Evelyn Lundberg Stratton

This case concerned whether an indictment for drug trafficking under Ohio law must specify the exact controlled substance involved or if identifying the drug schedule suffices. The defendant was charged with trafficking in a Schedule I or II drug, later identified as BZP, and moved to dismiss arguing the indictment was deficient for not naming the specific substance. The Ohio Supreme Court held that an indictment is sufficient if it names the schedule, as that fulfills the statutory requirements under R.C. 2925.03 and allows the defendant to obtain further details through a bill of particulars. The court reversed the appellate decision that had found the indictment inadequate and reinstated the convictions, noting that the defendant had actual notice of the alleged substance before pleading no contest.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Horvath v. Ish concerned a personal injury lawsuit arising from a collision between a skier and a snowboarder on a ski slope in Ohio, where the injured skier alleged negligence by the other participant. The Ohio Supreme Court held that participants in skiing and similar recreational activities assume the ordinary risks inherent in the sport, such as collisions with others, and thus cannot recover damages unless the other skier's conduct was reckless or intentional rather than merely negligent. The court reasoned that neither Ohio's ski safety statutes nor common law imposes a duty of ordinary care between skiers that would support a negligence claim, but instead applies the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. It affirmed the appellate court's reversal of summary judgment but on different grounds, remanding the case for further proceedings on whether the defendant's actions met the recklessness standard.

torts & liability

In this case, employee Larry Hewitt sued his employer L.E. Myers Company for a workplace intentional tort after suffering an electric shock injury while working without protective rubber gloves and sleeves on a de-energized power line. Hewitt claimed that the employer's failure to require the gloves created a presumption of intent under R.C. 2745.01(C) by amounting to the deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard. The Ohio Supreme Court held that protective gloves and sleeves are personal items controlled by the employee, not equipment safety guards, which it defined as devices designed to shield the operator from a dangerous aspect of the equipment itself. The court further held that deliberate removal requires a decision to physically eliminate such a guard from the machine. It therefore reversed the judgment for Hewitt and entered judgment as a matter of law for the employer.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved disciplinary proceedings against Ohio attorney Stanlee E. Culbreath for multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, including failures to properly maintain his client trust account and document a personal-injury settlement, making false statements to a third party about the settlement amount, and not fully cooperating with the bar association's investigation by delaying responses and document production. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found clear and convincing evidence of the violations and recommended permanent disbarment. Culbreath objected, arguing that his lack of cooperation was overstated and that mitigating factors such as personal tragedies and a medical diagnosis had not been adequately considered. The Supreme Court of Ohio imposed an indefinite suspension instead, with conditions for reinstatement including ethics training, a mental-health evaluation, completion of an OLAP contract, and supervised probation, based on precedents involving similar trust-account and cooperation violations while accounting for the mitigating circumstances.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge to a search warrant used to seize evidence from Lawrence Dibble's home in connection with allegations of inappropriate touching and voyeurism by a former student and another individual. The trial court granted Dibble's motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the police detective knowingly included false statements in the affidavit by referring to the adult woman as a "victim" when the acts were consensual. The court of appeals affirmed, but the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that whether information in a search-warrant affidavit is false must consider the nontechnical language used by nonlawyers, and remanded for a new suppression hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between former partners Julie Rowell and Julie Smith over custody and visitation of a child born to Smith through artificial insemination. Rowell filed a petition in juvenile court under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) seeking shared custody and temporary visitation after the relationship ended. The juvenile court issued temporary visitation orders in the child's best interest and held Smith in contempt for noncompliance, but the court of appeals reversed on jurisdictional grounds. The Ohio Supreme Court held that a juvenile court exercising jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) may issue temporary visitation orders pursuant to Juv.R. 13(B)(1) during pending litigation and reinstated the trial court's orders.

family lawprocedure