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
Case Issue
2018-1206 State of Ohio v. Lawrence Holder OPEN
10/10/2018 A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a motion to terminate court costs that is predicated upon a defendant’s inability to pay the costs without consideration of the defendant’s current or future ability to pay those costs.
2018-1177 State of Ohio v. Justin Hawkins OPEN 9/12/2018 “Does the discrepancy between the paint color of a vehicle and the paint color listed in vehicle registration records accessed by a police officer provide the officer with reasonable articulable suspicion to perform a lawful investigative traffic stop where the officer believes the vehicle or its displayed license plates may be stolen?”
2018-1157 Irene Danopulos v. American Trading II, LLC OPEN 10/10/2018 Proposition of Law: A pawn broker’s compliance with R.C. § 4227.09 and R.C. § 4727.12 in the purchase and resale of property provides it with lawful possession of the property in defense to a plaintiff’s conversion claim.
2018-1076 Phoenix Lighting Group LLC v. Genlyte Thomas Group LLC OPEN 10/10/2018 Proposition of Law No. 3 Because there is a strong presumption that the loadstar method yields a sufficient attorney fee, enhancements should be granted rarely and only where the applicant seeking the enhancement can produce objective and specific evidence that an enhancement is necessary to compensate for a factor not already subsumed within the Court’s loadstar calculation. (Perdue v. Kenny A., ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010), followed.)
2018-1031 Magnus International Group, Inc., et al. v. Scott Forster OPEN 10/10/2018 ISSUE NO. 1: ORC 1701.13(E)(5)(a) requires a company to advance a corporate director’s legal expenses only where a “director’s act or omission” caused the director to face legal expenses. Where a corporate director faces legal expenses arising from acts or omissions that were not required or enabled by his status as a corporate director, advancement is not statutorily required.
2018-1008 Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corporation, et al. v. Harrison Township Board of Zoning Appeals, et al. OPEN 10/10/2018 Proposition of Law No. I: A township’s jurisdiction to regulate surface mining activities permitted and regulated under Chapter 1513. or 1514. through zoning is strictly limited to matters of public health or safety, whether mining is a permitted use or conditional use under the township zoning resolution. R.C. 519.02. A township may not regulate mining in the interest of general welfare, directly or indirectly through the creation of general zoning criteria that applies to all permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the township, including mining. R.C. 519.02, 519.14, and 519.141.
2018-1007 State of Ohio v. Emeric Bozso OPEN
10/10/2018 Proposition of Law A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a non-citizen defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where, prior to entering a guilty plea, the trial court had complied with Crim. R. 11 and provided the deportation advisement pursuant to R.C 2943.031, and when counsel had warned defendant that his guilty plea would place him into deportation proceedings with limited options for relief.
2018-0942 Barry L. Browne et al. v. Artex Oil Company et al. OPEN 9/26/2018 In an action to declare that an oil and gas lease has terminated under its own terms for lack of production in paying quantities, the applicable statute of limitations is 21 years, per Ohio Revised Code § 2305.04, and does not begin to run until a “justiciable controversy” arises
2018-0900 State of Ohio v. Ramiro Ramirez OPEN 9/26/2018 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: Crim.R. 33(A)(4) should no. be interpreted to provide a remedy of a "final verdict" instead of a "new trial," because that interpretation requires the conclusion that the remedy offered is unconstitutional and further precludes appellate review of any remedy granted pursuant to that provision.
2018-0883 Barbara Rieger v. Giant Eagle, Inc. OPEN 9/12/2018 Proposition of Law No. 2: The Eighth District has created a new standard for malice that makes the mere possibility of harm from the underlying tortious conduct – no matter how improbable – sufficient for an award of punitive damages.
Case Issue Votes