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
2020-0625 State of Ohio v. Miquan D. Hubbard OPEN 7/1/2020 Does retroactive application of the violent offender database enrollment statutes codified in sections 2903.41 through 2903.44 of the Revised Code, commonly known as "Sierah's Law," violate the Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution, as set forth in Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution?
2020-0549 State of Ohio v. Albert Jarvis OPEN 7/1/2020 Whether Ohio's sub S.B. 231, "Sierah's Law," [R.C. 2903.42, et. seq.], creating a violent offender database, which became effective March 20, 2019, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, Ohio's constitutional prohibition on retroactive statutes when retroactively applied to an offense that occurred before March 20, 2019.
2020-0544 State of Ohio v. Miquan Hubbard OPEN 7/1/2020 The retroactive application of Senate Bill 231—Sierah’s Law—is unconstitutional as applied to offenses committed prior to the effective date of the statute. Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution A. Sierah’s Law affects a substantial right because it imposes new duties and obligations that did not exist before its enactment. B. Ohio appellate courts have issued conflicting opinions regarding the constitutionality of the retroactive application of Sierah’s Law.
2020-0405 AKC, Inc., dba Cleantech v. United Specialty Insurance Company, et al. OPEN 6/23/2020 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. I: The standard water backup and pollution exclusions in a first-party property insurance policy bar loss caused by or resulting from raw sewage
2020-0391 State of Ohio v. Terrell L. Bryant OPEN 6/9/2020 First Proposition of Law: Res judicata bars successive motions forjail-time credit under R.C. 2929.l9(B)(2)(g)(iii), regardless of whether the trial court performed a “substantive review” ofthe prior motion(s)
2020-0368 State of Ohio v. Earl Jones OPEN 6/17/2020 Proposition of Law No. 1: In reviewing whether the state presented sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design, an appellate court may not rely on the defense’s version of the facts and contradicting evidence and, instead, must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the state and then determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of prior calculation and design have been met.
2020-0368 State of Ohio v. Earl Jones OPEN 6/17/2020 Proposition of Law No. 2: When the state presents evidence that the accused knew and had a strained relationship the victim, gave thought or preparation in choosing either the murder weapon or the murder site, and that the murder was not the result of an instantaneous eruption of events, then the state has presented sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design.
2020-0368 State of Ohio v. Earl Jones OPEN 6/17/2020 Proposition of Law No. 3: In presenting evidence of prior calculation and design, the State is not required to show that the accused’s plan happened precisely as intended. Instead, the state presents sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design when it presents evidence that shows that the purpose to commit murder was a premeditated act and not a spur of the moment decision.
2020-0368 State of Ohio v. Earl Jones OPEN 6/17/2020 Proposition of Law No. 4: An appellate court creates a miscarriage of justice that requires reversal when it fails to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the state when considering a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.
2020-0341 Janine Lycan, et al. v. City of Cleveland, et al. OPEN 7/1/2020 The City of Cleveland’s First Proposition of Law Ohio municipalities have home-rule authority to establish civil camera enforcement administrative proceedings which include administrative hearings. Individuals who have declined to participate in the adequate remedy at law available to them in the available administrative hearing process have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as a matter of law and are thereby precluded from seeking judicial remedy including claims for unjust enrichment. (Accord Walker v. Toledo, 143 Ohio St.3d 420, 2014-Ohio-5461, 39 N.E.3d 474)
12345678910...
Case Issue Votes
lbCaseNumber

lbCaseCaptionShort

lbCaseIssueDescription