Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara — appointed by Edmund Gerald Brown
State ex rel. Johnstone v. Cincinnati (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2021-09-29
This case concerned whether the Cincinnati Civil Service Commission could impose a two-year time-in-grade requirement for police lieutenants seeking promotion to captain under R.C. 124.44. The statute states that no police officer may be promoted without serving at least twelve months in the next lower rank and expressly permits municipal commissions to require more than twelve months only for promotion to the rank immediately above patrol officer. Johnstone, a lieutenant who met the two-year requirement, challenged the commission's waiver of that requirement for other candidates and sought a writ of mandamus to compel his own promotion. The Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 124.44 does not authorize commissions to set time-in-grade requirements exceeding twelve months for any rank other than the one above patrol officer, so the commission lacked authority to enforce the two-year rule and Johnstone had no clear legal right to the relief requested. The Court therefore reversed the court of appeals and dismissed the mandamus petition.
labor & employment
In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2021-09-22 · cited 4×
The case concerned an appeal by the cities of Reading and Blue Ash and a citizens' group challenging the Ohio Power Siting Board's grant of a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need to Duke Energy Ohio for constructing, operating, and maintaining a natural-gas pipeline in Hamilton County. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the board's order, concluding that the approval was lawful, reasonable, and supported by the weight of the evidence. The court rejected arguments that the board misapplied the criteria in R.C. 4906.10(A), relied on incomplete information, improperly weighed evidence, or restricted meaningful participation by the parties, noting that the alternate route was selected after supplemental reviews and hearings to minimize adverse effects.
environmentbusiness & regulatory
State v. Williams (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2021-09-15 · cited 14×
In State v. Williams, the Ohio Supreme Court considered whether a trial court has an affirmative duty under the Sixth Amendment to inquire into possible conflicts of interest when one attorney represents multiple codefendants in a criminal case. The defendant and his wife were jointly represented by the same attorney during plea and sentencing hearings on drug possession and trafficking charges, and the defendant later argued that his convictions should be vacated due to the court's failure to inquire about the joint representation. The court held that absent any factor that would alert the trial court to a possible conflict, there is no such affirmative duty, and it affirmed the court of appeals' judgment upholding the convictions. The core reasoning was that the record showed no objection to the representation, no indication the court knew or should have known of a conflict, and a beneficial plea deal for both defendants.
criminal lawprocedure
O'Keefe v. McClain (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2021-06-30 · cited 4×
The case involved a challenge by Franklin County property owner John S. O’Keeffe to the continuing property-tax exemption for a 325-acre parcel owned by the state and operated as the Ohio State University Airport. The tax commissioner denied the complaint, and the Board of Tax Appeals affirmed that decision. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the BTA, holding that the entire parcel qualifies for exemption under R.C. 3345.17 because it is used by the university to operate the airport as part of the College of Engineering’s academic programs. The court rejected arguments that the airport’s commercial activities or non-educational areas required taxation of the whole parcel or split-listing of portions.
taxesproperty
State v. Gideon (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2020-12-31 · cited 73×
This case involved a licensed physician charged with misdemeanor sexual imposition based on patient complaints, who sought to suppress incriminating statements made during a state medical board investigation on the ground that the threat of losing his medical license coerced him into waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Ohio Supreme Court held that a medical license qualifies as a property right and that the potential loss of the license can constitute coercion, but suppression is warranted only if the defendant subjectively believed that invoking the privilege would result in license revocation and that belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The court concluded that the doctor's belief was not objectively reasonable here, so the statements were admissible, and it reversed the court of appeals' suppression ruling while also clarifying that a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge cannot be deemed moot by a remand on other grounds. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedurehealthcareproperty
State v. Gideon (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court · 2020-12-15 · cited 43×
The case involved Dr. James Gideon, who was charged with sexual imposition after patients accused him of inappropriate conduct; during a state medical board investigation, he made incriminating statements to an investigator, which were later shared with police and used in his criminal trial. Gideon moved to suppress those statements, arguing they were coerced in violation of the Fifth Amendment because he faced a statutory duty to answer truthfully or risk losing his medical license. The Ohio Supreme Court held that a medical license is a property right and its threatened loss can constitute coercion under Garrity v. New Jersey, but suppression is warranted only if the defendant's belief that non-cooperation would result in license loss is both subjectively held and objectively reasonable. The trial court's factual finding that Gideon's belief was not objectively reasonable was supported by competent evidence, so the statements were admissible; the court of appeals therefore erred in reversing the convictions on that ground and in treating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim as moot. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded in part.
criminal lawhealthcarepropertyprocedure