| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2018-0601
|
State of Ohio
v.
Joseph Jones
|
OPEN
|
6/27/2018
| Must a dog have been previously designated as a "dangerous dog" under Chapter 955 of the Ohio Revised Code before its owner may be prosecuted for a violation of R.C. 955.22? |
|
2018-0572
|
City of Cleveland, Ohio
v.
Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
7/5/2018
| A claim for overpayment of an amount owed to the State, under a statute that
undisputedly requires some payment, and where the amount of alleged overpayment
is derived from an estimated damages model rather than a known sum, is a legal
claim that must be brought in the Court of Claims |
|
2018-0572
|
City of Cleveland, Ohio
v.
Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
7/5/2018
| A claim that the Bureau violated its statutory ratemaking duty must be pursued under
the statutory scheme for challenging rates, not as an unjust-enrichment claim, and
no unjust enrichment occurs when the Bureau does not retain any allegedly overpaid
funds |
|
2018-0572
|
City of Cleveland, Ohio
v.
Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation et al.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
7/5/2018
| A challenge to the Bureau’s ratemaking, or to any similar transactional decision,
involves a distinct violation for each ratemaking decision, so the applicable statute
of limitations runs independently from each alleged violation, requiring a claim
against each decision to be brought timely. |
|
2018-0562
|
James Miracle
v.
Ohio Department of Veterans' Services and Office of the Governor
|
OPEN
|
6/20/2018
| Appellants’ Proposition of Law 1:
A Greeley tort is not available under R.C. 124.27 or 124.56 and, more generally,
statutes about public employment ordinarily should not support Greeley claims
|
|
2018-0562
|
James Miracle
v.
Ohio Department of Veterans' Services and Office of the Governor
|
OPEN
|
6/20/2018
| Appellants’ Proposition of Law 2:
Only the employer is subject to a Greeley claim.
|
|
2018-0552
|
State of Ohio
v.
Lawrence A. Dibble
|
OPEN
|
7/5/2018
| In deciding whether the good-faith exception to the
exclusionary rule applies to a search conducted under a search warrant, a court
can consider sworn but unrecorded oral information that the police gave to the
judge at the time of the approval of the warrant. |
|
2018-0461
|
State of Ohio
v.
Glen A. Gilbert
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
6/6/2018
| “During a plea proceeding, does a trial court's failure to inform a defendant about the residential restrictions imposed on sex offenders under R.C. Chapter 2950 render the plea invalid?” |
|
2018-0449
|
State of Ohio
v.
William F. Johnson, Jr.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
6/27/2018
| Before assessing the costs of appointed counsel against a defendant, the court must make an ability-to-pay finding at the sentencing hearing. |
|
2018-0449
|
State of Ohio
v.
William F. Johnson, Jr.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
6/27/2018
| An ability-to-pay finding must be based on factors that reasonably suggest a present or future ability to pay the amount assessed |
|