| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2020-0658
|
State of Ohio
v.
Marshall Williams
|
OPEN
|
8/5/2020
| 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. |
|
2020-0643
|
Rancho Cincinnati Rivers, LLC
v.
Warren County Board of Revision, et al.
|
OPEN
|
8/4/2020
| Proposition of Law 1
In decisions made shortly before and after revisions to Ohio Revised Code 5713.03
this Court held that adjustments to leased comparables must be made. The Court of
Appeals decision, which ratified a Court of Common Pleas decision adopting a value
with no such adjustments, must be overturned. |
|
2020-0643
|
Rancho Cincinnati Rivers, LLC
v.
Warren County Board of Revision, et al.
|
OPEN
|
8/4/2020
| Proposition of Law 2
Ohio Revised Code 5713.03 is unambiguous. Property must be assessed assuming a
market value transfer in the fee simple interest, as if the property is free from lease
encumbrances. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals cannot interpret the law in a
manner that is inconsistent with the plain language of a statute passed by the General
Assembly. |
|
2020-0643
|
Rancho Cincinnati Rivers, LLC
v.
Warren County Board of Revision, et al.
|
OPEN
|
8/4/2020
| Proposition of Law 3
Ohio Revised Code 1.49 states that courts interpreting statutes may only look to other
factors when a statute is ambiguous. It is therefore legally impossible to interpret “as
if unencumbered” as “leased at a market rate.” |
|
2020-0643
|
Rancho Cincinnati Rivers, LLC
v.
Warren County Board of Revision, et al.
|
OPEN
|
8/4/2020
| Proposition of Law 4
This Court’s decision in Harrah’s Ohio Acquisition Co., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd.
of Revision, 154 Ohio St.3d 340, 2018-Ohio-4370 does not invalidate the plain
language of R.C. 5713.03. |
|
2020-0625
|
State of Ohio
v.
Miquan D. Hubbard
|
OPEN
|
7/1/2020
| Does retroactive application of the violent offender database enrollment statutes codified in sections 2903.41 through 2903.44 of the Revised Code, commonly known as "Sierah's Law," violate the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution, as set forth in Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution? |
|
2020-0612
|
Erin G. Gabbard, et al.
v.
Madison Local School District Board of Education, et al.
|
OPEN
|
8/4/2020
| Proposition of Law: Ohio law does not require school administrators,
teachers, and support staff to attend the police academy or have
twenty years’ experience as a police officer in order to be authorized
by a board of education to carry a firearm in a school safety zone. |
|
2020-0599
|
State of Ohio
v.
Manson M. Bryant
|
OPEN
|
8/5/2020
| The trial court erred when it imposed an additional six years on Bryant's sentence after
his outburst in court. |
|
2020-0549
|
State of Ohio
v.
Albert Jarvis
|
OPEN
|
7/1/2020
| Whether Ohio's sub S.B. 231, "Sierah's Law," [R.C. 2903.42, et. seq.], creating a violent offender database, which became effective March 20, 2019, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, Ohio's constitutional prohibition on retroactive statutes when retroactively applied to an offense that occurred before March 20, 2019. |
|
2020-0544
|
State of Ohio
v.
Miquan Hubbard
|
OPEN
|
7/1/2020
| The retroactive application of Senate Bill 231—Sierah’s Law—is
unconstitutional as applied to offenses committed prior to the effective
date of the statute. Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution
A. Sierah’s Law affects a substantial right because it imposes new
duties and obligations that did not exist before its enactment.
B. Ohio appellate courts have issued conflicting opinions regarding the
constitutionality of the retroactive application of Sierah’s Law. |
|