Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Plaintiff's complaint seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus to vacate the result of a 2016 hearing held by the Ohio Parole Board that denied parole to Plaintiff, holding that Plaintiff failed to show that he was entitled to relief in prohibition or mandamus.While Plaintiff became eligible for parole in April 2018, his parole eligibility date was mistakenly calculated, and Appellant given a parole hearing in 2016. After the hearing, the parole board denied parole. In 2020, Plaintiff filed his complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus seeking to vacate the parole board's 2016 decision and compel a new hearing. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to support his claims on appeal. View "State ex rel. Holman v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied this petition filed by LaRon Gregory seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the City of Toledo to provide public records and awarded statutory damages, holding that Gregory was not entitled to a writ of mandamus.Gregory send a public records request to the Toledo police department requesting certain records and asking certain questions. At the time Gregory filed his mandamus complaint the City had not responded to his records request, but by the time he filed his merit brief, the City had responded, largely satisfying his records request. The Supreme Court denied Gregory's demand for a writ of mandamus in part as moot and in part on the merits and held that Gregory was entitled to an award of $400 in statutory damages. View "State ex rel. Gregory v. Toledo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted writs of prohibition and mandamus ordering Judge John P. O'Donnell of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to stop exercising jurisdiction over the underlying case and to dismiss the underlying case, holding that the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation was entitled to the writs.The City of Cleveland and the City of Parma sued the Bureau in separate actions. The Supreme Court held that the court of claims had exclusive jurisdiction over Cleveland's action. Judge O'Donnell then dismissed Parma's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thereafter, Parma filed the underlying lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment. Judge O'Donnell denied the Bureau's motion to dismiss. Parma also filed an action against the Bureau in the court of claims, which dismissed the complaint on limitations grounds. The Bureau then brought this action against Judge O'Donnell, arguing that the common pleas court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over the underlying case. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding that the Court of Claims Act, Ohio Rev. Code 2743.01 et seq., patently and unambiguously divested the common pleas court of jurisdiction. View "State ex rel. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the payment of a civil fine for a traffic violation under a city's automated traffic enforcement program without a dispute of liability for the violation precludes those improperly ticketed under the program from raising an unjust enrichment claim against the city in a separate action.Appellees - Plaintiffs in a class action - were vehicle lessees who received tickets under the city of the city of Cleveland's automated traffic enforcement program. Plaintiffs did not appeal their cases, and most paid the civil fine. The trial court granted Appellees' motion for class certification. The City appealed, arguing that res judicata precluded class relief. After the court of appeals affirmed the class certification order the trial court ruled in favor of the class. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that by paying their civil fines and not disputing their liability, Appellees admitted their liability for their traffic violations, and res judicata prevented a subsequent lawsuit. View "Lycan v. City of Cleveland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus sought by Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to reverse its decision granting T.A.'s application for benefits, holding that the Commission did not abuse its discretion.Travis Gelhausen died shortly after getting into an accident while driving a truck for Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. T.A. applied for benefits on behalf of her and Gelhausen's minor daughter, S.G., for Gelhausen's loss of the use of his arms and legs before his death. The Commission granted the application. Waste Management sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission either to vacate its award or to limit the award. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission's award was proper. View "State ex rel. Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the Rootstown Township Board of Trustees and dismissing Appellant's claims that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA), Ohio Rev. Code 121.22, holding that there was a minor error in the injunction issued by the trial court.At issue before the Supreme Court was the injunctive and civil-forfeiture remedies a trial court must order when it finds multiple violations of a single provision of section 121.22(I). The court of appeals in this case held that the Board violated the OMA at multiple meetings. On remand, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Appellant and issued injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future and ordering the Board to pay two civil forfeiture penalties. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that when repeated conduct results in multiple violations of a single provision of Ohio Rev. Code 121.22, the trial court may issue a single injunction ordering the public body to pay a single $500 civil forfeiture penalty as to all offenses. View "Ames v. Rootstown Township Bd. of Trustees" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that use and development and alienation restrictions in a deed applied to both the surface and subsurface of the properties at issue in this case and that the village of Barnesville violated the restrictions when it transferred oil and gas rights to another entity without obtaining written permission from Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC), holding that there was no error.The village received two grants to finance the purchase of two properties for conservation projects. The OPWC brought this action claiming that the village violated transfer and use restrictions in the deeds for the properties at issue by transferring oil and gas rights to another entity, which leased those rights to Gulfport Energy Corporation, without obtaining the OPWC's permission. The court of appeals granted judgment in favor of OPWC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly determined that the village violated the use and development restrictions when it transferred oil and gas rights without OPWC's written consent. View "Ohio Public Works Commission v. Village of Barnesville" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the Public Utilities Commission authorizing a recovery mechanism referred to as the solar-generation-fund rider (Rider SGF), holding that remand to the Commission was required as to one issue.In 2021, the Commission issued an order establishing Rider SGF as the recovery mechanism that would be used to provide revenue for a "solar generation fund" by generating funds through a monthly retail charge to customers that would be billed and collected by Ohio electric distribution utilities. The Ohio Manufacturers' Association Energy Group appealed, challenging the amount and structure of Rider SGF. The Supreme Court remanded for clarification on the issue on the whether the Commission erred when it determined that customers must also pay the commercial activity tax through Rider SGF. View "In re Establishing the Solar Generation Fund Rider" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's award of summary judgment and attorney fees to Plaintiff in this case, holding that plaintiffs alleging violations of Ohio's Open Meetings Act (OMA), Ohio Rev. Code 121.22, bear the burden of proving the violations they have alleged.Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant, the Clermont County Board of Commissioners, violated the OMA on multiple occasions. The trial court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his claim regarding nine of the executive sessions and awarded him almost $80,000 in attorney fees. The court of appeals affirmed after applying the burden-shifting framework that it established in State ex rel. Hardin v. Clermont County Bd. Of Elections, 972 N.E.2d 115 (Ohio 2012). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in accordance with the common law and the language of section 121.22, plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the violations they allege; and (2) Plaintiff in this case failed to present evidence showing that Defendant violated the OMA. View "State ex rel. Hicks v. Clermont County Bd. of Commissioners" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus sought by Walmart, Inc. ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to reverse its decision awarding Dianna Hixson temporary total disability (TTD) compensation on the basis of State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co., 119 N.E.3d 386 (Ohio 2018), holding that Klein applies prospectively only.Before the Supreme Court issued Klein, the Commission awarded Hixson TTD compensation. After Klein was released, Walmart, Hixson's former employer, filed this action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the termination of Hixson's TTD compensation after the date notified Walmart of her retirement. The court of appeals granted the writ, concluding that the Commission abused its discretion by awarding TTD compensation for the period following Hixson's retirement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Klein does not apply retroactively and should be applied prospectively only. View "State ex rel. Walmart, Inc. v. Hixson" on Justia Law