Thomas J. Moyer

The case concerned Ohio personal-property taxes on department store merchandise inventory for tax years 2000-2002. Rich's Department Stores sought reductions in assessed inventory values based on vendor markdown allowances that offset costs when goods sold below expected retail prices, and the Board of Tax Appeals ordered the Tax Commissioner to grant those reductions under Ohio Adm.Code 5703-3-17. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the BTA, holding that the administrative rule requires inventory value to start from cost as shown on the taxpayer's books and that markdown allowances did not qualify as adjustments reducing that book cost for purposes of the required 12-month average. The court reinstated the Tax Commissioner's original assessments, finding the BTA had misapplied the rule's provisions on book value and permitted adjustments.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the state must prove that a sentencing court orally notified a defendant of postrelease control to establish the 'detention' element for a conviction of escape under R.C. 2921.34(A)(1). The Ohio Supreme Court held that such proof is not required and that the state may instead rely on the sentencing entry imposing postrelease control, along with evidence of the defendant's knowledge or recklessness about being under detention. The court narrowed the certified conflict from the Third District and affirmed the judgment upholding the conviction, distinguishing prior precedent on void sentences in this context. The defendant had been convicted after failing to report to his parole officer following a guilty plea to felonies that included a postrelease control term in the entry.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Juanita Troisi's conviction for trademark counterfeiting under R.C. 2913.34 after she sold purses and other items at a party that police seized as alleged counterfeits. The sole evidence of the trademarks' registration status came from an expert witness who testified he was aware the marks were registered but had never personally examined the USPTO registration documents. The Ohio Supreme Court held that this testimony was insufficient by itself to prove the marks were registered on the principal register as required by the statute. The court therefore affirmed the appeals court's reversal of the convictions due to lack of sufficient evidence on an essential element of the offense.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved an affidavit seeking to disqualify Judge Brenda Burnham Unruh from presiding over an evidentiary hearing in a Summit County civil lawsuit between the Myatts regarding enforcement of a disputed settlement agreement. The parties had engaged in mediation and settlement discussions before the judge, who then ordered the case dismissed based on an apparent agreement, but the defendants later contested the terms and refused to sign the documents. After an appeal reversed the enforcement order and remanded for a hearing on whether a settlement existed and its terms, the defendants argued the judge could not remain impartial or avoid testifying as a witness. The court ordered the judge disqualified from the evidentiary hearing, relying on precedent that a judge involved in off-the-record settlement negotiations cannot preside over disputes about the agreement's terms and may be called to testify, but allowed her to handle other aspects of the case.

procedure

This case involves affidavits of disqualification filed by attorneys under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to remove Judge Ronald Suster from a civil action in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, based on his denial of three motions to continue the trial date due to counsel conflicts, a party's hospitalization, and related scheduling issues. The Ohio Supreme Court denied the affidavits. The court reasoned that the filings were accepted despite the statutory seven-day deadline because the underlying events occurred shortly before trial, but the judge's discretionary rulings on continuances alone do not establish bias or prejudice. It further noted that adverse rulings are insufficient to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality, and some later allegations were not properly submitted as sworn affidavits.

procedure

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against Ohio attorney Justin Martus Smith for his handling of two clients' personal injury claims arising from a 2002 automobile accident. Smith, then an associate at a law firm, charged the clients under a contingent-fee agreement, endorsed settlement checks without proper authorization, and sought no-fault PIP benefits under New York law, actions the board found violated DR 2-106(A) by imposing excessive fees and DR 6-101(A)(1) by accepting matters beyond his competence. The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline's findings and recommended sanction, publicly reprimanding Smith after comparing the conduct to prior cases involving inexperienced attorneys following firm practices. The court emphasized that the violations occurred while Smith was under supervision and that a public reprimand aligned with precedent for similar misconduct.

criminal lawprocedure