| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2019-0531
|
Defender Security Company d/b/a Defender Direct
v.
Joseph W. Testa [Jeffrey A. McClain], Tax Commissioner of Ohio
|
OPEN
|
6/26/2019
| Proposition of Law I: The appellate standard of review for legal questions addressed by the Board of Tax Appeals is de novo, without deference to the Tax Commissioner’s determination thereof. |
|
2019-0531
|
Defender Security Company d/b/a Defender Direct
v.
Joseph W. Testa [Jeffrey A. McClain], Tax Commissioner of Ohio
|
OPEN
|
6/26/2019
| Proposition of LAW II
Gross receipts form the sale of intangible assets are sourced to the purchaser’s physical location (s) that receive and use the assets, not the location where the assets were originated. Therefore, Defender’s receipts from the sale of Alarm Services Contracts to ADT are sitused to ADT’s physical; locations outside Ohio where it received the Alarm Services Contracts and utilized such Contracts by performing monitoring services for consumers.
|
|
2019-0531
|
Defender Security Company d/b/a Defender Direct
v.
Joseph W. Testa [Jeffrey A. McClain], Tax Commissioner of Ohio
|
OPEN
|
6/26/2019
| Proposition of LAW III:
The significant risk of double taxation caused by the Tax Commissioner’s conflicting applications of R.C. 5751.033(I) violates the fair apportionment requirement of the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
|
|
2019-0453
|
Malieka Evans
v.
Akron General Medical Center et al
|
OPEN
|
6/5/2019
| If no viable cause of action exists against an employee, such that an employee can
no longer be found liable for an alleged wrong, a plaintiff cannot maintain a cause
of action against an employer for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention |
|
2019-0425
|
Orange City Schools Board of Education, et al.
v.
Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
6/12/2019
| The Eighth District Court of Appeals and Board of Tax Appeals decisions are in direct conflict with this Court’s previous decisions. This Court should grant Appellant’s appeal so it can address whether the sale of a membership interest in a limited liability company constitutes the best evidence of value for real estate tax purposes. |
|
2019-0425
|
Orange City Schools Board of Education, et al.
v.
Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
6/12/2019
| The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals has issued multiple decisions on this issue. This Court should grant Appellant’s appeal so it can address these inconsistencies and set a uniform statewide standard. |
|
2019-0425
|
Orange City Schools Board of Education, et al.
v.
Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
6/12/2019
| This issues is of great importance to participants in Ohio’s real estate market. All taxpayers must be treated uniformly under Ohio’s Constitution. Additionally, decisions ignoring this Court’s prior precedent crate uncertainty in Ohio’s vibrant real estate market. This is both a substantial constitutional question and a question of great general and public interest. |
|
2019-0421
|
In the Matter of the Adoption of: M.M.F.
|
OPEN
|
5/29/2019
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: By requiring that indigent persons receive appointed counsel
when termination of their parental rights is adjudicated in juvenile court, but not when
termination of their parental rights by adoption is adjudicated in probate court, the state
of Ohio denies adoption respondents equal protection of the laws.
|
|
2019-0421
|
In the Matter of the Adoption of: M.M.F.
|
OPEN
|
5/29/2019
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: Denying appointed counsel to an indigent adoption
respondent unable to perform relevant and effective cross-examination, produce
disinterested witnesses and exhibits, and argue regarding existence and significance of a
zero child support order violates due process of law in the circumstances of this case.
|
|
2019-0420
|
In the Matter of the Adoption of: Y.E.F.
|
OPEN
|
5/29/2019
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: By requiring that indigent persons receive appointed counsel
when termination of their parental rights is adjudicated in juvenile court, but not when
termination of their parental rights by adoption is adjudicated in probate court, the state
of Ohio denies adoption respondents equal protection of the laws.
|
|