| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2019-0646
|
State of Ohio
v.
Michael D. Hudson
|
OPEN
|
7/10/2019
| Proposition of Law:
Once the underlying prison term has been fully served, a trial court cannot correct the complete failure to reference the consequences for violating postrelease control in the judgment entry of sentence. |
|
2019-0621
|
In re: M.H.
|
OPEN
|
7/10/2019
| Proposition of Law I:
The statement of a child to a government social worker may be involuntary and violate due process even when the government social worker was not required to give Miranda warnings. |
|
2019-0621
|
In re: M.H.
|
OPEN
|
7/10/2019
| Proposition of Law II:
A child does not feel free to leave when a he is driven to government agency for questioning by a parent and separated from that parent and interrogated in a private interrogation room without being told he is free to leave and free to not cooperate. |
|
2019-0621
|
In re: M.H.
|
OPEN
|
7/10/2019
| Proposition of Law III:
A child-suspect must be provided Miranda warnings when that child is interrogated by a social worker who is exercising her statutory duty to investigate child abuse allegations and does so cooperatively with the police on a regular and institutional basis. |
|
2019-0544
|
State of Ohio
v.
Fredrick M. Weber
|
OPEN
|
7/10/2019
| First Proposition of Law: The using a weapon while intoxicated
statute is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case. |
|
2019-0544
|
State of Ohio
v.
Fredrick M. Weber
|
OPEN
|
7/10/2019
| Second Proposition of Law: Where a challenge is made that a
statute unconstitutionally impinges on the fundamental right
to bear arms, review is undertaken employing a strict scrutiny
standard. |
|
2019-0544
|
State of Ohio
v.
Fredrick M. Weber
|
OPEN
|
7/10/2019
| Third Proposition of Law: Under any of the standards of scrutiny
applied to enumerated constitutional rights, a prohibition of
having firearms while intoxicated in the home where defense of
self, family and property is most acute~fails constitutional muster. |
|
2019-0531
|
Defender Security Company d/b/a Defender Direct
v.
Joseph W. Testa [Jeffrey A. McClain], Tax Commissioner of Ohio
|
OPEN
|
6/26/2019
| Proposition of Law I: The appellate standard of review for legal questions addressed by the Board of Tax Appeals is de novo, without deference to the Tax Commissioner’s determination thereof. |
|
2019-0531
|
Defender Security Company d/b/a Defender Direct
v.
Joseph W. Testa [Jeffrey A. McClain], Tax Commissioner of Ohio
|
OPEN
|
6/26/2019
| Proposition of LAW II
Gross receipts form the sale of intangible assets are sourced to the purchaser’s physical location (s) that receive and use the assets, not the location where the assets were originated. Therefore, Defender’s receipts from the sale of Alarm Services Contracts to ADT are sitused to ADT’s physical; locations outside Ohio where it received the Alarm Services Contracts and utilized such Contracts by performing monitoring services for consumers.
|
|
2019-0531
|
Defender Security Company d/b/a Defender Direct
v.
Joseph W. Testa [Jeffrey A. McClain], Tax Commissioner of Ohio
|
OPEN
|
6/26/2019
| Proposition of LAW III:
The significant risk of double taxation caused by the Tax Commissioner’s conflicting applications of R.C. 5751.033(I) violates the fair apportionment requirement of the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
|
|