Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Issues Accepted for Review

About |  Help
Download PDFadobe icon

  All open cases and cases closed in past 180 days.
Case No.Case CaptionCase StatusDate
Accepted
Case Issue
2019-0324 State of Ohio/Village of Put-in-Bay v. Mark Mathys and State of Ohio/Village of Put-in-Bay v. Islander Inn (Timothy Niese, Sr.) OPEN 5/15/2019 First Proposition of Law: Because Ohio licenses vehicles for use on all public roadways in exchange for payment of an annual statutory tax on vehicles, no municipality in this state may levy an additional local tax for similar purposes—otherwise, localities could negate or attach additional strings to statewide licenses.
2019-0324 State of Ohio/Village of Put-in-Bay v. Mark Mathys and State of Ohio/Village of Put-in-Bay v. Islander Inn (Timothy Niese, Sr.) OPEN 5/15/2019 Second Proposition of Law: Under Ohio Constitution Art. XII, Section 5a, any moneys collected from taxes levied on motor vehicles must be expended solely for a statutory purpose, therefore, a statute—not an ordinance—must enable the expenditure, and hence the exaction, of a vehicle tax.
2019-0322 Wooster Floral & Gifts, LLC v. Green Thumb Floral & Garden Center, Inc. OPEN 5/15/2019 Proposition of Law No. 1 A competing business owner’s use of a competitor’s legally valid trade name in a domain name to divert consumers to the competing business’s website is a deceptive trade practice under R.C. 4165.02(A)(2) and is analyzed for likelihood of confusion at the time the trade name is used in the domain name, not by the content on the competing business’s website.
2019-0295 Joni Bey, et al. v. Jeffrey Rasawehr OPEN 5/15/2019 PROPOSITION OF LAW II Prior Restraints on the exercise of free speech are unconstitutional and presumptively invalid.
2019-0214 State of Ohio v. Lashawna J. Blake OPEN
(Held)
5/1/2019 If the conditions of a community control sanction are violated or if the offender violates a law or leaves the state without the permission of the court of the offender's probation officer, the sentencing court may impose upon the violator... (c) A prison term on the offender pursuant to section 2929.14 of the Revised Code and division (B)(3) of this section, provided that a prison term imposed under this division is subject to the following limitations, as applicable: (I) If the prison term is imposed for any technical violation of the conditions of the community control sanction imposed for a felony of the fifth degree or for any violation of law committed while under a community control sanction imposed for such a felony that consists of a new criminal offense and that is not a felony, the prison term shall not exceed ninety days.
2019-0187 State of Ohio v. Seante Jones OPEN 4/10/2019 “Where the state is permitted to exercise more than its allotted number of peremptory challenges in a criminal prosecution, does that circumstance constitute structural error requiring automatic reversal of a conviction, or is the defendant-appellant required to demonstrate that prejudice has resulted from the error?”
2019-0184 State of Ohio v. Mitchell Hartman OPEN 5/1/2019 STATE’S PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. I: In sexual assault cases, other acts evidence offered to prove the intent of the offender or the offender’s plan is admissible pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B) even when the identity of the offender is not at issue
2019-0182 State of Ohio v. Rogers T. Henderson OPEN 4/17/2019 Proposition of Law I: A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SERVED IN FULL CANNOT BE INCREASED, EVEN IF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE IS BELOW THE MINIMUM SENTENCE REQUIRED BY STATUTE
2019-0182 State of Ohio v. Rogers T. Henderson OPEN 4/17/2019 Proposition of Law II R.C. 5145.01 CANNOT TRANSFORM A DEFINITE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY A TRIAL COURT BY ADDING AN INDEFINITE TAIL TO THAT SENTENCE
2019-0181 State of Ohio v. John W. Long OPEN 5/8/2019 PROPOSITION OF LAW: A motion to dismiss alleging a violation of the right to a speedy trial does not reset speedy trial time. When convictions are overturned on an appeal, courts must consider all applicable speedy trial time, beginning on the date that the charges are remanded.
12345678910...
Case Issue Votes
lbCaseNumber

lbCaseCaptionShort

lbCaseIssueDescription