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

In Mynes v. Brooks, homeowners sued various parties involved in a home sale, including home inspectors, alleging concealment of mold and structural defects; the inspectors' contract included an arbitration clause. After the trial court initially stayed claims against the inspectors but later lifted the stay and required them to participate in the lawsuit, the inspectors appealed. The Ohio Supreme Court held that under R.C. 2711.02(C), a trial court order granting or denying a stay of proceedings pending arbitration is a final, appealable order, even in multiparty cases without the certification required by Civ.R. 54(B). The court reasoned that the statute itself expressly declares such orders final and appealable, making additional certification unnecessary, consistent with its prior decision in Sullivan v. Anderson Township. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider the merits of the appeal.

procedure

This case involved an affidavit filed by defense counsel seeking to disqualify Judge Alan R. Mayberry from presiding over a criminal trial in Wood County Common Pleas Court, after the judge received and disclosed an unsolicited letter from the defendant's husband (a potential state witness) that asserted facts about the defendant's guilt. The Ohio Supreme Court denied the disqualification request. The court reasoned that the affidavit was untimely filed nearly two months after counsel learned of the letter, creating a waiver; that the defendant had waived a jury trial with notice of the letter; and that the judge had properly disclosed the ex parte communication, with no evidence that it had influenced him or created an appearance of bias. Judges are presumed impartial absent compelling evidence to the contrary.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an affidavit filed by Joseph A. Circelli seeking to disqualify Judge Timothy M. Flanagan from presiding over his divorce proceedings in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division. Circelli alleged that the judge had threatened him with criminal prosecution during a chambers conference to coerce an unfair settlement and was biased in favor of the opposing party. Judge Flanagan denied making any such threats, though he acknowledged discussing his intent to report Circelli's perjured testimony to prosecutors. The court ordered the judge's disqualification, finding a significant likelihood that he would be called to testify as a material witness regarding the settlement discussions in Circelli's pending motion to vacate the judgment. The decision rested on the need to avoid the appearance of impropriety rather than on any substantiated finding of actual bias.

family lawprocedurecriminal law

This case concerns an affidavit filed by counsel for Wee Care Child Center seeking to disqualify Judge Joseph T. Clark from presiding over their case against the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services in the Court of Claims. The court dismissed the affidavit, holding that it lacked authority to rule on disqualification requests involving Court of Claims judges. The core reasoning was that R.C. 2701.03, which governs such affidavits, applies only to common pleas court judges, and a conflicting local court rule attempting to extend the process could not override the statute.

procedure

The case arose after plaintiffs were arrested and detained by Cleveland police on suspicion of involvement in an explosion at a baseball game; charges were later dropped, and they sued the city for malicious prosecution, false arrest and imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded each plaintiff $400,000 in compensatory damages, but the city sought to reduce the noneconomic portion under the $250,000 statutory cap in R.C. 2744.05(C)(1). The trial court declined to apply the cap, and the court of appeals affirmed, finding the cap unconstitutional on jury-trial and equal-protection grounds. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that the cap does not violate the right to a jury trial or equal protection. Its reasoning followed the analysis in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, which upheld a similar limit on noneconomic damages because the statutes share the same purpose and effect.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves an affidavit seeking to disqualify Judge Joseph D. Russo from presiding over a criminal trial in which the defendant, a longtime employee of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court serving as a bailiff, is charged with assaulting a peace officer, aggravated menacing, and resisting arrest. The prosecutor argued for disqualification based on the judge's potential connection to the defendant through their shared workplace and to avoid any appearance of impropriety, especially after several other judges had recused themselves. The court denied the disqualification, reasoning that the affidavit was filed untimely after the special prosecutor had knowledge of the circumstances, there was no evidence of a significant personal or professional relationship between the judge and the defendant, and the mere fact of employment in the same court does not mandate disqualification.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an affidavit filed by counsel for defendants in Keybank National Association v. Mazer Corporation seeking to disqualify Judge Frances E. McGee from further proceedings in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, alleging improper ex parte communications with the attorney for the court-appointed receiver of the Mazer Corporation. The court denied the affidavit of disqualification. The core reasoning was that conversations between a judge and a court-appointed receiver generally do not constitute prohibited ex parte communications because the receiver qualifies as court personnel aiding the judge's adjudicative responsibilities, and the discussions at issue addressed only procedural and scheduling matters rather than substantive issues or disputed facts. Challenges to service of process or hearing procedures were deemed inappropriate for resolution through an affidavit of disqualification.

procedure

The case concerned whether Safeco Insurance was obligated to defend and indemnify parents sued for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and related claims after their teenage son committed an intentional assault on another child. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the parents' negligent acts qualified as an "occurrence" under the liability policies, which defined occurrence as an accident, and that the policies provided coverage. The court reasoned that negligent acts by one insured, even when predicated on another's intentional tort, meet the policy definition of occurrence, and the intentional-act exclusions applied only to the insured who committed the intentional acts rather than barring coverage for other insureds' negligence under the same policy.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved disciplinary proceedings against Ohio attorney John Thaddeus Willard, who in 2004 agreed to represent clients referred by Foreclosure Alternatives, a nonlawyer-owned company that solicited foreclosure defendants and handled negotiations with lenders. Willard received a fixed $150 fee per case for limited work such as filing answers or motions to strike, but typically did not communicate with clients until after filing boilerplate documents, never discussed cases with most clients, and allowed the company to control client interactions without disclosing attorney fees. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found four violations of the Disciplinary Rules, but the Supreme Court of Ohio identified two additional violations based on the evidence of improper fee arrangements and lack of independent representation. The court imposed a one-year license suspension with six months stayed, reasoning that the partnering with nonlawyers and minimal client contact warranted an actual suspension comparable to prior cases involving similar referral arrangements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death and survival action by Mary Niskanen against Giant Eagle after her son Paul died from asphyxiation during a confrontation with store employees while shoplifting groceries. Niskanen pursued only negligence claims at trial, alleging failure to train employees on shoplifting policies, and the jury found Giant Eagle 40 percent liable but awarded no compensatory damages because Paul was 60 percent at fault for his own death. The Ohio Supreme Court held that punitive damages are unavailable in negligence actions absent an award of compensatory damages under R.C. 2315.21(C), and that self-defense may be asserted as a defense to negligence claims on a case-by-case basis if supported by the facts. The court declined to address the undue restraint claim because it was not properly preserved below.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an affidavit seeking to disqualify Judge Craig D. Hedric from presiding over a felony OMVI prosecution of defendant Michael Dale Phillips in Butler County Common Pleas Court, on grounds that the judge had previously prosecuted the defendant for one of his prior OMVI convictions while serving as an assistant prosecutor. The court denied the disqualification request. It first found the objection untimely and thus waived, as the defendant had appeared before the judge without raising the issue until after an appeal. The court further held that the relevant judicial conduct rules did not require disqualification because the judge had not participated in the particular current matter and there was no compelling evidence that he possessed personal knowledge of disputed facts that could not be obtained from other sources.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Trimble, the defendant was convicted of aggravated murder for fatally shooting his girlfriend Renee Bauer, her seven-year-old son Dakota, and a hostage Sarah Positano after a series of events on January 21, 2005, in Ohio. The trial court sentenced him to death, and Trimble appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. The court upheld the convictions and death sentence, determining that the aggravating circumstances, including the multiple murders and the killing of a child and a hostage, outweighed any mitigating evidence presented by the defendant, and that the penalty was proportionate to similar cases.

criminal law

The case concerned a self-insured employer's attempt to obtain reimbursement from the state workers' compensation surplus fund for benefits paid to an injured employee after the parties settled the underlying claim. Dillard Department Stores had appealed an administrative allowance of an additional medical condition under R.C. 4123.512; the employee filed her required complaint, voluntarily dismissed it once, refiled, and then dismissed it a second time with prejudice after agreeing to a settlement that included language stating she was not entitled to participate in the fund. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the denial of mandamus relief, holding that the employer was not entitled to reimbursement. The core reasoning was that a second voluntary dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a) following settlement does not amount to a final judicial determination that the payments should not have been made when the common pleas court never entered judgment to that effect, and the administrative approval of the settlement did not involve the Bureau of Workers' Compensation as a party.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved Maxine Spiller attempting to redeem a decades-old certificate of deposit from Sky Bank, which had no records of the account and refused payment after searching its files. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings in Spiller's favor, holding that her action was time-barred. The court reasoned that under R.C. 1109.69, when a claim against a bank depends on records the bank is required to retain, the action must be asserted within the statutory retention period, even for automatically renewing certificates of deposit, because the bank is authorized to dispose of records after that time.

business & regulatoryprocedure