Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Issues Accepted for Review

About |  Help
Download PDFadobe icon

  All open cases and cases closed in past 180 days.
Case No.Case CaptionCase StatusDate
Accepted
Case Issue
2020-0931 Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC, d.b.a. Lamar Advertising of Cincinnati, OH and Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio and Nicole Lee, Treasurer of the City of Cincinnati, Ohio and Art Dahlberg, Director of the Department of Buildings and Inspections for the City of Cincinnati, Ohio and Reginald Zeno, Finance Director for the City of Cincinnati, Ohio OPEN 10/13/2020 Proposition of Law No. I: Constitutionally mandated heightened First Amendment scrutiny applies to a discriminatory excise tax on billboards that targets a small group of speakers or singles out the press. Proposition of Law No. II: § 313-7(b), the Tax’s Gag Provision, prohibits political speech.
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
2020-0859 State of Ohio v. James O'Malley OPEN 10/7/2020 Proposition of Law 1: Was the vehicle forfeiture order under R.C. 4511.19 (G)(1)(c)(v), as applied to Appellant, an unconstitutionally excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Proposition of Law 2: Is Ohio’s OVI forfeiture statute (R.C. 4511.19 (G)(1)(c)(v)) unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section Two, Article One of the Ohio Constitution.
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.).
2020-0797 State of Ohio v. Jeremy Crawford OPEN 10/7/2020 Proposition of Law No. 1: Having a weapon under a disability cannot, in the ordinary course of things, serve as the predicate offense to involuntary manslaughter.
12345678910...
Case Issue Votes
lbCaseNumber

lbCaseCaptionShort

lbCaseIssueDescription