| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2020-1429
|
State of Ohio
v.
Donovan Asher Nicholas
|
OPEN
|
2/16/2021
| First Proposition of Law: Because standards of review are functions of due process, non-amenability
decisions must be supported by clear and convincing evidence |
|
2020-1429
|
State of Ohio
v.
Donovan Asher Nicholas
|
OPEN
|
2/16/2021
|
Second Proposition of Law: As the party moving for discretionary transfer under R.C. 2152.12(B),
prosecutors bear the burden of proving the child is not amenable to juvenile court treatment. A
transfer decision without any affirmative proof of non-amenability must be
reversed
|
|
2020-1429
|
State of Ohio
v.
Donovan Asher Nicholas
|
OPEN
|
2/16/2021
| Third Proposition of Law: To meaningfully decide whether juvenile offenders are not amenable to
juvenile court treatment, juvenile judges must
. first weigh all the available dispositional options, especially, where provided by statute, a
serious youthful offender disposition
|
|
2020-1420
|
State of Ohio
v.
Lance A. Irvin
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
1/27/2021
| The burden-shifting changes made to the self-defense statute, R.C.
2901.05, through the passage of H.B. 228 apply to offenses that were
committed before the effective date of the statute but tried after the
effective date. |
|
2020-1392
|
State of Ohio
v.
John D. Yerkey
|
OPEN
|
2/2/2021
| Proposition of Law No. I: Victims are constitutionally entitled to full and timely restitution, including restitution for losses victims incur throughout the prosecution of the criminal offense.
Proposition of Law No. II: Victims must be entitled to restitution for losses incurred throughout the prosecution of the criminal offense in order to protect victims' constitutional rights to be present throughout the criminal justice process and heard when their rights are implicated. |
|
2020-1326
|
Beachwood City School District Bd. of Education
v.
Warrensville Heights City School District Bd. of Education
|
OPEN
|
1/22/2021
| Proposition of Law I: R.C. 3311.06 and O.A.C. Chapter 3301-89 require the Ohio Board of Education to receive and approve any negotiated agreement related to a school district’s request to transfer territory following a city’s annexation of property, regardless of whether the proposed agreement involves the physical transfer of territory or just tax revenues.
I. The plain language of R.C. 3311.06 required the Ohio Board of Education to approve the proposed agreement before it could become binding.
II. The plain language of O.A.C. Chapter 3301-89 confirms that the Ohio Board of Education needed to approve the proposed agreement.
Proposition of Law II: R.C. 5705.41 and 5705.412 apply to agreements to transfer tax revenues between school districts .
Proposition of Law III: R.C. Chapter 2744 provides immunity from tort claims arising from a school district’s negotiation of tax revenue-sharing agreements. |
|
2020-1304
|
State of Ohio
v.
Kennedy M. Burroughs
|
OPEN
|
1/22/2021
| Proposition of Law: When law enforcement officers seek to search a lawfully seized backpack, purse, or similar item in a person’s home, they must obtain a search warrant issued by a neutral, detached magistrate, if officer-safety concerns or exigent circumstances are not present. |
|
2020-1294
|
State of Ohio
v.
Lance A. Irvin
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
1/27/2021
| Do the burden-shifting changes made to the self-defense statute, R.C. 2901.05, through the passage of H.B. 228 apply to offenses that were committed before the effective date of the statute but tried after the effective date? |
|
2020-1266
|
State of Ohio
v.
Edward Maddox
|
OPEN
|
12/28/2020
| "Is the constitutionality of the provisions of the Reagan Tokes Act, which allow the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections to administratively extend a criminal defendant's prison term beyond the presumptive minimum term, ripe for review on direct appeal from sentencing, or only after the defendant has served the minimum term and been subject to extension by application of the Act?" |
|
2020-1250
|
State of Ohio
v.
Ladasia Brooks
|
OPEN
|
12/30/2020
| "Does legislation that shifts the burden of proof on self-defense to the prosecution (2018 H.B. 228. eff. March 28, 2019) apply to all subsequent trials even when the alleged offenses occurred prior to the effective date of the act?" |
|