Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Scott W. Nusbaum to issue a final, appealable order in a proceeding brought under Ohio Rev. Code 2935.09. The appeals court granted Judge Nusbaum’s motion to dismiss under Ohio R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6). Appellant appealed. Judge Nusbaum filed an unopposed motion to strike Appellant’s merit brief, arguing that Appellant served him with a different, typewritten document, also captioned as a merit brief. The Supreme Court denied the motion to strike but affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s mandamus action, holding that Appellant failed to establish that Judge Nusbaum had a clear legal duty to issue a final, appealable order. View "State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the trial court to issue a final, appealable order for his 1986 convictions and sentence. In his petition, Appellant argued that the 1986 judgment entry was unsigned and therefore void. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court’s 1986 judgment was a final judgment and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even accepting as true Appellant’s assertion that the entry was unsigned, res judicata barred Appellant from raising his claim that the entry did not comply with Ohio R. Crim. P. 32. View "State ex rel. Woods v. Dinkelacker" on Justia Law

In this real-property valuation case, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) that San Diego Real Estate Investments, LLC’s (SD REI) complaint seeking to reduce the county auditor’s tax-year-2010 valuation of the subject property was jurisdictionally valid.SD REI’s complaint alleged that the value of the subject property should be reduced from $90,400 to $26,000. The Board of Revision (BOR) reduced the property’s value to $26,000 for tax year 2010. The Board of Education (BOE) appealed to the BTA. Thereafter, the BOE requested that the BTA remand the matter to the BOR with instructions to dismiss the complaint and reinstate the auditor’s valuation, asserting that SD REI’s complaint failed to invoke the BOR’s jurisdiction because the complaint was filed by an individual lacking the requisite authority. The BTA denied the request and ruled that the property’s value should be $26,000 for tax years 2010 through 2013. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause to the BTA with instructions to dismiss the complaint, holding that the complaint was jurisdictionally defective. View "Columbus City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of Appellant for writs of mandamus and prohibition seeking to compel the court of claims judge to proceed with his medical malpractice lawsuit and to prevent the judge from dismissing the lawsuit. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the court of claims judge dismissed Appellant’s case under Ohio R. Civ. P. 41(B)(2) for Appellant’s failure to present evidence to support his medical malpractice claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of mandamus or prohibition because the issues raised by Appellant could be raised in his appeal from the dismissal of his medical malpractice suit. View "State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath" on Justia Law

An employer does not face liability for the violation of a specific safety requirement (VSSR) when it lacked knowledge of a specific danger requiring a safety device.Employee suffered a head injury while working for Employer. The Industrial Commission awarded workers’ compensation benefits and granted an additional award to Employee based upon its finding that Employer had violated a specific safety requirement in failing to provide Employee with protective headgear. Employer filed a mandamus action in the court of appeals challenging the additional award. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that Employer had waived a central issue in its mandamus action by not raising it during proceedings before the Commission. The Supreme Court reversed and ordered a limited writ of mandamus ordering the Commission to determine whether Employer knew or should have known about the latent defect at the time that Employee was injured, holding (1) waiver did not apply in this case because the central issue raised in Employer’s mandamus action was not raised by the parties below; and (2) if Employer lacked the requisite knowledge of a design defect at the time of the injury, it cannot have violated a specific safety requirement. View "State ex rel. Camaco, LLC v. Albu" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that the common pleas court had jurisdiction over a motion to show cause. Appellant, an attorney, filed this action for a writ of prohibition arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold a show cause hearing in a civil lawsuit. The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Elizabeth Thomakos, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction over the contempt proceedings and that Appellant had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding that Appellant failed to establish the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to rule on the contempt motion. View "State ex rel. Mancino v. Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the law-of-the-case doctrine requires a court to apply the findings of a superior court in a criminal case to a civil case brought by the criminal defendant against individuals and entities who were not parties to the criminal case. The court held that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not require a court to follow a superior court’s decision in a prior appeal involving one of the parties but in the context of a different case. Rather, the law-of-the-case doctrine applies only to rulings in the same case. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, which ruled that summary judgment was improper in this case because the law-of-the-case doctrine applied. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court’s holding was not a proper application of the law-of-the-case doctrine. View "Reid v. Cleveland Police Department" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging three civil claims brought under Ohio Rev. Code 2307.60. Plaintiff sought recovery for damages arising out of Defendants’ alleged violation of a criminal statute. The trial court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, ruling that civil actions for damages may not be predicated upon an alleged violation of a criminal statute. The Ninth District Court of Appeals then certified a question to the Supreme Court as to whether the current version of Ohio Rev. Code 2307.60 independently authorizes a civil action for damages caused by criminal acts unless otherwise prohibited by law. The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative. View "Jacobson v. Kaforey" on Justia Law

Eleven captains and one battalion chief in the Cleveland Fire Department (collectively, Relators) alleged that each of them was eligible for promotion in the fire department but was deprived of the opportunity to take a competitive promotional examination. Relators filed this action in mandamus against the City of Cleveland and its mayor (collectively, Respondents) seeking immediate cessation of the noncompetitive examination process that the City was using for promotion within the fire department. The firefighters’ union challenged the noncompetitive examination process on the same grounds in a declaratory injunction action in the court of common pleas. The Supreme Court dismissed Relators’ action, holding that Relators had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of intervening in the declaratory judgment case, precluding a writ of mandamus here. View "State ex rel. Schroeder v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

Darlene Burnham brought a personal injury action against the Cleveland Clinic and Cleveland Clinic Health System (collectively, Clinic). During discovery, Burnham requested certain documents that the Clinic alleged were not discoverable because they were shielded by the attorney-client privilege. Burnham filed a motion to compel discovery. The trial court granted the motion to compel. The Clinic appealed, arguing that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were not discoverable. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that there was no final, appealable order to review because the Clinic had failed to establish that there would be prejudice resulting from disclosure of the documents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a discovery order compelling the production of documents allegedly protected by the attorney-client privilege is a final, appealable order subject to immediate review because such an order causes harm and prejudice that cannot be meaningfully remedied by a later appeal; and (2) because the Clinic has plausibly alleged that the attorney-client privilege would be breached by disclosure of the requested materials, the order compelling the disclosure is a final, appealable order. View "Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic" on Justia Law