| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2020-0866
|
State of Ohio
v.
Kelly A. Foreman
|
OPEN
|
9/29/2020
| Proposition of Law: Because a conviction for drug possession requires the state to
prove that an offender “ha[d] control over a thing or substance,” the mere presence
of drug metabolites in a defendant’s body, without more, does not suffice to establish
venue in the charging county. |
|
2020-0861
|
Harry A. Fonzi, III and Linda Grimes
v.
Allen B. Miller, M. Craig Miller, Brenda Thomas, and Eclipse Resource I, LP
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
9/29/2020
| A. Proposition of Law No. 1: Sufficient service by publication of
the R.C. 5301.56(E)(1) notice does not require a Landowner to
determine that service by certified mail, return receipt
requested, is impossible to complete by searching for the names
and addresses of the mineral holders outside the land records
of the county in which the land is located.
B. Proposition of Law No. 2: In order to set aside the evidentiary
bar in R.C. 5301.56(H)(2) that arises when the county recorder
memorializes the record on which a mineral interest is based,
the former holder of a mineral interest has the burden of
establishing that service of the R.C. 5301.56(E)(1) notice was
insufficient.
C. Proposition of Law No. 3: A former holder cannot establish
that service by publication of the R.C. 5301.56(E)(1) notice was
insufficient without showing that, with additional efforts by the
Landowner, service by certified mail, return receipt requested,
would have been possible to complete.
D. Proposition of Law No. 4: If a Landowner files an action to
quiet title to a mineral interest under the DMA, such mineral
interest is abandoned and vested in the Landowner if the
requirements of R.C. 5301.56(E) are satisfied and none of R.C.
5301.56(B)(1) through (3) apply.
E. Proposition of Law No. 5: If a mineral holder is not prevented
under R.C. 5301.56(H)(2) from presenting the record of a
mineral interest in court as evidence against the owner of the
surface of the lands formerly subject to the interest,
insufficient service of the R.C. 5301.56(E)(1) notice on the
mineral holder is harmless and irrelevant to whether a mineral
interest has been abandoned under R.C. 5301.56(B) or (H)(2).
F. Proposition of Law No. 6: It is an abuse of discretion for a
district court of appeals to deny a joint motion of the parties to
stay a case when the joint motion is based on a pending Ohio
Supreme Court appeal involving a novel proposition of law,
the resolution of which may highly influence or even control
the |
|
2020-0826
|
State of Ohio v. Brooke Jones
|
OPEN
|
8/19/2020
| “Does the original sentencing court have the authority, whether notice is provided or not, to impose a community control violation sentence to run consecutively to the second sentence, or is that authority vested exclusively in the second sentencing court?” |
|
2020-0823
|
State of Ohio ex rel. Jay Johnstone
v.
City of Cincinnati
|
OPEN
|
9/15/2020
| Proposition of Law No. I: The Cincinnati Civil Service Commission did not abuse its discretion in waiving the two year time-in-grade requirement for the 2016 police captain promotional exam when it relied on the rules of statutory interpretation and the opinion of the City Solicitor. |
|
2020-0819
|
State of Ohio
v.
Clarence Leyh
|
OPEN
|
9/1/2020
| In order to ensure that an appellant who has been convicted of a felony offense has a meaningful right to appeal, a district court must grant an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen when there are one or more colorable issues identified in that application, and prior appellate counsel failed to ensure that a complete record—including all relevant transcripts—was made for appellate review. |
|
2020-0814
|
Peppertree Farms, LLC, et al.
v.
Joy Ann Thonen, et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
9/29/2020
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. I: The Dormant Mineral Act, R.C.
5301.56, is the specific provision of the Marketable Title Act, R.C.
5301.47, et seq., with respect to the transfer of severed oil and gas
interests to a surface owner and its provisions prevail over the general
provisions which are inapplicable. |
|
2020-0812
|
Peppertree Farms, LLC, et al.
v.
Joy Ann Thonen, et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
9/29/2020
| II. The Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (O.R.C. 5301.56) supersedes and controls over the Ohio Marketable Title Act (O.R.C. 5301.47, et seq.). |
|
2020-0773
|
Harry A. Fonzi, III and Linda Grimes
v.
Gary D. Brown and Eclipse Resource I, LP
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
9/1/2020
| Proposition of Law No. 1: Sufficient service by publication of the R.C. 5301.56(E)(1) notice does not require a Landowner to determine that service by certified mail, return receipt requested, is impossible to complete by searching for the names and addresses of the mineral holders outside the land records of the county in which the land is located |
|
2020-0773
|
Harry A. Fonzi, III and Linda Grimes
v.
Gary D. Brown and Eclipse Resource I, LP
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
9/1/2020
| Proposition of Law No. 2: In order to set aside the evidentiary bar in R.C. 5301.56(H)(2) that arises when the county recorder memorializes the record on which a mineral interest is based, the former holder of a mineral interest has the burden of establishing that service of the R.C. 5301.56(E)(1) notice was insufficient. |
|
2020-0773
|
Harry A. Fonzi, III and Linda Grimes
v.
Gary D. Brown and Eclipse Resource I, LP
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
9/1/2020
| Proposition of Law No. 3: A former holder cannot establish that service by publication of the R.C. 5301.56(E)(1) notice was insufficient without showing that, with additional efforts by the Landowner, service by certified mail, return receipt requested, would have been possible to complete |
|