|
2020-1037
|
Julia M. Ostanek
v.
Gregory F. Ostanek
|
OPEN
|
11/10/2020
| Proposition of Law No. I
Although Ohio Revised Code Section 3105.161(I) provides that property divisions in a domestic relations matter are not subject to further modifications with delineated exceptions, a trial court is not divested of subject-matter jurisdiction relative thereto and, if the trial court errs in violating or exceeding that limitation, the resulting order or judgment is, at most, voidable, not void ab initio. |
|
2020-1032
|
Nell Lindsay
v.
City of Garfield Heights et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
11/10/2020
| Proposition of Law No. I: A civil citation respondent must exhaust all
administrative proceedings, including a review by the common pleas court
of any administrative judgment or order as provided in R.C. Chapter 2506,
before pursuing a judicial remedy, including a class action. |
|
2020-1032
|
Nell Lindsay
v.
City of Garfield Heights et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
11/10/2020
| Proposition of Law No. III: A court cannot certify a class composed of
individuals who themselves would have no standing to pursue claims, who
waived all defenses, and who were otherwise subject to res judicata where
they knowingly and intentionally paid their citation, and otherwise decided
not to request a hearing. |
|
2020-1032
|
Nell Lindsay
v.
City of Garfield Heights et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
11/10/2020
| Proposition of Law No. I.: Ohio municipalities have home-rule authority to
establish civil camera enforcement administrative proceedings which include
administrative hearings. Individuals who have declined to participate in the adequate
remedy at law available to them in the available administrative hearing process have
failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as a matter of law and are thereby
precluded from seeking judicial remedy including claims for unjust enrichment.
(Accord Walker v. Toledo, 143 Ohio St.3d 420, 2014-Ohio-5461, 39 N.E.3d 474) |
|