Blog Cases Awaiting Decision

As summer begins to wind down, these are the submitted cases on which the blog awaits merit decisions:

State of Ohio v. Raymond Morgan, 2015-0924, argued February 8, 2017.  At issue is whether a juvenile court committed reversible error when failing to appoint a Guardian Ad Litem for an amenability hearing.

State of Ohio v. Sherri Bembry and Harsimran Singh, 2016-0238, argued March 1, 2017.  At issue is whether the exclusionary rule is a proper remedy for the violation of Ohio’s knock-and-announce statute for evidence obtained in the course of executing a valid search warrant.

Dennis Stewart, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Michelle Stewart, Deceased v. Rodney E. Vivian, M.D., et al., 2016-1013, argued April 6, 2017.  At issue is whether the Ohio apology statute also makes statements of fault, error, or liability made by a health care provider inadmissible at trial.

State of Ohio v. Jamie Banks-Harvey, argued April 6, 2017. At issue is whether police officers are permitted to search the contents of an arrestee’s purse after she is handcuffed and placed in a cruiser, but before she is taken to jail or incarcerated.

Nichole Johnson v. Mary E. Montgomery et al., 2016-0790, argued April 6. 2017. At issue is whether an innocent party injured by an intoxicated worker may pursue a claim of negligence against a liquor permit holder, outside the confines of Ohio’s Dram Shop Act, when that permit holder encouraged and profited from the intoxicated worker’s alcohol consumption.

Don Koprivec et al. v. Rails-to-Trails of Wayne County, 2016-0704, argued May 16, 2017.The case involves an appeal and a cross appeal. At issue on the appeal is whether the actions of licensees on property interrupts the “exclusive possession” of an adverse possessor. The issue raised in the cross-appeal is whether the deed involved created a fee simple determinable or absolute.

State of Ohio v. Andrea Beasley, 2016-Ohio-1603, argued May 16, 2017.  At issue is whether an unrefuted proffer by trial counsel regarding off-the-record conversations is sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal.

State of Ohio v. Orlando Batista, 2016-0903, argued May 17, 2017.  At issue is whether R.C. 2903.11(B)(1), which makes it a felony for a person who is HIV positive to knowingly engage in sexual conduct with another person without disclosing that information to the sexual partner, violates the Equal Protection Clauses and/or the right to free speech under the state and federal constitutions.

Oral arguments resume September 12, 2017.

This entry was posted in Ohio Supreme Court Watch. Bookmark the permalink.