text:
    The STATE EX REL. LENEGHAN et al. v. HUSTED, Secy., et al.
    No. 2018-0866
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    Submitted August 15, 2018 Decided August 23, 2018
    Peggy S. Guzzo, Dublin, for relators.
    Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Halli Brownfield Watson, Renata Y. Staff, and Sarah E. Pierce, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted.
    Isaac, Wiles, Burholder & Teetor, L.L.C., Mark H. Troutman, and Shawn K. Judge, Columbus, for respondent Muskingum County Board of Elections.
    Ronald J. O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy A. Lecklider, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Franklin County Board of Elections.
    Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., Patrick T. Lewis, Cleveland, and Erika Dackin Prouty, Columbus, for proposed intervening respondent, Troy Balderson.
   Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator Melanie Leneghan was a candidate in the May 8, 2018 primary election for the Republican Party nomination for United States Representative for the 12th Congressional District. Leneghan and her co-relator, Kay Clymer, allege that improprieties occurred during the recount of votes in 16 Muskingum County precincts. They seek writs of mandamus compelling respondents, the Muskingum and Franklin County Boards of Elections and Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, to certify official election results that exclude all ballots cast in those 16 precincts.

{¶ 2} For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion of the Muskingum County Board of Elections ("the Muskingum Board") for judgment on the pleadings. However, based upon our independent review under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(C), we sua sponte dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. We deny relators' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, because the proposed amendments would not cure the defects that prevent relators from stating an actionable claim and would therefore be futile. We deny the remaining motions as moot.

The allegations of the amended complaint

{¶ 3} On May 8, 2018, the Ohio Republican Party held a primary election to nominate a candidate for United States Representative for the 12th Congressional District. The field of ten candidates included Leneghan and Troy Balderson, who ultimately was declared to be the winner of the primary. According to relators' amended complaint, the results reported by the Muskingum Board showed that Balderson received approximately 78 percent of the votes cast in that county. Leneghan and Clymer were "suspicious" of the results, in part because, as they state in their amended complaint, the votes for Balderson "were double of any other candidate in any other county in the district, with the exception of Relator Leneghan receiving 44% of the vote in Richland County."

{¶ 4} On May 31, Leneghan submitted a written request for a recount of the votes cast in 16 specified precincts in Muskingum County. The recount was scheduled for June 6.

{¶ 5} The statute governing the procedure for conducting a recount provides that "[a]t the time and place fixed for making a recount, the board of elections, in the presence of all observers who may be in attendance, shall open the sealed containers containing the ballots to be recounted, and shall recount them." R.C. 3515.04. But when one of Leneghan's appointed observers, Nicholas Murdock, arrived at the appointed time at the recount location on June 6, he discovered that the ballots had already been unsealed and sorted by precinct. According to Murdock's affidavit, the director of the Muskingum Board told him that when the ballots were sealed, the precincts had been mixed together, so the Muskingum Board had unsealed the ballot containers and sorted the ballots two days early, on June 4, to ensure completion of the recount in a timely manner.

{¶ 6} The amended complaint avers that "[t]he warehouse [where the recount occurred] consisted of four tables that had names on them for sorting the votes. The names were pre-sorted on the tables by Melanie Leneghan, Troy Balderson, Tim Kane, Other, and No Vote." It is unclear what the amended complaint means by "[t]he names were pre-sorted." (Emphasis added.) To the extent that the amended complaint seems to be alleging that the ballots were divided in advance into piles according to the candidate selected on each ballot, that allegation is not supported by Murdock's affidavit.

{¶ 7} The Muskingum Board staff conducted a manual recount of the ballots in public view, after which the ballots were electronically scanned for verification of the results. Before the Muskingum Board voted to certify the recount results, Murdock requested a copy of the Muskingum Board's official tally sheet. In response, he was given a document dated June 5 , 2018 (the day before), captioned "Election Summary Results," and was told that it stated the results of the recount. According to Murdock, election officials identified this as the same document they would send to the Franklin County Board of Elections ("the Franklin Board"). (Because the 12th Congressional District is a multicounty district, the results must be submitted to the board of elections of the county in which the major portion of the population of the district resides. R.C. 3515.05.) Based on these facts, relators believe that the Muskingum Board conducted an electronic recount a day before the official recount without giving notice to them.

{¶ 8} On June 20, 2018, Leneghan and Clymer commenced the present mandamus action, and on June 28, they filed an amended complaint. Their amended complaint seeks to compel the Muskingum Board to "set aside and not count" the ballots from the 16 Muskingum County precincts at issue in the recount and to certify new results to the secretary of state and the Franklin Board based on the votes from the remaining precincts. Leneghan and Clymer allege that if those ballots were set aside, then Leneghan would win the primary by approximately 1,400 votes. In addition, the amended complaint seeks writs of mandamus compelling Husted and the Franklin Board to amend the official results accordingly. Alternatively, the amended complaint asks us to order a new primary election in Muskingum County for the Republican Party nomination for the 12th Congressional District and to order the Muskingum Board "to reimburse Relator Leneghan the hundreds of thousands of dollars she spent on the primary election," to pay damages, to reimburse Leneghan her recount fees, and to pay relators' attorney fees. Finally, the amended complaint demands a writ of mandamus compelling Husted to investigate the alleged election-law violations that occurred in Muskingum County.

Procedural history

{¶ 9} Husted was the first respondent to file an answer, on July 17. Two days later, the Franklin Board filed an answer and the Muskingum Board filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On July 27, relators filed a motion to strike a portion of Husted's answer.

{¶ 10} On July 30, relators filed a flurry of motions: a motion to strike portions of the Franklin Board's answer, an omnibus motion captioned "Relators' Motion to Strike, Motion to Re-Classify and Motion to Dismiss Respondent Muskingum County Board of Elections Claims Made Within Their Answer and Judgement [sic] on the Pleadings" and then later that same day, amended versions of those two motions. Relators also filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The three respondents all filed memoranda in response to the various motions.

{¶ 11} Meanwhile, on July 19, Balderson filed a motion for leave to intervene. On July 30, relators filed a memorandum in opposition. Two days later, relators filed a motion for leave to file a revised memorandum in opposition to Balderson's motion or, in the alternative, for leave to withdraw their memorandum in opposition.

{¶ 12} On August 8, relators filed a motion to expedite the case and a motion for injunctive relief. The court sua sponte ordered the parties to file any responses by 5:00 p.m. on August 10. In addition to opposition memoranda from the three respondents, the court received a memorandum from Balderson, accompanied by a motion for leave to file. On August 16, relators filed a memorandum opposing Balderson's motion for leave to file his opposition memorandum.

Legal analysis

The motion for judgment on the pleadings

{¶ 13} When considering a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court must construe as true the material allegations made in the complaint, along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in favor of the nonmoving party. Ohio Manufacturers' Assn. v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act , 147 Ohio St.3d 42, 2016-Ohio-3038, 59 N.E.3d 1274, ¶ 10. Judgment is proper only if it appears beyond doubt that the nonmoving party can prove no set of facts entitling it to relief. Id. " 'Thus, Civ.R. 12(C) requires a determination that no material factual issues exist and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Rayess v. Educational Comm. for Foreign Med. Graduates , 134 Ohio St.3d 509, 2012-Ohio-5676, 983 N.E.2d 1267, ¶ 18, quoting State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious , 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 570, 664 N.E.2d 931 (1996).

{¶ 14} The Muskingum Board's motion makes four arguments. First, the motion points out that relators' amended complaint alleges that by opening the ballot containers and conducting the electronic recount prematurely, the Muskingum Board acted "in violation of R.C. 3514.04." And elsewhere, the amended complaint suggests that unsealing the ballots violated " R.C. 3504.04." The Muskingum Board asserts that relators cannot establish the violation of a clear legal duty because R.C. 3514.04 does not exist and R.C. 3504.04 clearly does not apply.

{¶ 15} This is a frivolous argument. The amended complaint cites the correct provision, R.C. 3515.04, eight times, including once in between the two typographical errors, which are on the same page of the amended complaint. The Muskingum Board cites no authority for the proposition that a court should grant judgment on a complaint based on typographical errors regarding the legal authority cited without considering whether the facts alleged would, if true, state a claim for relief.

{¶ 16} Next, the Muskingum Board asserts that judgment on the pleadings is proper because the amended complaint does not present clear and convincing evidence that the alleged violation of R.C. 3515.04 had any impact on the outcome of the election. But a relator is not required to prove her case at the pleading stage. See York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol , 60 Ohio St.3d 143, 144-145, 573 N.E.2d 1063 (1991). The Muskingum Board cites Harmon v. Baldwin , 107 Ohio St.3d 232, 2005-Ohio-6264, 837 N.E.2d 1196, as a case in which this court entered judgment based on a relator's failure to meet the necessary burden of proof. But relief in Harmon was denied after a full election-contest evidentiary hearing, not on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Id. at ¶ 12-13. A Civ.R. 12(C) motion presents only questions of law. State ex rel. McGirr v. Winkler , 152 Ohio St.3d 100, 2017-Ohio-8046, 93 N.E.3d 928, ¶ 12.

{¶ 17} Third, the Muskingum Board submits that judgment in its favor is proper based on evidentiary materials it submitted with its answer, specifically the affidavit of Timothy J. Thompson, Director of the Muskingum Board, who attests that even though the ballot containers were opened before the recount, the Muskingum Board acted properly at all times thereafter and that no ballots were added, altered, or destroyed during the recount. The "pleadings," as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure, consist of the complaint and answer, a reply to a counterclaim, an answer to a cross-claim, and a third-party complaint and an answer thereto. Civ.R. 7(A). A "written instrument" attached to a complaint or answer also qualifies as part of the pleadings for all purposes. Civ.R. 10(C). But not every document attached to a pleading constitutes a Civ.R. 10(C) written instrument. Rather, "the term 'written instrument' in Civ.R. 10(C) has primarily been interpreted to include documents that evidence the parties' rights and obligations, such as negotiable instruments, 'insurance policies, leases, deeds, promissory notes, and contracts.' " Inskeep v. Burton , 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2007 CA 11, 2008-Ohio-1982, 2008 WL 1838343, ¶ 17, quoting 1 Klein & Darling, Baldwin's Ohio Practice 744-745 (2004); see also State ex rel. Vandenbos v. Xenia , 2d Dist. Greene No. 14-CA-14, 2015-Ohio-35, 2015 WL 132530, ¶ 14 (orders and opinions from prior cases between the parties are not part of the pleadings). Moreover, a motion for judgment on the pleadings tests the allegations of the complaint and therefore presents a pure question of law. Chibinda v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-117, 2018-Ohio-1378, 110 N.E.3d 854, ¶ 14. Thompson's affidavit is therefore not a proper basis upon which to grant judgment on the pleadings.

{¶ 18} Finally, the Muskingum Board asserts a laches defense. "The elements of laches are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for the delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party." State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 145, 656 N.E.2d 1277 (1995). Laches may bar relief in an election-related matter if the person seeking relief fails to act with the " 'utmost diligence.' " State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Elections , 137 Ohio St.3d 62, 2013-Ohio-4490, 997 N.E.2d 524, ¶ 30, quoting State ex rel. Fuller v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections , 97 Ohio St.3d 221, 2002-Ohio-5922, 778 N.E.2d 37, ¶ 7. However, a laches defense "rarely prevails in election cases." State ex rel. Duclos v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections , 145 Ohio St.3d 254, 2016-Ohio-367, 48 N.E.3d 543, ¶ 8.

{¶ 19} We reject the Muskingum Board's laches defense. The amount of delay involved-relators became aware of the events surrounding the recount on June 6, filed a complaint on June 20, and amended the complaint on June 28-does not seem excessive, considering that the relevant election was still some time away when the complaint was filed and the litigation is not expedited. (The fact that this is not an expedited case is precisely why the Muskingum Board can file a Civ.R. 12(C) motion, which would not be permitted in an expedited election case, see S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(3).) More importantly, the Muskingum Board has suffered no harm as a result of the alleged delay. The Muskingum Board asserts prejudice based upon the fact that the recount results were reported to the secretary of state on June 7 and therefore the delay "allowed the process to proceed and Respondents continued to process the recount and continue to prepare for the forthcoming general election." But under the Muskingum Board's theory, relators would have had to file suit the same day as the recount to prevent the results from being reported, a burden this court's jurisprudence has never imposed.

{¶ 20} For these reasons, we deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04 review

{¶ 21} "After the time for filing an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court will dismiss the case; issue an alternative or a peremptory writ, if a writ has not already been issued; or deny the request for the writ." S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04(C). Our rules expressly contemplate the possibility of this court sua sponte denying relief in an original action, and we exercise that option in this case because we conclude that the amended complaint does not state a claim for mandamus relief, albeit for reasons other than those set forth in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

{¶ 22} The primary theory of relators' amended complaint is that the Muskingum Board violated the rule codified in R.C. 3515.04 that ballots must remain in sealed containers and must be opened only at the time of the recount, in the presence of the observers. (The amended complaint also alleges other irregularities, which will be discussed below.) The Muskingum Board admits the violation in its answer: "In the presence of Democratic and Republican staff, bags containing the ballots had been opened before the recount for the sole purpose of sorting the ballots by precinct." Thus, there is no dispute that one election irregularity occurred. See O'Farrell v. Landis , 135 Ohio St.3d 181, 2013-Ohio-93, 985 N.E.2d 458, ¶ 11 (O'Connor, C.J., ruling, pursuant to R.C. 3515.08(B), on procedural motions) (an "election irregularity" "must at least involve the potential violation of a constitution, statute, or rule pertaining to the election in question, or defective language on the ballot, or some other egregious defect or fraud in the ballot or election procedure"); Squire v. Geer , 117 Ohio St.3d 506, 2008-Ohio-1432, 885 N.E.2d 213, ¶ 19 (holding that the use of an uncertified voting-machine configuration was an election irregularity "because it violated the pertinent statute and rule"). The question this case presents is what remedy, if any, exists for this violation.

{¶ 23} One possibility is that the law does not provide any remedy for a party harmed by election irregularities in a congressional primary. The Ohio Revised Code provisions governing election contests do not apply to federal offices under the express terms of R.C. 3515.08(A). Rather, "[c]ontests of the nomination or election of any person to any federal office shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of federal law." Id. Unfortunately, federal law does not provide a framework for this particular case either, because the definition of the term "election," for purposes of federal election contests, "does not include a primary election." 2 U.S.C. 381(1). This raises the possibility that the cause should be dismissed as nonjusticiable.

{¶ 24} But dismissal on that basis would ignore this court's constitutional mandamus authority. This court has original jurisdiction in mandamus actions. Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2 (B)(1)(b); State ex rel. Dunlap v. Sarko , 135 Ohio St.3d 171, 2013-Ohio-67, 985 N.E.2d 450, ¶ 8. In a conventional mandamus case, relators would have to demonstrate a clear legal right to have the contested ballots rejected, a corresponding clear legal duty for the respondents to certify new election results, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. See State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections , 115 Ohio St.3d 186, 2007-Ohio-4752, 874 N.E.2d 507, ¶ 8. Relators would have to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. State ex rel. Orange Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections , 135 Ohio St.3d 162, 2013-Ohio-36, 985 N.E.2d 441, ¶ 14.

{¶ 25} But this is not a conventional ballot-access mandamus action. Relators are seeking to undo the certified results of an election, and so this case, like any election contest, is subject to certain constitutional limitations, R.C. 3515.08(A) notwithstanding. In election contests, courts exercise "delegated political authority, not judicial authority," and for this reason, there are "stringent standards" for granting relief in an election contest.

In re Election of November 6, 1990 for Office of Atty. Gen. , 58 Ohio St.3d 103, 105, 569 N.E.2d 447 (1991). A court will not disturb the result of an election " 'unless it is shown that the [election] result was contrary to the will of the electorate.' " (Brackets sic.) Id. , quoting Mehling v. Moorehead , 133 Ohio St. 395, 408, 14 N.E.2d 15 (1938).

Where irregularities in an election are so great and so flagrant in character as to render it impossible to separate the illegal from the legal votes and raise doubt as to how the election would have resulted had such irregularities not occurred, they must be deemed fatal to the validity of the election and warrant the rejection of the entire vote of the election district.

Otworth v. Bays , 155 Ohio St. 366, 98 N.E.2d 812 (1951), paragraph one of the syllabus. The party challenging an election result must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, both the existence of one or more election irregularities and that the irregularity or irregularities affected enough votes to change or make uncertain the result of the election. In re Election of November 6, 1990 at 105-106, 569 N.E.2d 447.

{¶ 26} Here, the factual allegations made in the amended complaint, even if proved true, will not satisfy the elements necessary to set aside an election. Specifically, the amended complaint falls well short of making any allegation sufficient to satisfy the element of causation. The factual allegations of the amended complaint actually serve to establish that the election irregularities did not affect enough votes to change the election.

{¶ 27} Obviously, the mere fact that the sealed ballot containers were prematurely opened would not, alone, affect anything. Relators must also allege that election officials did something improper after the containers were opened, such as stuffing the ballot box with fraudulent Balderson votes or discarding legitimate Leneghan votes. But that is not what the amended complaint alleges. Rather, the amended complaint alleges that the original canvas of votes in May showed a suspiciously large vote tally in favor of Balderson. That result certainly could not have been caused by the premature opening of the ballot containers before the recount.

{¶ 28} At another point in the amended complaint, relators allege that the vote totals in the May 8, 2018 primary dropped by approximately 1,600 as compared to the 2014 primary, despite the fact that the number of registered voters in Muskingum County had risen by approximately 2,000 since 2016. But that fact does not suggest that election officials tampered with the ballots at the recount; rather, it serves to prove that the allegedly suspicious decline in votes existed prior to the recount and therefore was not caused by irregularities in the recount process.

{¶ 29} What relators have not alleged is that the vote totals changed between the initial canvas and the recount, either by a dramatic increase in the number of votes for Balderson or a dramatic decrease in the number of votes for Leneghan. Implicit in the amended complaint is an assumption that an honest comparison of the two vote totals was impossible due to the Muskingum Board's alleged fraud in producing a computer-tally sheet behind closed doors before the official recount and then trying to pass it off as the recount results. But according to the amended complaint, the Muskingum Board conducted a public manual recount. Any remarkable change in the vote totals from what was reported immediately after the primary election would have been patently obvious to Murdock and to Leneghan's other observers. Yet relators allege no such deviation.

{¶ 30} Relators' allegations demonstrate that the anomalies of which they complain existed before Leneghan requested a recount. Relators have not made a single allegation that the premature opening of ballots or the production of a misdated or incorrectly described tally sheet affected any votes. Instead, their entire theory of causation is that these technical violations cast such a cloud of doubt upon the results that the remedy must be to discard all the ballots from these 16 precincts, after which Leneghan should be declared the winner of the primary election. But not every violation of R.C. Title 35 constitutes "fraud" that warrants changing the results of an election. In re Election of November 6, 1990 , 58 Ohio St.3d at 106, 569 N.E.2d 447.

{¶ 31} Relators' alternative claims for relief fail for similar reasons. A writ of mandamus will issue to compel the secretary of state to perform his duty under R.C. 3501.05(N) to investigate election irregularities when his refusal to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Squire v. Taft , 69 Ohio St.3d 365, 368, 632 N.E.2d 883 (1994). Relators do not allege that Husted has refused to conduct an investigation, and in any event, it would not be an abuse of discretion to decline to investigate conduct that, while technically improper, had no substantive impact on the election outcome or the integrity of the results. And if relators are not entitled to a writ of mandamus, then they cannot recover ancillary damages.

{¶ 32} Because relators have not alleged facts sufficient to establish causation-an essential element of undoing the election results-we are compelled to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim unless relators' pending motion for leave to file a second amended complaint would cure the deficiency.

The motion for leave to file a second amended complaint

{¶ 33} Relators' second amended complaint, which they seek leave to file, does not cure the defects in the amended complaint. Relators' stated purpose in again amending the complaint include to cure the typographical errors discussed above, to add some additional statutory authority for their claims, to seek an additional form of relief against Husted (compelling him to issue a certificate of nomination to Leneghan), and to identify another supposedly wrongful act on the part of the Muskingum Board (conducting an audit on the optical scanner the day before the recount). The proposed second amended complaint does not contain any new factual allegations to show that the alleged irregularities affected any votes, much less enough votes to change or make uncertain the result of the election.

{¶ 34} We deny the motion for leave to amend.

The remaining motions

{¶ 35} Eight motions remain for consideration: (1) Balderson's motion to intervene, (2) relators' motion to strike portions of Husted's answer, (3) relators' motion to strike portions of the Franklin Board's answer, (4) relators' omnibus motion to strike, reclassify, and dismiss portions of the Muskingum Board's answer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, (5) relators' motion for leave to file an amended memorandum in opposition to the motion to intervene, (6)

relators' motion to expedite, (7) relators' motion for injunctive relief, and (8) Balderson's motion for leave to file a memorandum in opposition to the motion for an injunction. We deny all eight motions as moot.

{¶ 36} Based on the foregoing, we deny all motions and dismiss the amended complaint.

Motions denied and cause dismissed.

O'Connor, C.J., and French, Fischer, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.

Kennedy and DeWine, JJ., concur in judgment only.

O'Donnell, J., dissents, with an opinion.

{¶ 37} Respectfully, I dissent from the analysis in the majority opinion and its decision to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Rather, based on allegations presented by relators, Melanie Leneghan and Kay Clymer, in their amended complaint-that if the ballots in the 16 Muskingum County precincts were not counted, Leneghan would win the primary-they assert claims for writs of mandamus. But relators have failed to establish the necessary elements to obtain even one writ of mandamus, and therefore, I would deny the writs rather than dismissing the amended complaint.

{¶ 38} "To be eligible for a writ of mandamus, relators must 'establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the board and its members to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.' " State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections , 148 Ohio St.3d 176, 2016-Ohio-5919, 69 N.E.3d 696, ¶ 21, quoting State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth , 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6.

{¶ 39} Here, relators assert requests for writs of mandamus to compel: (1) the Muskingum County Board of Elections to "set aside and not count the ballots from the 16 precincts * * * and amend the results [as] required following the official recount by counting only those votes from the remaining precincts and certifying the results," (2) the Secretary of State, Jon Husted, to ensure the Muskingum County Board of Elections complies with the recount procedures as specified by relators and "to investigate the violations and irregularities that occurred in Muskingum County during the May 8, 2018 Primary," and (3) the Franklin County Board of Elections "to amend the official results * * * after receiving the new certified results" from the Muskingum County Board of Elections. Relators alternatively request that this court order a new election in Muskingum County for the Republican Party nomination for the 12th Congressional District for the full term and to order the Muskingum County Board of Elections "to reimburse Relator Leneghan the hundreds of thousands of dollars she spent on the primary election" and to issue damages and order reimbursement of recount fees paid and reasonable attorney fees.

{¶ 40} In this case, relators failed to establish a clear legal right to have the ballots in 16 Muskingum County precincts "set aside and not count[ed]" and to have the Muskingum County Board of Elections certify new results to the Franklin County Board of Elections and to the secretary of state. Nor have relators established a clear legal duty on the part of the Muskingum County Board of Elections to set aside and not count ballots from 16 precincts based on an irregularity in prematurely opening those ballot boxes or to amend the election results by counting only those votes from the remaining precincts and certify those results, because there is no statutory obligation to do so.

{¶ 41} Therefore, relators have failed to establish the requisite elements for the issuance of writs of mandamus.

{¶ 42} This court has considered the proper adjudication of other requests for writs when relators have failed to establish the elements necessary to obtain a writ. In Sensible Norwood , for example, the relators there "failed to establish a clear legal right to their requested relief and a clear legal duty on the part of the board to provide it," and as a result this court denied the requested writ of mandamus. 148 Ohio St.3d 176, 2016-Ohio-5919, 69 N.E.3d 696, at ¶ 22. Based on relators' failure to establish a clear legal right to relief and a clear legal duty on the part of respondents to provide that relief in this case, I would deny the request for writs of mandamus and deny all remaining motions as moot.

      The 12th District includes all of Delaware, Licking, and Morrow Counties and portions of Franklin, Marion, Muskingum, and Richland Counties. See https://www.sos.state.oh.us/globalassets/publications/maps/2012-2022/congressional_2012-2020_districtmap.pdf (accessed Aug. 20, 2018).

      Clymer is a Muskingum County elector who volunteered as an appointed observer on Leneghan's behalf at the June 6, 2018 official recount at issue in this case.

      The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure apply to original actions filed in this court unless they are clearly inapplicable or they conflict with this court's Rules of Practice. S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.01(A)(2)(b).

      R.C. 3504.04 requires the directors of county elections boards to deliver lists of former-resident voters eligible to vote for presidential and vice-presidential electors to polling places on or before election day.

      Of course, an overall increase in the number of registered voters is not illuminating. The relevant figure would be the number of newly registered Republican voters.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

license: Public Domain

text:
    CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Charles A. TURNER, Defendant-Appellee
    No. 106642
    Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.
    RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 20, 2018
    Michael P. Lograsso, City of South Euclid Director of Law, 1349 South Green Road, South Euclid, Ohio 44121, Michael E. Cicero, 25 West Prospect Avenue, Republic Building, Suite 1400, Cleveland, Ohio 44115, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
    Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, By: Cullen Sweeney, John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defenders, 310 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, Tyresha Brown-O'Neal, 614 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 1144, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., E.T. Gallagher, P.J., and Keough, J.
    JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
   SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶ 1} Appellant, city of South Euclid ("the City"), appeals the decision of the South Euclid Municipal Court to grant the pretrial dismissal of two cases alleging criminal trespass against appellee, Charles A. Turner, upon his motion to dismiss. Upon review, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

{¶ 2} In each of the two underlying cases, S.Euclid M.C. Nos. CRB 1600738 and CRB 1700174, Turner was charged with criminal trespassing in violation of South Euclid Codified Ordinances ("SECO") Section 541.05(a)(4) and R.C. 2911.21(A)(3), respectively. The charges arose from incidents occurring on December 20, 2016, and March 7, 2017.

{¶ 3} The trial court's opinion set forth the underlying facts as follows:

On December 20, 2016, Defendant Turner stood in the parking lot of the South Euclid Municipal Complex next to a vehicle bearing a raised hood with a sign, wedged between the vehicle body and (raised) hood which read: "Mayor Welo Supports Police Brutality By Police Chief. Off. McCann & Others."
On March 7, 2017, Defendant Turner appeared in the lobby of the South Euclid Municipal Complex with a sign hanging from a string around his neck which read: "Mayor Welo Supports Brutality By Police Chief." In each instance, Defendant Turner was criminally charged with violating South Euclid Trespassing Codified Ordinance 541.05(a)(4).
The Prosecution contends and Defense does not dispute that prior to the December 20, 2016 incident, representatives from the City of South Euclid posted what the Prosecution has referred to as "Mayor Welo's Rules and Regulations." Said "rules" provided the basis for the Trespassing charges.
The "rules" state in part:
The South Euclid Municipal Center includes the interior walkways, corridors, lobby [and] parking lot,
* * *
Said buildings are restricted to those individuals or groups who have legitimate business dealings with the City of South Euclid and/or who have previously been issued a permit to use said buildings. No person or persons without prior approval of the Mayor and/or Safety Director or his or her designee shall do any of the following in the South Euclid Municipal Center, Community Center or Service Department... Conduct any protests, demonstrations, carry or possess any type of sign, posted, notice or plaque... Failure to cease and desist and vacate the premises when asked to do so by [a] law enforcement officer may result in the imposition of criminal charges. The issuance of a permit to use any of the Municipal Center or Community Center shall not be basis [sic] on or influenced by race, color, creed, religion, gender, age, disability status, sexual orientation, national origin or political affiliation. Effective this 15th day of December 2016.

{¶ 4} Turner filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge in each case. He argued that under the facts of the case, the criminal trespassing ordinance and statute were unconstitutional "as applied" to him.

{¶ 5} The trial court found "[b]ased upon the facts as agreed to by the Prosecution and Defense, 'Mayor Welo's Rules and Regulations' is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied." The court determined that " 'Mayor Welo's Rules and Regulations violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution" and granted the motion to dismiss.

{¶ 6} The City filed this appeal pursuant to R.C. 2945.67(A). Under its first assignment of error, the City argues that the motion to dismiss should have been denied because it raised matters that were not capable of determination without a trial on the general issue. We agree and find that the trial court erred in dismissing the underlying cases.

{¶ 7} We review the decision to dismiss an indictment de novo. State v. Wynn , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103824, 2017-Ohio-4062, 2017 WL 2378115, ¶ 16. A de novo review requires an independent review, without any deference to the trial court's determination. Id.

{¶ 8} Crim.R. 12(C) allows a party to file a pretrial motion regarding "any defense, objection, evidentiary issue, or request that is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue." Crim.R. 12(F) allows a trial court to "adjudicate a motion based upon briefs, affidavits, the proffer of testimony and exhibits, a hearing, or other appropriate means."

{¶ 9} The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained:

Crim.R. 12 empowers trial courts to rule on "any defense, objection, evidentiary issue, or request that is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue." Crim.R. 12(C). In conducting this pretrial review, courts may look to "evidence beyond the face of the indictment." State v. Brady , 119 Ohio St.3d 375, 2008-Ohio-4493, 894 N.E.2d 671, at ¶ 18. However, a Crim.R. 12 ruling may not decide "what would be the general issue at trial." Id.

State v. Palmer , 131 Ohio St.3d 278, 2012-Ohio-580, 964 N.E.2d 406, ¶ 22.

{¶ 10} Turner was charged with criminal trespassing. Criminal trespass pursuant to SECO Section 541.05(a)(4) provides:

(a) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:
(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.

{¶ 11} Criminal trespass pursuant to R.C. 2911.21(A)(3) states:

(a) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:
(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access.

{¶ 12} This is not a case where the criminal trespassing law simply does not apply to Turner or where there is no set of circumstances under which he can violate the law's requirements. Compare Palmer at ¶¶ 20-23 (trial court may dismiss an indictment under R.C. Chapter 2950 if Ohio's sex-offender regulations do not apply to the accused); accord State v. Ortega-Martinez , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95656, 2011-Ohio-2540, 2011 WL 2112726, ¶¶ 16-17 (the trial court did not impermissibly decide what would be a general issue for trial in ruling on a motion to dismiss when the indictment for failure to verify was predicated on an unlawful reclassification.) Nor is this a case where the motion to dismiss did not embrace what would be a general issue at trial, but rather challenged an ability to defend the case and the right to receive a fair trial. Compare Brady , 119 Ohio St.3d 375, 2008-Ohio-4493, 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 18 (finding the motion did not embrace what would be the general issue at trial, but instead "it alleged that the FBI's enforcement of federal child pornography laws against his expert compromised his constitutional right to a fair trial by restricting the expert's ability to perform tasks deemed necessary to Brady's defense.").

{¶ 13} Rather, this case is analogous to State v. Kalman , 2017-Ohio-7548, 84 N.E.3d 1088 (4th Dist.). In Kalman , the defendant was charged with criminal trespass for entering a restricted area in a courthouse and surrounding premises to place protest stickers on a directory after he was given notice that he was no longer permitted to return to the site. Id. at ¶¶ 1-9. Kalman filed a pretrial motion to dismiss, arguing that he had a privilege to be on the ramp and the stairs immediately below the directory because the area was a public forum open to free expression of speech. Id. at ¶ 12. The trial court denied the motion, and appellant was convicted of the charge following a bench trial. Id. at ¶¶ 19-20. On appeal, Kalman argued that enforcement of the criminal trespass statute violated his right to free speech under the United States and Ohio Constitutions, while the state argued that Kalman did not have a "privilege" to be within the restricted area under the First Amendment. Id. at ¶ 23. The appellate court noted that it was inappropriate for the trial court to consider the issue via a pretrial motion to dismiss because the determination required consideration of a general issue for trial. Id. at ¶ 11, fn. 1. The concurring opinion elaborated as follows:

Crim. R. 12(C) provides for filing a motion to dismiss only where it addresses a defense or issue that is "capable of determination without a trial of the general issue." Here, the issue of whether Kalman had a privilege, constitutional or otherwise, to be at the specific location was central to deciding the ultimate issue of criminal trespass. In essence, Kalman's pretrial motion to dismiss was a motion for summary judgment, which the criminal rules do not authorize. See Katz & Giannelli, Baldwin's Ohio Practice, Criminal Law (3rd ed.), § 47:4.
Kalman had two choices to put the issue of privilege before the court: 1) go to trial and make a Crim. R. 29 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or 2) enter into a stipulation of facts and submit the case to the court on written memoranda. See State v. Bennett , 2nd Dist., 2013-Ohio-4610 [2013 WL 5708452], Froelich, J. concurring.

Kalman at ¶ 48, Harsha, J., concurring.

{¶ 14} Also on point is State v. Gaines , 193 Ohio App.3d 260, 2011-Ohio-1475, 951 N.E.2d 814 (12th Dist.), where the court found Brady had been misapplied and determined the motion to dismiss "addressed the very issue to be determined at trial and required a determination of the general (and ultimate) issue for trial, to wit, whether the Gaines' alleged acts constituted extortion under Ohio law." Id. at ¶ 21. Similar to this case, in Gaines the record revealed that the trial court violated Crim.R. 12(C) where its "decision dismissing the indictments clearly shows that the trial court considered the alleged facts of the case and applied Ohio and federal cases to the facts." Id. at ¶ 21. As stated in Gaines , "Whether the evidence shows the Gaines committed the indicted offense of extortion is a question to be determined later by the trier of fact." Id. ; accord State v. Gaines , 2d Dist. Clark No. 2017-CA-67, 2017-Ohio-8906, 2017 WL 6209652, ¶ 17 ("Gaines's arguments about whether Officers Peterson and Holbrook lawfully stopped and detained him are directly related to the general issue at trial, i.e., whether Gaines committed the offense of obstructing official business.").

{¶ 15} In this case, Turner argues that under the facts of the case, the criminal trespassing ordinance and statute were unconstitutional "as applied" to him. Whether Turner had a privilege, constitutional or otherwise, to be at the South Euclid Municipal Center is central to deciding the ultimate issue of criminal trespass.

{¶ 16} Upon our review, we find the issues raised in Turner's motion were matters that were not capable of determination without a trial on the general issue. Accordingly, the trial court erred by prematurely considering a general issue for trial and in granting Turner's motion to dismiss. We are not persuaded by Turner's argument that the case should be dismissed in the interests of justice pursuant to the court's plenary authority under Crim.R. 48(B).

{¶ 17} The first assignment of error is well taken. Because the motion was improperly decided, the second assignment of error is not properly before us.

{¶ 18} Judgment reversed. Case remanded.

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR


text:
    IN RE Application of OHIO POWER CO.
    2017-0752
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 1, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
    Sua sponte, parties ordered to file a response, if any, to intervening appellee's suggestion of mootness within ten days.


text:
    IN RE SHERRILLS
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 1, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On application for leave to institute a legal proceeding in the Ohio Supreme Court. Application for leave denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. MAXCY v. LUCAS CTY. BD. OF ELECTIONS
    2018-1242
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 1, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On relator's motion for reconsideration. Motion denied. Motion of Nathaniel Livingston Jr. for leave to intervene as relator denied, and motion to strike respondent's memorandum opposing relator's motion for reconsideration and motion to consolidate with case No. 2018-1432 denied as moot.
    O'Donnell and French, JJ., would deny all motions.
   DeGenaro, J., dissents and would grant relator's motion for reconsideration, with an opinion joined by O'Connor, C.J., and Fischer, J.

{¶ 1} Respectfully, I disagree with the majority's decision to deny relator Sandy Bashaw's motion for reconsideration in this matter. We should reconsider our decision in State ex rel. Maxcy v. Saferin, --- Ohio St.3d ----, 2018-Ohio-4035, --- N.E.3d ---- ("Maxcy I").

{¶ 2} This court may grant a reconsideration motion filed under S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02 to "correct decisions which, upon reflection, are deemed to have been made in error." State ex rel. Huebner v. W. Jefferson Village Council, 75 Ohio St.3d 381, 383, 662 N.E.2d 339 (1996). The rule provides that a "motion for reconsideration shall not constitute a reargument of the case." S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.02(B). Insofar as this court in Maxcy I wrongly decided the case based on issues never argued by the parties, Bashaw's motion-which urges this court to reconsider those issues raised by this court sua sponte-is appropriate and should be granted.

{¶ 3} I am deeply troubled by the practical ramifications of this court's decision in Maxcy I. It in effect gives a minority of a municipality's legislative authority veto power over all citizen-initiated charter-amendment proposals. It chains the will of the people to the political whims of a city council. It makes ballot access more difficult for citizens, especially for those most lacking in pecuniary resources or political clout. And as Justice Fischer admonished in his dissenting opinion in Maxcy I, "[s]uch a situation, in which a legislative authority is given unchecked authority to prevent citizens from exercising express constitutional power, is untenable and unconstitutional." Maxcy I at ¶ 49 (Fischer, J., dissenting). Access to the ballot is essential to self-governance in a representative democracy. It is the mechanism the people use to assert their sovereignty over their local legislative body.

{¶ 4} Further, this court's decision made sweeping constitutional pronouncements without the benefit of briefing by the parties. There are multiple plausible readings of Article XVIII, Sections 8 and 9 of the Ohio Constitution. Compare Maxcy I, --- Ohio St.3d ----, 2018-Ohio-4035, --- N.E.3d ----, at ¶ 15-22 (majority opinion) ( Article XVIII, Sections 8 and 9 require the municipal legislative authority to pass an ordinance instructing the board of elections to place the proposed charter amendment on the ballot upon submission of a sufficient petition) with Maxcy I at ¶ 34-42 (Fischer, J., dissenting) (proposing two alternative interpretations: (1) Article XVIII, Section 9 may apply only to referenda and (2) the word "and" in Article XVIII, Section 9 could be treated as the functional equivalent of "or," and therefore a proposed charter amendment could be submitted to the electors by the municipal legislative authority when 10 percent of the electors have signed petitions in its favor). In her motion for reconsideration, Bashaw advances yet another, slightly different but equally plausible interpretation. More specifically, Bashaw asserts that when read in context with the related constitutional provisions, the language and comma placement in Article XVIII, Section 9 means that there are two distinct, independent paths to charter amendment: first, an amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the municipal legislative authority and second, an amendment proposed by 10 percent of electors subsequently shall be submitted by the municipal legislative authority to the board of elections without the legislative authority first passing an ordinance.

{¶ 5} Notably, respondents decline to address the constitutional issues directly, taking "no position" on the changes Bashaw seeks to the guidelines set forth in Maxcy I. Therefore, we are still left without the benefit of argument by the parties.

{¶ 6} Instead, respondents argue that the relief sought "is or soon will be moot" because absentee voting for the November 6, 2018 election is already underway and because city council passed an ordinance after Maxcy I was announced sending the proposed amendment to the board for placement on the ballot at a special election, which respondents state will occur "sometime in 2019." Respondents' mootness argument is unavailing. Many expedited election matters, since they are filed in close proximity to an election, will arguably be moot by the time a motion for reconsideration is finally decided by this court. Moreover, this court has recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine when there " 'remains a debatable constitutional question to resolve.' " Smith v. Leis, 106 Ohio St.3d 309, 2005-Ohio-5125, 835 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 14, quoting Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St.3d 28, 505 N.E.2d 966 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus. Insofar as the court in Maxcy I sua sponte decided constitutional questions based on a legal theory not raised or briefed by the parties, those issues have not been fully and fairly resolved. Therefore, mootness should not preclude us from considering Bashaw's motion for reconsideration.

{¶ 7} Consistently with the dissenting opinion in Maxcy I, --- Ohio St.3d ----, 2018-Ohio-4035, --- N.E.3d ----, at ¶ 50 (Fischer, J., dissenting), I would hold that "[b]ecause Article II, Section 1f of the Ohio Constitution expressly reserves the power of initiative to the people of municipalities, and because nothing in Article XVIII expressly constrains that power," Article XVIII, Sections 8 and 9 do not dictate the resolution of this case or preclude us from addressing the constitutionality of the amendments to R.C. 3501.11 contained in 2016 Sub.H.B. No. 463-the issue that was fully briefed by the parties. I would hold that Bashaw's proposed charter amendment is an initiative petition subject to R.C. 3501.11 and that R.C. 3501.11(K)(1) is unconstitutional to the limited extent that it incorporates R.C. 3501.38(M)(1)(a), which impermissibly allows the board of elections to determine whether a "petition falls within the scope of a municipal political subdivision's authority to enact via initiative." See Maxcy I at ¶ 51-53 (Fischer, J., dissenting).

{¶ 8} Accordingly, I would grant the motion to reconsider and grant the writ.

O'CONNOR, C.J., and FISCHER, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.


text:
    ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 1, 2018
    OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE RESULTS OF THE JULY 2018 OHIO BAR EXAMINATION
    On July 24, 25, and 26, 2018, the Ohio Bar Examination was administered in Wilmington. The results of that examination were released on October 26, 2018. Out of 863 applicants, 603 (69.9 percent) received passing scores; out of 712 first-time applicants, 79 percent received passing scores. The names, cities, and counties of the successful applicants appear below.
    The oath of office will be administered to applicants who were successful on the examination and who have satisfied all the Supreme Court's other requirements for admission. The oath will be administered during a special public session of the Supreme Court that will be held at the Palace Theatre, 34 West Broad Street, in Columbus, on Tuesday, November 13, 2018.
    On November 13, at 10:30 A.M., the oath will be administered to eligible applicants from the Ohio State University, Capital University, University of Dayton, University of Cincinnati, and Northern Kentucky University. At 2:00 P.M., the oath of office will be administered to eligible applicants from Cleveland State University, Case Western Reserve University, University of Toledo, Ohio Northern University, University of Akron, and other, out-of-state law schools.
      Allen   Shelby Lynn Core Catherine Mary Evans Emily Coy Kerber Jonathan Michael Lischak   Spencerville Lima Lima Lima     Ashland   Brian Keith Kellogg   Ashland     Auglaize   Zachary Marchal Holscher   Minster     Brown   Jonathan Dale Walker   Georgetown     Butler   Ryan Nicholas Agee Rachel Marie Armstrong Andrew Ray Barnes Samuel Benedict Fogle Jr. Jonathan Noah Fox Christina Nichole Harrison Hunter Grant Martin Tyler Joseph Noonan Margaret Dalton Stork   Middletown West Chester Liberty Township Fairfield Hamilton Hamilton Liberty Township Hamilton Hamilton     Clark   Elizabeth Catherine Rigel   Springfield     Clermont        Tobias Lewis Eisenlohr Allison Kay Ernst Justin Robert Przezdzieeki   Cincinnati Amelia Loveland     Cuyahoga   Alisa Rose Adams Jake William Aerni Grace Kelly Barnard James Richard Bedell Nicholas David Bevan Martin Charles Bielat Nicole Shahinian Blatchford Lena Buttkus Rachel Nicole Byrnes Patrick Gerard Campbell Kelynn Issa Carter Michael Louis Centa Janine Marie Cerny Elizabeth Crystal Childers Samantha Marie Cira Anthony Cirranello Jr. Alaina Catherine Clark Jenna Christine Colucci Brandilyn Marie Cook Lindsay Marie Cook Mary Elizabeth Csarny Kimberly Michele Cunningham John Nicholas Dagon Jr. Connor James Davin Taylor Celeste DeClerico Robert Owen Donegan Jr. Jeremy Steven Dunnaback Gretchen Anny Ebner Jessica Leigh Edelstein Issa Mohamad Elkhatib Stephanie Marie Farah Joseph Owen Flannery Christian David Foisy Savannah Marie Fox Sarah Marie Freer Alexis Marie Gacey Eleanor Levine German Grant Brandon Gieseke Madelyn Julia Grant Allison Susanne Hall Elaine Virginia Hanson Robert Clinton Harms Kathryn Pauline Harris Michael Evan Hattery Stacey Nicole Hauff Shannon Lisa Henry Breanne Lu Hitchen Aaren Rebekah Host Cary Peter Steven Jones Rachel Marie Kalayjian Jonathan Richard Kapus Terrence James Killeen Jr.   Cleveland Cleveland Solon Cleveland Brecksville Cleveland Heights Shaker Heights Lakewood Cleveland Lakewood Cleveland Willoughby Cleveland Brooklyn Highland Heights Cleveland Brooklyn Westlake Lakewood Lakewood Solon Olmsted Falls Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Broadview Heights Bay Village University Heights Orange Village North Olmsted Broadview Heights Lakewood Cleveland Cleveland Lyndhurst Cleveland Heights Cleveland Cleveland Highland Heights Cleveland Heights Westlake Cleveland Heights Cleveland Heights University Heights Berea Broadview Heights Cleveland Seven Hills Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Heights Cleveland      Philip Chadwick King Jeremy Lesley Klein Nicole Kay Kline Christopher James Kolezynski Ryan Mitchell Krisby Matthew Alexander Kurz DeAngelo Arsenio LaVette Mira Lendel Brittany Nicole Lockyer Maya Lugasy Zachary Charles Maciaszek Joseph Zayan Mamari Joshua Mychael Mandel Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez Marcus James Mazurowski Robert Lawrence McEvoy Christian David McFarland Joseph William MeHugh Alexander James Messina Jessica LeAnne Mitchell Erika Molnar Marcus Le Notaro James Patrick Oliver Amanda Wilson Orr Danielle Limon Parker Adam James Parker-Lavine Katlyn Ayn Patton Maureen Therese Pavicic Olivia Briana Pedersen Mason Andrew Pesek Dinola Emerald Phillips Christopher Charles Razek Thomas Edward Rovito Andrew David Rutsky Daniel Louis Schiau II Patrick James Sennish Cristiana Maria Sibley Zachary Brian Singerman Leah Marie Slyder Derek William Smith Michelle Margaret Smith Zachary John Stackhouse Stephanie Ann Starek Travis Nathan Teare Taylor Michael Thompson Phillip Kee Turner Brooke Lynne Tyus Jennifer Nicole Villyard Nicole Elizabeth Vincent Katerina Andrea Voronova Lydia Elizabeth Warkentin Martine Celeste Wilson Kristi Lynn Winner Brian Mark Yusko   Pepper Pike Solon Cleveland Parma Heights Euclid Bay Village Mayfield Heights Parma Cleveland Cleveland Heights Parma Heights North Olmsted Cleveland Heights Cleveland Cleveland Strongsville Shaker Heights Cleveland Heights Bay Village Parma Brecksville Lakewood Lakewood Cleveland Heights Cleveland Cleveland Heights Cleveland Brook Park Cleveland Cleveland East Cleveland South Euclid Parma Solon Cleveland Lakewood Cuyahoga Falls Cleveland Lakewood Parma Cleveland Heights Rocky River Richmond Heights Broadview Heights Westlake Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Pepper Pike Cleveland Cleveland     Darke   Andrew Luis Fernandez   Greenville      Brittany Marie Johns   Greenville     Delaware    Yass A. Benis Brittany Nichole Boyer Christopher Michael Calpin Megan Nicole Davis Steven Crede Hiestand Tyler Douglas Lane Mary Elizabeth Lawson Ralph Harold Lusher III Timothy Robert Luskin Devin Michael Trainer Teddy Raven Webb   Powell Galena Westerville Sunbury Powell Lewis Center Westerville Powell Lewis Center Sunbury Columbus     Erie   Tyler Drake Bewley Melissa Ann Kent Nolan Emmett Murray Jessica Lynn Paule Addison Marie Spriggs   Berlin Heights Vermilion Sandusky Sandusky Vermilion     Fairfield   Samantha Virginia Rupp Scott Christopher Shugart Morgan Leigh Tendam   Baltimore Pickerington Pickerington     Fayette   Aubrey Lane Kiger Nathan Zukowitz   Washington Court House Washington Court House     Franklin   Shahed Loay Al-asadi Daniel Scott Albrecht Justine Alece Allen Kyle Thomas Anderson Nora Margaret Anderson Josef Jabra Asfoura Lauren Lee Augostini Jordan Thomas Benson Madison Marie Berry Mary Carol Bockstahler Jacob Bridenbaugh Brandt Natalie Patricia Bryans Clair Elise Bullock John Hanlon Burnside Alison Marie Elizabeth Buzzard Robert Douglas Castricone Jr. Anthony Charles Chambers Abigail Fuhng Chin ' Josiah Christopher Collier Stephanie Eileen Crawford Kevin Michael Cripe   Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Hilliard Columbus Columbus Pickerington Columbus Columbus     Margaret Mary Dengler Margaret Alexandra Derethik Cristina Nicole Dickos Robert Russell Doersam Dexter Warren Dorsey Kyle Thomas Downie Brian Doyle-Wenger Haily Ly Duong Evan Caleb Ecos Sarah Victoria Edwards Eliana Amalia Elizalde John Charles Ferrell Christopher Joseph Gawronski Jennifer Lynn Hayes-Jimenez Mohamad Kamal Haykal Benjamin Theodore Hemmelgarn Jennifer Leigh Hengst Scott Adams Herkamp Elizabeth Margaret Hodder Shaina Aviva Hombach Zachary Robert Hoover Andrew James Hopkins Chuqing Huang Krista Rae-Lynn Hudson Chaz Edward Hutchison Sarah Elizabeth Ingles Devin Matthew Jacobs Sujuan Danieyell Johnson Alexander Charles Karcher Jordan Clarke Kennedy Sean Paul Klammer Chelsey Marie Kovach Erika Mead Kramer Kimberly Michelle Land Samuel Lewis Ryan Andrew Liddy Thomas Jay Loeb Janelle Nicole Lopez Amber Nicole Lucci Brooke Ashley Mangiarelli Katharine Rachel Markijohn Delmas Maurice Miller Brian Michael Morgan Amanda Marie Morris Lidia Christine Mowad Kelsey Jolene Mullen Silvia Monica Munguia Atanacio Alexandria Nichole Nagel Charles Whitney Noble III Connor Andrew Organ Brittnee Renee Pankey Quails Chandni Patel James O'Rourke Payne III David Christopher Pelletier Brian Michael Perry Courtland Anthony Perry Andrew Christopher Pfeifer Jordan Leigh Powers   Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Dublin New Albany Grove City Blacklick Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Westerville Columbus Columbus Columbus Dublin Columbus Columbus Hilliard Powell Whitehall Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Hilliard Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Blacklick Columbus Columbus Columbus Westerville Columbus Dublin Columbus Dublin Columbus Columbus Columbus Dublin Reynoldsburg Westerville Columbus Hilliard Hilliard Blacklick Columbus Columbus      Paige Mackenzie Rabatin Reyad Maher Rasul Lydia Ford Reback Alicia Nicole Rector Paul Wilson Reiser Rachel Alexandra Rinehardt Terrance Dane Roberts Porsha Martina Robinson Brenon Robert Russell William Joseph Ryan Courtney Cheyenne Sackett Anthony Christopher Sallee Paige Nicole Schaffer Samantha Jai Scherger Kelsey Marie Schiffer Larae Christine Schraeder Samuel Adam Seeds Clark Burgess Seiling Jesse Jay Phillip Shamp Kevin Daniel Shimp Michael Benjamin Silverstein Lauren Denise Simmons Laura Leigh Soltis Jhannelle Tiffani Afrique Spottswood Thomas Neil Spyker Christopher Nicholas St. Pierre Adam Timothy Steele Charles David Stewart Zackary Lane Stillings Melissa Ann Stimpert Amanda Marie Strausbaugh Emily Jane Taft Maxwell Samuel Taylor Andre Luis Tirado Chakir' Chimene Underdown Angelina Monique Vega Breezy M. Warner Krista Dawn Warren Taylor Paige Waters Donald Wiggins Jr. Alexis Demia Wilder Christopher Gerrard Wincek Jr. Matthew Francis Pio Wisniewski Tanner Scott Wolffram Joseph Blake Womick Katherine Ann Woodford Kevin William Zamora   Columbus Columbus Columbus Canal Winchester Columbus Columbus Upper Arlington Columbus Westerville Columbus Columbus Columbus Dublin Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Dublin Columbus Columbus Columbus Groveport Columbus Columbus Columbus Gahanna Columbus Columbus Worthington Worthington Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Westerville Columbus Columbus Columbus Reynoldsburg Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus     Fulton   Nathan James VanDenBerghe   Delta     Geauga   Amy Catherine Alesei Robert William Cordiak Kristen Anna Elia Alanna Christine Guy   Chagrin Falls Chagrin Falls Chesterland Chagrin Falls      Alexander James Hurtuk Shannon Rose Lear Torrin Kurt Treu   Chagrin Falls Chardon Chagrin Falls     Greene   Christian Nicholas Diederich Nicole Kristine Dietz Megan Alexandra Hammond Bret Canada Knickerbocker Navil Moniruzzaman Aida Montes Peifer Steven Doak Potts Jordan David Rader Patricia Starling Riley   Xenia Spring Valley Yellow Springs Xenia Beavercreek Yellow Springs Xenia Beavercreek Fairborn     Guernsey   Brandon Dale Lippert Patricia Ann Norris   Salesville Cambridge     Hamilton   Jordan Bacon Rebecca Marie Baibak Rachel Elizabeth Barr Alexandra Maryjean Berry Michael Ryan Briach Glenn Lukus Burton Brianna Renay Garden Chelsea Jean Chalk Melanie Cheek Bailey Renee Drexler Christopher Jay Drummonds Shannon O'Connell Egan Alexander Robert Ehrenschwender Joshua Charles Evans Jordan Marie Feldkamp Dylan James Gould Stephanie Lessard Harris Hsiao-Ching Hung Margaret Mary Johnson Everett Nathaniel Jones III Ryan Anthony Kenny Celia Susan Klug Cristina Krussewski Tat'yana Lavrinenko Tyler Joseph Liston David Andrew Lopez Timothy John Lynch Jr. Elizabeth Marie Mahon Lucas B. McKaig Jaclyn Elizabeth Miller Kalisa Daniela Mora Emma Kristin Morehart Jennifer S. Mullins John Sayre Payne Ellen Hope Phillips   Cincinnati I Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Blue Ash Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Blue Ash Cincinnati Cincinnati      Adam Maxwell Pitchel Katelyn Elizabeth Price Colleen Elizabeth Reilly Joshua Michael Reintjes Emily Sara Roberts Christina Navery Rogers Cullen Patrick Rooney Clay Chandler Sabourin Rebecca Paige Elise Salley Alexandra Temple Saunders Christopher Michael Sawyer Stephanie Jessica Schmalz Nancy Michelle Sheckler Jeffrey Andrew Snider James Arthur Stagnaro Amanda Brooke Stubblefield Thomas Jordan Kehl Swedenburg Daniel James Treadaway Ashton Lea Tucker Alexa Elizabeth Wainscott Travonte Jaquan Warren Natalie Catherine Weber William Matthew Weigel Kenneth Neil Westwood Luke Whitaker White Ruby Martin Wilz Kaeanna Kathleen Wood Philip A. Worsham Jr.   Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Loveland Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati Terrace Park Cincinnati Terrace Park Cincinnati Cincinnati Cincinnati     Hancock   Nicholas Ralph Napolitano Kaden James Rieck Weaver Alexandra Inez Woods   Findlay Findlay Findlay     Hardin   McKenzie Jade Klingler   Kenton     Highland   Sara Elizabeth Barger   Hillsboro     Hocking   Amber Michelle Elyse Mahan   Logan     Holmes   Moriah Elizabeth Schmidt   Shreve     h Huron   Brian Louis Donnamiller Justin David Stoll   Norwalk North Fairfield     Knox        Stefany K. Meryo   Mount Vernon     Lake   Bryan Michael Badalamenti Marie Kathleen Bordley Sarah Rose Higgins Hannah Patricia Oster Lee Edward Seitz Matthew Joseph Turkalj Brandon Anthony Wojtasik   Willoughby Mentor Willoughby Painesville Mentor Mentor Willoughby     Licking   Tyler Jacob Compton Rachel Lea Elwood Chynna Lashaye Kelley Erika Kristine Messbarger Christian Holland Robertson II Ann Margaret Roche Andrew Paul Rowan   Granville Newark Reynoldsburg Croton Heath Newark Pataskala     Logan   Jessica Lauren Haushalter   Bellefontaine     Lorain   Noor Eida Bahhur Priscilla Lee Berthold Eric Michael Collins Brandon Michael DeFoe Benjamin Steven Fuchs Rachel Lynn Hazelet Tiffany Marie McElhaney Brendan O'Shea Whitted   Avon North Ridgeville Avon Avon Lake Avon Lake Avon Elyria Amherst     Lucas   Andrew Joseph Allman LaRon Christopher Aces Bankston Alexander Michael-Davis Bayoneto Adam Michael Borgman Richard Anthony Frelin Jordan Tyler Krai Melissa Sue Lenz Ian Joseph McCarthy Michael Andrew Ragan Eric Dennis Ricker Monica Ann Sass   Maumee Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo     Madison •   Mackenzie Lauren Ferguson   West Jefferson     Mahoning   Anthony Gerard Alfano   Lowell ville      Annamarie Elizabeth Braga Mark Joseph Gayetsky Frank Timothy George Doriyon Chante Glass Katherine Marie Mangapora   Canfield Poland Boardman Youngstown Canfield     Marion   Edwin Matthew Bibler Chloe Alexandra Goodlive   Marion Marion     Medina   Nicholas James Muirden Holland Anita Anjuli Lambert Theresa Marie Lanese Dustin David Likens Chelsea Nicole Shortland   Wadsworth Brunswick Brunswick Wadsworth Medina     Mercer   Evin Zane Bachelor   Celina     Miami   Hillary Alysse Fry David Harris Jackson Roth   Covington Piqua     Montgomery    Daniel John Berens Jr. Jessica Taylor Shae Bernard Ryan Richard Black Hilary Law Borton Manuel DeJesus Cardona-Nieves Ebony Davonne Davenport MiMi J. DeGrow Alexandra Laine-Gieringer John Mathias Lintz Matthew Christopher Notaro Joseph Jonathan Paley Charles Dean Pfister Rachel Ann Richart Anthony Charles Satariano Shawna Michelle Sorrell Jacob Jay Stephens Alexander Michael Tatham John Michael Vervoort Michael Ryan Walczak Ashley Elizabeth Warwar Ann Charles Watts   Dayton Dayton Dayton Dayton Dayton Dayton Miamisburg Dayton Dayton Dayton Dayton Dayton Centerville Kettering Kettering Dayton Dayton Vandalia Dayton Dayton Dayton     Muskingum    Taylor Paige Martin   Zanesville     Ottawa        Melissa N. Jordan   Oak Harbor     Pickaway   Jordan Andrew Treece   Mt. Sterling     Portage   Brett Robert Bencze Elizabeth Ann Benshoff Walter Charles Blackham Cecily Jane Mullins Nicholas Andrew Schneckenburger Linda Mathewson Young   Atwater Ravenna Aurora Ravenna Ravenna Aurora     Preble   Leslie Ann Collins   West Alexandria     Richland   Michael Lee Brown Jennifer Renee Harmon   Lexington Ontario     Ross   Keith Alan Washburn   Chillicothe     Stark   Nicholas Jacob Bagnolo Kathryn Elaine Bartolomucci Andrew John Byler Patrick Michael Cannell Ian Robert Crawford Caitlin Grace Duckworth Patrick Michael Dunn Reina Christine Fostyk Ashley Marie Fuchs Allie Sue Johnston Kyle Aaron Maurer Christine Awele Nwajei Mitchell Thomas Rozaieski Bonnie Blue Twinkles Sullivan Kyle Douglas Tisdale David Elliot Wareham Viktorija Zdraveva   North Canton Canton Canton Canton North Canton Louisville Canton North Canton Massillon Massillon Canton Canton Louisville Canton Uniontown North Canton Canton     Summit   Jeananne Marie Ayoub Grant Edward Bilinovich Annamarie Therese Bowman Leah Kathryn Brady Maria Therese Ciccolini Robert Logan Coon Eva Sofia Cuollo Joseph Gus Daher   Akron New Franklin Cuyahoga Falls Stow Uniontown Akron Twinsburg Hudson      Walter Nicholas Dannemiller III Nicolette Everyn Drotos Zachary Russell Durant Andrew Lawrence Francus Hanne Lore Marie Gambrell Paul Joseph Hanus Vanessa Anne Hemminger Stephen Edward Herchek Peter Mullarkey Kahnert Ryan Joseph Kinney Vincent William LaGuardia Frank Gerard Mazgaj Jr. Connor Patrick McHugh Cynthia Marie Menta Brian Daniel Merklin Vincent James Michalec Chelsea Marie Niggel Justin Tyler Powell Ryan Christopher Robinson Katie Elizabeth Rourke Angel Sanchez Lauren Catherine Schoenewald Lauren Elizabeth Smethers Robert Michael Eugene Quentin Starcher Alyssa Marie Tesone Brock Anderson Witting Amber Nicole Zwick   Cuyahoga Falls Aurora Cuyahoga Falls Akron Akron Akron Akron Akron Northfield Akron Fairlawn Uniontown Cuyahoga Falls Reminderville Fairlawn Akron Stow Akron Uniontown Akron Akron Cleveland Akron Akron Cuyahoga Falls Copley New Franklin     Trumbull   Theodore William Oltmann Anthony G. Rossi IV   Hubbard Warren     Union   Katherine Ruth Johnston McKenzie Rachael McElroy Brigid Eileen Sharek   Plain City Richwood Plain City     Warren   Gregory Robert Dick Brian Patrick Dunlay Jennifer Bailey Elam Jessica Mae Francis William Kyle Gross Kaitlyn Olivia Hawkins Sally Dorothy Heuker Elias Charles Sayre Danielle Christine Wayland Eric Richard Wead Benjamin Carter White   Mason Maineville Mason Morrow Maineville Morrow Mason South Lebanon Morrow Springboro Lebanon     Washington    Donald William Burton   Marietta     Wayne        Joshua Evan Montgomery Freeland Dominic Oliverio Liz Rochelle Weber   Smithville Marshallville Sterling      hWood      Michael Robert Anspach Mark Angelo Celso Antiporda Michael Peter Cavanaugh Morgan Louise Spitler   Perrysburg Perrysburg Bowling Green Millbury      Out-of-State Applicants      John Edward Abaray Bijan Michael Aboutorabi Abigail Lynn Aguilera Esperanza Lorraine Alcazar Matthew John Ambrose Cory Nikolas Barnes Delaney Anne Barr Dakota Lee Beachler Hanna Elyse Borsilli Jeffrey Adam Byrne Jr. Courtney Elizabeth Carr Lauren Nicole Chisner Rachel Lee Coles Jacquelyn J. Cowan Caroline Grace Cox William Everett Crouse III Michael Wade Darpino Nicholas Michael Eadie Megan Lynn Ebenschweiger Tory La Quan Finley Brittany Monique Fletcher Andreah Stephanie Frenn Taylor Lauren Gamm Katelin Leigh Gedon Peter Joseph Glaab rV Angela Megan Gray Mitchell Lawrence Guc Maxwell James Hopkins Petra Julia Ingerson Bergman William Myska Irvine Zachariah August Johnson Anthony Joseph Juszak Morgan Taylor Keilholz McDaniel Mortimer Kelly Jefferson Clinton Mitchell Kisor Audry Marie Klossner Kelsey Ann Kornblut Matthew Gregory Kriege Allie Jean Krueger Carlin Gabrielle Littles Courtney Janae Lynch Carolyn A Marks Alyssa Maureen Miller   Louisville Birmingham Greendale Visalia Penfield Pittsburgh Rockford Taylors New Baltimore Louisville Louisville Savannah York Wheeling Knoxville Fort Mitchell Bridgeville Lancaster Villa Hills Cypress Las Vegas Wheeling Union Omaha New Boston Richmond Hill Monroe Independence Fort Wright Houston Fort Thomas Birmingham West Harrison Forest City Greendale Arlington Clarksville Highland Heights Wolfratshausen Lake Worth Covington Princeton Newport   KY AL IN CA NY PA IL SC MI KY KY GA PA WV TN KY PA NY KY TX NV WV KY NE MI GA MI KY KY TX KY MI IN NC IN VA TN KY FL KY NJ KY     Corey Alan Morris Pawan Oad Bennett Marie Parker Jared Matthews Pease Brett Daniel Pollock Richard Carlson Price Jr. Andrew Samuel Radin William Harold Ray James Douglas Rebok Emily Mae Rector Keturah Theodora Reed Rachael Florence Rolfsen Andrea Lynn Salvino Zachary Allen Schisler Rebecca Hayes Sheehan Ricardo Juan Simmonds Brittany Kaye Skibowski Danyal Jon Solomon Rob Andrew Spicer Melissa Anne Springer Morgan Nicole Staric Matthew Eugene Steratore Max Nathan Sussman Braedon Edwin Tabor Kevin Friedrich Teran Robert Lee Thompson Valerie Annick Villacampa Kirsten Annelise Vuksic Matthew Robert Wagner Alexandra Colleen Walker Zachary John Weber Joshua Raymond White   Cold Spring Highland Heights Fort Thomas Auburn Pittsburgh Roswell Fort Thomas Fort Thomas Erlanger Ravenswood Jamaica Florence Fleming Island Bay City Covington Huntsville Warsaw Covington Fort Thomas Highland Heights Portland MeMurray Bal Harbour Fort Thomas Highland Heights Louisville Piano Piano Covington Newport Newport Fremont   KY KY KY IN PA GA KY KY KY WV NY KY FL MI KY AL IN KY KY KY OR PA FL KY KY KY TX TX KY KY KY IN


text:
    STATE EX REL. O'DIAM v. GREENE CTY. BD. OF COMMRS.
    2018-0447
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 5, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MEDIATION MATTERS
    In Mandamus. Respondents shall file response to complaint within 21 days. The following cases have been returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.


text:
    STATE EX REL. DEMATTEO v. STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYS.
    2018-1531
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 5, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MEDIATION MATTERS
    The following case has been referred to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.


text:
    STATE EX REL. GREENE CTY. BD. OF COMMRS. v. O'DIAM
    2018-0399
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 5, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MEDIATION MATTERS
    In Prohibition.
    The following cases have been returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01.


text:
    BALDWIN-NAZARENE v. WESTIN HOTEL CINCINNATI
    2018-1357
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 6, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   Miscellaneous case. On respondent's motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise move to dismiss. Sua sponte, motion stricken as untimely pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.03(B)(2)(b).


text:
    IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF ROSENBERGER
    2018-1494
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 6, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS
    On appellant's application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.


text:
    IN RE Judicial Campaign Complaint Against MCCARTY
    2018-1575
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 6, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
    Pursuant to Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)(1) and R.C. 2701.11, the Supreme Court appoints the following judges to serve on the five-judge commission to consider the report of the hearing panel of the Board of Professional Conduct in 2018-1575, In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Thomas Michael McCarty:
   Judge Nancy Fuerst Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Eighth District)

Judge Deborah A. Alspach Marion County Court of Common Pleas (Third District)

Judge Fanon A. Rucker Hamilton County Municipal Court (First District)

Judge Eugene Lucci Lake County Court of Common Pleas (Eleventh District)

Judge Michael T. Hall Second District Court of Appeals (Second District)

The court designates Judge Nancy Fuerst as chair of the commission. Pursuant to R.C. 2701.11, Stephanie E. Hess, Esq., interim administrative director of the Supreme Court of Ohio, shall serve as secretary to the commission, with authority to sign entries and orders on behalf of and at the direction of the commission or its chair.

All pleadings and documents in this matter shall be filed with the clerk of the Supreme Court. The original and seven copies of all documents shall be filed. Service on the commission shall be made by serving the secretary. The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio shall apply to all proceedings before the commission, except as otherwise ordered by the court. The clerk of the Supreme Court shall serve all orders of this court and the commission on the parties to this action.


text:
    IN RE SKELTON
    2018-0924
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 6, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    DISCIPLINARY CASES
    On respondent's motion to purge contempt. Motion granted.


text:
    IN RE APPLICATION OF OHIO POWER CO.
    2017-0752
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 6, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
    Sua sponte, parties ordered to file a response, if any, to intervening appellee's suggestion of mootness no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, November 9, 2018. This entry supersedes the entry issued by the court in this case on November 1, 2018.


text:
    IN RE Application of OHIO POWER CO.
    2017-0749
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 6, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
    Sua sponte, parties ordered to file a response, if any, to intervening appellee's suggestion of mootness no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, November 9, 2018.


text:
    STATE EX REL. WELLSTON CITY SCHOOL DIST. BD. OF EDN. v. OHIO FACILITIES CONSTR. COMM.
    2017-1709
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus. On relator's amended motion for leave to file amended complaint. Motion granted. On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'Donnell, Kennedy, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.
   O'Connor, C.J., and French and Fischer, JJ., dissent and would deny the motion to dismiss and grant an alternative writ.


text:
    STATE EX REL. CLEMONS v. KASICH
    2018-1188
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus. On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed. Relator's "motion to expedite and emergency relief" denied.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


author: O'Donnell, J., dissents.

text:
    JONES v. COSS
    2018-1136
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Prohibition. On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.
   O'Donnell, J., dissents.


text:
    IN RE Judicial Campaign Complaint Against LOMBARDI
    2018-1576
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 6, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
    Pursuant to Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)(1) and R.C. 2701.11, the Supreme Court appoints the following judges to serve on the five-judge commission to consider the report of the hearing panel of the Board of Professional Conduct in 2018-1576, In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against David Gessler Lombardi:
   Judge Nancy Fuerst Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Eighth District)

Judge Deborah A. Alspach Marion County Court of Common Pleas (Third District)

Judge Fanon A. Rucker Hamilton County Municipal Court (First District)

Judge Eugene Lucci Lake County Court of Common Pleas (Eleventh District)

Judge Michael T. Hall Second District Court of Appeals (Second District)

The court designates Judge Nancy Fuerst as chair of the commission. Pursuant to R.C. 2701.11, Stephanie E. Hess, Esq., interim administrative director of the Supreme Court of Ohio, shall serve as secretary to the commission, with authority to sign entries and orders on behalf of and at the direction of the commission or its chair.

All pleadings and documents in this matter shall be filed with the clerk of the Supreme Court. The original and seven copies of all documents shall be filed. Service on the commission shall be made by serving the secretary. The Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio shall apply to all proceedings before the commission, except as otherwise ordered by the court. The clerk of the Supreme Court shall serve all orders of this court and the commission on the parties to this action.


text:
    STATE EX REL. RODGERS v. CUYAHOGA CTY. COMMON PLEAS COURT
    2018-1205
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus. On respondents' motions to dismiss. Motions granted. Cause dismissed. Relator's "motion to traverse respondent's motion to dismiss" denied.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    WOLF v. ELEVENTH DIST. COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES
    2018-1213
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Mandamus. On respondent's motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE EX REL. HAYNIE v. ADULT PAROLE AUTH.
    2018-1321
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE EX REL. AREGA v. WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORR. INST.
    2018-1330
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    FEISTER v. LAROSA
    2018-1335
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE EX REL. KING v. WELLS
    2018-0865
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   In Prohibition. On omnibus motion for immediate removal, for an order to refer, and for the appointment of a three-member review panel under Gov.Jud.R. II, Section 4. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE v. TAYLOR
    2018-1315
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On review of an order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are ordered to brief the issue stated at page 4 of the court of appeals' entry filed August 27, 2018: "Prior to ordering a defendant to pay court-appointed counsel fees pursuant to R.C. 2941.51(D), must the trial court make an explicit finding that the defendant has or reasonably may be expected to have the means to pay some or all of the cost of his or her legal representation?"

The conflict case is State v. Christman, 12th Dist. Preble Nos. CA2009-03-007 and CA2009-03-008, 2009-Ohio-6555.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2018-1243, State v. Taylor, and briefing in Nos. 2018-1315 and 2018-1243 shall be consolidated. The parties shall file two originals of each of the briefs permitted under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.04 and include both case numbers on the cover page of the briefs. The parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.01 through 16.04.

O'Donnell, J., would hold the cause for the decision in 2018-0449, State v. Johnson.

French, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. HEINEY
    2018-1326
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion to stay judgment of court of appeals and admit appellant to bond pending appeal. Motion denied.

O'Connor, C.J., and Fischer, J., dissent.


text:
    GORDON v. TURNER
    2018-1312
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    LRC REALTY, INC. v. B.E.B. PROPERTIES
    2018-1262
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion to stay. Motion granted.

O'Connor, C.J., and Fischer and DeWine, JJ., dissent.


author: Kennedy, J., dissents.

text:
    STATE v. MCFARLAND
    2018-1116
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.
    O'Donnell and French, JJ., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.
   Kennedy, J., dissents.

DeGenaro, J., not participating.


text:
    RODGERS v. MAUSSER
    2018-1216
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MERIT DECISIONS WITHOUT OPINIONS
    Miscellaneous case. On respondents' motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
    O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, DeWine, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.


text:
    STATE v. WERE
    2006-1578
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellant's application for reopening. Application denied.


text:
    STATE v. BEASLEY
    2014-0313
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellant's application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac. R. 11.06.

Application denied.

Fischer, J., dissents and would grant the application as to proposition of law No. II.


author: Fischer, J., not participating.

text:
    HAMMOCK v. BRUCE
    2018-1317
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Fischer, J., not participating.


author: Fischer, J., dissents.

text:
    STATE v. MACKSYN
    2018-1318
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Fischer, J., dissents.


text:
    IN RE A.W.
    2018-1182
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Appeal accepted on proposition of law No. I.
   O'Connor, C.J., would accept the appeal on all propositions of law.

French and DeGenaro, JJ., would also accept the appeal on proposition of law No. II.

Fischer, J., would also accept the appeal on proposition of law No. IV.

O'Donnell, Kennedy, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.


text:
    IN RE ADOPTION OF A.C.B.
    2018-1300
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Fischer, J., would hold the cause for 2018-0181, 2018-0182, 2018-0350, and 2018-0351, In re Adoption of B.I.
    O'Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, J., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. TORRES
    2018-0878
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    FORD v. WEST
    2018-1170
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. HUDSON
    2018-1171
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


author: DeGenaro, J., dissents.

text:
    STATE v. HUSTON
    2018-1187
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    French, J., dissents and would accept the appeal and hold the cause for 2017-1069, Girard v. Giordano.
   DeGenaro, J., dissents.


text:
    STATE v. CLINTON
    2014-0273
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On appellant's application for reopening under S.Ct.Prac. R. 11.06. Application denied.


text:
    STATE v. HAMMOCK
    2018-1316
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Fischer, J., not participating.


author: O'Connor, C.J., dissents.

text:
    STATE v. TAYLOR
    2018-1243
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2018-1315, State v. Taylor, and briefing in Nos. 2018-1243 and 2018-1315 shall be consolidated. The parties shall file two originals of each of the briefs permitted under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.04 and include both case numbers on the cover page of the briefs. The parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.01 through 16.04.
    DeGenaro, J., would hold the cause for the decisions in 2017-1579, State v. Braden, and 2018-0449, State v. Johnson.
   O'Connor, C.J., dissents.


text:
    STATE v. JACKSON
    2018-1193
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   Fischer, J., dissents.


text:
    STATE v. MCQUEEN
    2018-1194
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    BERKHEIMER v. REKM, L.L.C.
    2018-1199
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Kennedy and French, JJ., dissent.


text:
    STATE v. TUCKER
    2018-1201
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. RHODEN
    2018-1207
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. SHUSTER
    2018-1217
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. MCDANIEL
    2018-1219
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. CURRY
    2018-1220
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   Fischer, J., dissents.


text:
    BERRYHILL v. KHOURI
    2018-1226
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    DAHL v. CLEVELAND STATE UNIV.
    UC Express
    2018-1239
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. PRYOR
    2018-1275
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
    Fischer and DeGenaro, JJ., dissent and would accept the appeal on proposition of law No. I.


text:
    STATE v. MILLER
    2018-1306
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. BOYLE
    2018-1313
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. WOOD
    2018-1324
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


author: DeGenaro, J., not participating.

text:
    STATE EX REL. ARNOLD v. GALLAGHER
    2017-0830
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
   DeGenaro, J., not participating.


text:
    STATE EX REL. KEITH v. DEPT. OF REHAB. & CORR.
    2017-1015
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. KEITH v. DEPT. OF REHAB & CORR.
    2017-1214
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    WATERFALL VICTORIA MASTER FUND 2008-1 v. RITTENHOUSE
    2018-0857
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
   DeGenaro, J., not participating.


text:
    DEAN v. STATE
    2018-0859
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.


text:
    WENNING v. ADVANCED SPINE JOINT & WELLNESS CTR., L.L.C.
    2018-1203
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. FRANKLIN
    2018-1212
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. WHITMAN
    2018-1222
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW
   O'Donnell, J., dissents.


text:
    STATE v. BRADLEY
    2018-1263
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    STATE v. SMITH
    2018-1340
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW


text:
    JOHNSON v. SLOAN
    2016-1284
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
    O'Donnell and DeGenaro, JJ., not participating.


text:
    STATE EX REL. JOHNSON v. CUYAHOGA CTY. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
    2017-0272
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 7, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
    O'Donnell and DeGenaro, JJ., not participating.


text:
    BROWNE v. ARTEX OIL CO.
    2018-0942
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 9, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    RECONSIDERATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS
    On appellants' motion for reconsideration. Motion denied. On appellees' motion to dismiss. Motion denied.
    DeGenaro, J., dissents and would grant appellants' motion for reconsideration and deny appellees' motion to dismiss.


text:
    MASON v. CHIEF INSPECTOR, Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
    2018-1130
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 9, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS
    In Mandamus. On relator's application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed. Request for costs and expenses denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. AREGA v. WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORR. INST.
    2018-1330
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 8, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   In Habeas Corpus. On petitioner's motion to compel. Motion denied as moot.


text:
    STATE EX REL. RODGERS v. CUYAHOGA CTY. COMMON PLEAS COURT
    2018-1205
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 8, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   In Mandamus. On relator's motion in objection and motion to strike. Motions denied as moot.


text:
    IN RE A.P.
    2018-1587
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 8, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
   This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal. Upon review of the appeal, it appears that the case involves termination of parental rights. Accordingly, it is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that this case shall proceed according to the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio that pertain to cases involving termination of parental rights. Appellee's memorandum in response shall be filed within 20 days.


text:
    MAHONING CTY. BAR ASSN. v. MALVASI
    2014-2146
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 13, 2018
    CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS
    DISCIPLINARY CASES
    On respondent's application for termination of probation. Application denied.


text:
    IN RE MINKIN
    Supreme Court of Ohio.
    November 13, 2018
   CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

On recommendation by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law. Recommendation adopted. Respondent, Keith Michael Minkin, Attorney Registration No. 0034036, reinstated to the practice of law.

In re Report of the Commission on Continuing Legal Education.

Keith Michael Minkin (#0034036), Respondent.

Case No. CLE-2003-34036

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

ORDER

This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(6)(A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 2001-2002 reporting period.

On December 5, 2003, this court adopted the recommendation of the commission, imposed a sanction fee upon respondent, and suspended respondent from the practice of law pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(3) and (5)(A)(4). The court further ordered that respondent would not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until respondent complied with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in former Gov.Bar R. X(7), complied with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, complied with the December 5, 2003 order and all other orders of the court, and this court ordered respondent reinstated.

On October 5, 2018, the commission filed a recommendation pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(7)(B)(2), finding that respondent has paid all fees assessed for noncompliance, has made up all deficiencies, and is now in full compliance with all requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and recommending that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. The commission certified that respondent had completed the credit hours of continuing legal education required during the suspension by this court's order of suspension. Respondent has satisfied all the requirements of this court's order of suspension.

Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that the recommendation of the commission is adopted and respondent, Keith Michael Minkin, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law.