| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2020-0625
|
State of Ohio
v.
Miquan D. Hubbard
|
OPEN
|
7/1/2020
| Does retroactive application of the violent offender database enrollment statutes codified in sections 2903.41 through 2903.44 of the Revised Code, commonly known as "Sierah's Law," violate the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution, as set forth in Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution? |
|
2020-0549
|
State of Ohio
v.
Albert Jarvis
|
OPEN
|
7/1/2020
| Whether Ohio's sub S.B. 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. |
|
2020-0544
|
State of Ohio
v.
Miquan Hubbard
|
OPEN
|
7/1/2020
| The retroactive application of Senate Bill 231—Sierah’s Law—is
unconstitutional as applied to offenses committed prior to the effective
date of the statute. Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution
A. Sierah’s Law affects a substantial right because it imposes new
duties and obligations that did not exist before its enactment.
B. Ohio appellate courts have issued conflicting opinions regarding the
constitutionality of the retroactive application of Sierah’s Law. |
|
2020-0405
|
AKC, Inc., dba Cleantech
v.
United Specialty Insurance Company, et al.
|
OPEN
|
6/23/2020
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. I: The standard water backup and pollution
exclusions in a first-party property insurance policy bar loss caused by or
resulting from raw sewage |
|
2020-0391
|
State of Ohio
v.
Terrell L. Bryant
|
OPEN
|
6/9/2020
| First Proposition of Law: Res judicata bars successive motions forjail-time
credit under R.C. 2929.l9(B)(2)(g)(iii), regardless of whether the trial court
performed a “substantive review” ofthe prior motion(s) |
|
2020-0368
|
State of Ohio
v.
Earl Jones
|
OPEN
|
6/17/2020
| Proposition of Law No. 1: In reviewing whether the state presented sufficient evidence of prior
calculation and design, an appellate court may not rely on the defense’s version of the facts and
contradicting evidence and, instead, must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the state
and then determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements
of prior calculation and design have been met. |
|
2020-0368
|
State of Ohio
v.
Earl Jones
|
OPEN
|
6/17/2020
| Proposition of Law No. 2: When the state presents evidence that the accused knew and had a
strained relationship the victim, gave thought or preparation in choosing either the murder
weapon or the murder site, and that the murder was not the result of an instantaneous eruption of
events, then the state has presented sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design. |
|
2020-0368
|
State of Ohio
v.
Earl Jones
|
OPEN
|
6/17/2020
| Proposition of Law No. 3: In presenting evidence of prior calculation and design, the State is not
required to show that the accused’s plan happened precisely as intended. Instead, the state
presents sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design when it presents evidence that shows
that the purpose to commit murder was a premeditated act and not a spur of the moment
decision. |
|
2020-0368
|
State of Ohio
v.
Earl Jones
|
OPEN
|
6/17/2020
| Proposition of Law No. 4: An appellate court creates a miscarriage of justice that requires
reversal when it fails to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the state when considering a
sufficiency of the evidence challenge. |
|
2020-0341
|
Janine Lycan, et al.
v.
City of Cleveland, et al.
|
OPEN
|
7/1/2020
| The City of Cleveland’s First Proposition of Law
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) |
|