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
2019-1355 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.
2019-1309 Harmon Lingle and Mark Grosser v. State of Ohio, et al. OPEN 11/27/2019 Does R.C. 2950.09(F) provide out-of-state offenders challenging their R.C. 2950.09(A) automatic sexual predator classification with a right to an evidentiary hearing whereby the offender must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is not likely to commit a sexually-oriented offense in the future?
2019-1274 Ohioans For Concealed Carry et al. v. City of Columbus, Ohio c/o City Attorney Zach M. Klein et al. OPEN 11/26/2019 Proposition of Law No. I: A non-profit firearms-rights association has standing to challenge as unconstitutional municipal ordinances that violate R.C. §9.68 by maintaining an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under R.C. §9.68, R.C. §733.59, and/or Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2721.
2019-1250 State of Ohio v. Ricardo Lozada OPEN
(Held)
11/26/2019 State’s Proposition of Law: A reviewing court applies a substantial compliance standard in determining whether criminal defendants understand they are waiving their constitutional trial rights when entering a plea in a felony case.
2019-1247 Harmon Lingle and Mark Grosser v. State of Ohio, et al. OPEN 11/27/2019 A person with an out-of-state sex offense conviction cannot be required to register in Ohio as a “sexual predator” if they can show that their home-state registration requirement is not substantially similar to Ohio law because the person is not likely to reoffend, and therefore does not fit the statutory definition of “sexual predator” in R.C. 2950.01(E).
2019-1232 Richard Binder, et al. and Gerald Butterfield, et al. v. Cuyahoga County OPEN 11/26/2019 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: O.R.C. 124.34 does not provide classified civil servants with an independent cause of action in the court of common pleas. As such, Ohio courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to certify a class action under Civ.R. 23 when the cause of action is based upon O.R.C. 124.34. Anderson v. Minter, 32 Ohio St.2d 207 (1972), applied.
2019-1232 Richard Binder, et al. and Gerald Butterfield, et al. v. Cuyahoga County OPEN 11/26/2019 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: O.R.C. 124.34 establishes specialized statutory proceedings through the State Personnel Board of Review or civil service commission for classified civil service employees to challenge a claimed “reduction in pay.” Ohio courts lack jurisdiction over declaratory judgment proceedings that attempt to bypass the specialized statutory proceeding established under O.R.C. 124.34. State ex rel. Albright v. Court of Common Pleas, 60 Ohio St.3d 40 (1991), applied.
2019-1232 Richard Binder, et al. and Gerald Butterfield, et al. v. Cuyahoga County OPEN 11/26/2019 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 3: Class action plaintiffs who fail to exhaust available administrative appeals designated to hear their claims lack standing and are barred from pursuing those claims in judicial forums.
2019-1232 Richard Binder, et al. and Gerald Butterfield, et al. v. Cuyahoga County OPEN 11/26/2019 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 4 In conducting the required “rigorous analysis” under Civ. R. 23, a court may not disregard the proposed class definition and, sua sponte, certify the ultimate issue for class treatment.
2019-1221 State of Ohio v. David Castner II OPEN 10/29/2019 Proposition No. 3: This Court’s 1993 definition of “technical violation” controls the meaning of that term as used in the General Assembly’s 2017 amendment to R.C. 2929.15
12345678910...
Case Issue Votes
lbCaseNumber

lbCaseCaptionShort

lbCaseIssueDescription