| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2020-1057
|
Cletus Snay, et al.
v.
Matthew Burr, et al.
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: Although a landowner may generally owe no
duty to errant motorists who strike an off-road hazard, an exception exists giving
rise to a duty where the landowner consciously creates a hazardous condition in
the right-of-way, in close proximity to the traveled portion of the roadway, with
actual knowledge of the danger it presents to motorists who unintentionally, but
foreseeably, veer off the traveled portion of the roadway |
|
2020-1057
|
Cletus Snay, et al.
v.
Matthew Burr, et al.
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: The open and obvious doctrine does not apply
to obviate a landowner’s duty not to consciously place a hazardous item in the
right-of-way in close proximity to the traveled portion of the roadway |
|
2020-1057
|
Cletus Snay, et al.
v.
Matthew Burr, et al.
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 3: An accident reconstructionist’s opinion that
plaintiff’s vehicle would not have overturned upon leaving the traveled portion of
the roadway “but for” its encounter with a dangerous, unyielding mailbox post is
admissible on the issue of proximate cause and is sufficient to create a genuine
issue of material fact on that issue |
|
2020-1055
|
State of Ohio
v.
Markale Lundy
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| Proposition of Law No. I: The reasonableness requirement forces counsel to violate ethical
obligations by offering privileged explanations or curtailing due diligence to meet an
arbitrary extratextual deadline. |
|
2020-1055
|
State of Ohio
v.
Markale Lundy
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| Proposition of Law No. II: Where the paper filings provide prima facie evidence that a
defendant has satisfied Criminal Rule 33, a trial court must hold a hearing on whether the
motion for leave was filed within the judicially-constructed “reasonable” time before
denying leave |
|
2020-0991
|
State of Ohio
v.
Marshall Williams
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| Proposition of Law: A trial court has a duty to inquire into the
possible conflict of interest created by an attorney’s dual or multiple
representation of codefendants in a criminal case. |
|
2020-0957
|
State ex rel. Peregrine Health Services of Columbus, LLC dba Summit's Trace Healthcare Center, et. al.,
v.
Barbara Sears, Director, Ohio Department of Medicaid
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: Deference to an agency’s interpretation is not
unfettered, and an agency’s interpretation cannot be arbitrary, capricious, and contrary
to law; nor can the interpretation and application constitute an abuse of discretion.
Therefore, a trial court’s deference to the agency is not in keeping with the role of the
judiciary to review the agency’s decision when it fails to apply the correct legal standard
of review and the correct law of statutory construction in review of the agency’s decision
- which is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute,
including plain meaning |
|
2020-0957
|
State ex rel. Peregrine Health Services of Columbus, LLC dba Summit's Trace Healthcare Center, et. al.,
v.
Barbara Sears, Director, Ohio Department of Medicaid
|
OPEN
|
10/27/2020
| PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: An agency’s statutory interpretation of a statute that
leads to unreasonable results, has consequences that are contrary to the legislature’s
stated purposes, and is inconsistent with and frustrates the legislature’s intent should not
be given deference. |
|
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. |
|