| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2019-1447
|
Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, LLC, aka Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, et al.
v.
Frank LaRose, in his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, et al.
|
OPEN
|
12/24/2019
| 1.) Whether the right to referendum set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution guarantees those circulating petitions in support of a referendum a full ninety days solely for the purpose of circulating petitions? |
|
2019-1447
|
Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, LLC, aka Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, et al.
v.
Frank LaRose, in his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, et al.
|
OPEN
|
12/24/2019
| 2.) If so, whether Ohio Rev. Code § 3519.01 violates the Ohio Constitution by shortening the ninety days to accommodate the fair-and-truthful review? |
|
2019-1447
|
Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, LLC, aka Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, et al.
v.
Frank LaRose, in his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, et al.
|
OPEN
|
12/24/2019
| 3.) If the Ohio Constitution guarantees a petitioner ninety days to circulate petitions, whether the number of days attributable to a petitioner’s own errors in submitting a referendum petition under Ohio Rev. Code § 3519.01 is “credited” to the petitioner or deducted from the ninety days? |
|
2019-1447
|
Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, LLC, aka Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, et al.
v.
Frank LaRose, in his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, et al.
|
OPEN
|
12/24/2019
| 4.) Whether a petitioner who does not claim to be “aggrieved” by the fair-and-truthful determination and thus fails to appeal the denial of a certification under Ohio Rev. Code § 3519.01(C) is entitled to credit toward the ninety days for the time spent fixing deficiencies in a fair-and-truthful statement? |
|
2019-1447
|
Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, LLC, aka Ohioans Against Corporate Bailouts, et al.
v.
Frank LaRose, in his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, et al.
|
OPEN
|
12/24/2019
| 5.) Whether a petitioner gets credit toward the ninety days for the time before, or between, a petition submission when the Attorney General and Secretary of State do not have a petition to review and consider under Ohio Rev. Code § 3519.01? |
|
2019-1355
|
A.J.R., et al.
v.
Board of Education of Toledo City School District, et al.
|
OPEN
|
11/26/2019
| A. Proposition of Law:
There can be no finding of reckless conduct or perverse disregard of a known risk where the record establishes that in response to reports of student teasing, educators promptly speak with the students about the teasing, frequently ask the students how they are doing, and regularly monitor the students in the lunchroom and classroom. Under these circumstances, if a student with no history of violence later pokes another student with a pencil, R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) shields these educators from liability. |
|
2019-1325
|
In re: R.B.
|
OPEN
|
12/31/2019
| Proposition of Law: Once a juvenile court makes an appropriate classification under R.C.
2152.83, it is permanently vested with jurisdiction to review the classification in accordance with
R.C. 2152.84 and 2153.85 |
|
2019-1325
|
In re: R.B.
|
OPEN
|
12/31/2019
| Cross-Appellant Proposition of Law 3: To comply with fundamental fairness and a youth’s due process rights in conducting a completion of disposition hearing, the juvenile court must conduct the hearing at the time the child completes his treatment. See In re D.S., 146 Ohio St.3d 182, 2016-Ohio-1027; Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Section 16, Article I of Ohio Constitution |
|
2019-1314
|
Sutton Bank
v.
Progressive Polymers, LLC, et al.
|
OPEN
|
12/17/2019
| Proposition of Law: Although cognovit clauses are construed strictly
against those enforcing them, courts must still follow traditional
rules of contractual interpretation when analyzing those clauses |
|
2019-1309
|
Harmon Lingle and Mark Grosser
v.
State of Ohio, et al.
|
OPEN
|
11/27/2019
| Does R.C. 2950.09(F) provide out-of-state offenders
challenging their R.C. 2950.09(A) automatic sexual predator
classification with a right to an evidentiary hearing whereby the
offender must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he
or she is not likely to commit a sexually-oriented offense in the
future? |
|