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
2019-1674 State of Ohio v. Ryan Turner OPEN 1/22/2020 “Does an officer have reasonable and articulable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop of a motor vehicle for a marked lanes violation under R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) when the officer observes the tires of a vehicle driving on, but not across a marked line?”
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
12345678910...
Case Issue Votes
lbCaseNumber

lbCaseCaptionShort

lbCaseIssueDescription