If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Supreme Court of Ohio
November 13, 2020

Table of Contents

Centerville v. Knab

Criminal Law

State ex rel. Bandy v. Gilson

Criminal Law

Coder v. Ohio Edison Co.

Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

Surburban Natural Gas Co. v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.

Utilities Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Update on Trump’s Coup: Do Not Think That This Is Guaranteed to End Well

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

verdict post

UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan explains why “being patient with Trump” is a recipe for disaster, why there are still reasons to be guardedly optimistic, and why this all could still end very badly. Buchanan argues that the present situation is not guaranteed end badly, but he cautions that a Trump coup is eminently possible.

Read More

Supreme Court of Ohio Opinions

Centerville v. Knab

Citation: 2020-Ohio-5219

Opinion Date: November 12, 2020

Judge: Judith L. French

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's judgment ordering Michael Knab to make restitution to the City of Centerville, holding that a municipality is not a victim and has no right to restitution under Ohio Const. Art I, 10a, a provision known as Marsy's law. Knab was found guilty of making a false report to law enforcement and improper use of the 9-1-1 emergency system. The trial court ordered Knab to pay restitution to Centerville for the costs it had incurred responding to Knab's 9-1-1 call. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions but vacated the restitution order, holding that Centerville was not a victim for purposes of restitution when it was carrying out its official duties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a municipal corporation does not qualify as a victim under Marsy's Law and is not entitled to restitution under that provision.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

State ex rel. Bandy v. Gilson

Citation: 2020-Ohio-5222

Opinion Date: November 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the court of appeals did not err. Appellant, an inmate, was serving a sentence of fifteen years to life for the murder of Ray Emerson. In 2012, Appellant received a copy of the coroner's complete report on the autopsy on the body of Ray. In 2014, Appellant requested photographs of Ray's injuries. The office of the medical examiner did not provide the photographs. In 2019, Appellant filed a petition requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the office to provide photographs of Ray's stab wounds, X-rays of the stab wounds, Ray's death certificate, and a signed autopsy report. The court of appeals granted the office's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals was correct to deny Appellant's request for a writ of mandamus.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Coder v. Ohio Edison Co.

Citation: 2020-Ohio-5220

Opinion Date: November 12, 2020

Judge: Sharon L. Kennedy

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

The Supreme Court held that a common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction to determine whether an easement granting a public utility the right to trim, cut and remove trees, limbs, underbrush or other obstructions permits the public utility to use herbicide to control vegetation within the easement. At issue was whether a public utility may remove vegetation from an easement by use of herbicide. The court of common pleas dismissed this matter as falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) this case was not within the exclusion jurisdiction of the PUCO and may be heard and decided by the court of common pleas; and (2) the court of appeals went beyond the narrow issue presented on appeal when it examined the merits of the case and determined that the language of the easements was ambiguous.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Surburban Natural Gas Co. v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.

Citation: 2020-Ohio-5221

Opinion Date: November 12, 2020

Judge: Donnelly

Areas of Law: Utilities Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Utilities Commission finding that Suburban Natural Gas Company failed to prove the allegation in its complaint that Columbia Gas Company of Ohio, Inc. had improperly used one of its demand-side management (DSM) programs to unlawfully gain an anticompetitive advantage over Suburban, holding that Suburban failed to demonstrate reversible error. Suburban and Columbia each provided natural-gas distribution service to customers in southern Delaware County. Under the DSM program at issue in this case, Columbia was authorized to offer cash incentives directly to residential builders to construct homes that exceeded certain energy efficiency standards. Suburban filed a complaint alleging that Columbia used this program to pay financial incentives to a home builder to displace Suburban as the provider of natural gas to a planned residential subdivision. The Commission entered an order finding that Suburban had failed to prove the allegations in the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Suburban failed to demonstrate that the Commission erred in deciding the complaint in Columbia's favor.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043