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
2019-1786 Karvo Paving Co. v. Joseph W. Testa [Jeffrey A. McClain], Tax Commissioner of Ohio OPEN 2/12/2020 Whether the term 'taxpayer' as used in [R.C.] 5717.04 is limited in meaning to 'any person required to return any property for taxation.'
2019-1700 State of Ohio v. Christian Carlisle OPEN 2/12/2020 Does R.C. 2909.15(D)(2)(b) unconstitutionally violate the doctrine of separation of powers?
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?”
2019-1646 State of Ohio v. Carl Adams OPEN
(Held)
1/21/2020 Proposition of Law I: A trial court must demonstrate on the record that it has determined that the sentence imposed utilizes the minimum sanctions necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing without unnecessarily burdening governmental resources.
2019-1597 State of Ohio v. Robert J. Parr OPEN
(Held)
2/12/2020 Appellant's First Proposition of Law: The State is precluded from filing a charging document against the parent for violating R.C. 2919.21(A)(2) or R.C. 2919.21(B) after the parent's obligation to pay child support has ended (Art. I, Sec. 1, 10, and 16, Ohio Const.: Amend. V and XIV, U.S. Const.; State v. Pittman, 150 Ohio St.3d 113, 2016-Ohio-8314, 79 N.E.3d 531; State v. Hubbard, 11th Dist. No. 2017-P-0042, 2018-Ohio-3627).
2019-1597 State of Ohio v. Robert J. Parr OPEN
(Held)
2/12/2020 Appellant's Second Proposition of Law: Because the General Assembly designated R.C. 2705.031(E) as the exclusive means of charging and punishing a parent for his failure to remit arrearages after the support obligation has ended it is improper for the State to resort instead to R.C. 2919.21 to enforce the arrearage order (Art. I, Sec.1, 10, and 16, Ohio Const.; Amend V and XIV, U.S. Const.; State v. Pittman, supra; State v. Hubbard, supra).
2019-1594 State of Ohio v. Ely Ray Serna OPEN
(Held)
2/4/2020 Proposition of Law No. I: A child’s age and age-attendant characteristics are relevant sentencing factors and must be considered before a young person is sentenced to prison. Age is always relevant when sentencing a young person. This Court has consistently led the way in recognizing youthful characteristics. This Court’s guidance is again needed to ensure that age is relevant to all sentencings.
2019-1567 State of Ohio v. Andrew S. Fazenbaker OPEN 2/12/2020 Proposition of Law: Any house, building, outbuilding, watercraft, aircraft, railroad car, truck, trailer, tent, or other structure, vehicle, or shelter, or any portion thereof, is a structure under R.C. 2909.01(C). A structure will be an “occupied structure” if any of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2909.01(C)(1-4) apply; if none of the factors apply, the structure will be an “unoccupied structure.”
2019-1560 Robert Wilson et al. v. Abubakar Atiq Durrani M.D. et al. OPEN 2/4/2020 Proposition of Law I: The reversal saving statute, R.C. 2305.19, does not allow actions to survive beyond expiration of the statute of repose unless expressly incorporated in the statute of repose. I. The plain language of the medical claim statute of repose does not include an exception for the reversal saving statute. II. Traditional and statutory canons of construction confirm that the medical claim statute of repose does not contain an exception for the reversal saving statute. A. The medical claim statute of repose contains express exceptions; the Court therefore should not add exceptions that are not in the text. B. The General Assembly chose to apply the reversal saving statute to some statutes of repose, but not to the medical claim statute of repose. C. R.C. 2305.113(C) is a true statute of repose, and statutes of repose are generally not subject to tolling. III. The court of appeals’ construction of R.C. 2305.113(C) and R.C. 2305.19 is flawed. 10 A. Under the guise of “liberal construction,” the court of appeals misread the reversal saving statute. B. The court of appeals misread this Court’s reasoning in Antoon. C. The court of appeals misread the Tenth District’s decision in Wade v. Reynolds. D. The court of appeals misread the policy implications of its decision.
2019-1515 Allen B. Miller et al. v. Elbert Mellott et al. OPEN
(Held)
2/4/2020 Proposition of Law No. I: The Dormant Mineral Act, ORC 5301.56, is the specific provision of the Marketable Title Act, ORC 5301.47. et seq., with respect to the transfer of severed, fee oil and gas ownership interests to a surface owner and its provisions prevail over the general provisions which are inapplicable.
12345678910...
Case Issue Votes
lbCaseNumber

lbCaseCaptionShort

lbCaseIssueDescription