Supreme Court case announcements, 3/15/17

The Court has accepted six new cases for review.

State v. Belton is a First District appeal relating to whether the mandatory transfer of certain juveniles to adult courts violates their due process and equal protection rights. The First District had said it did not. The case was accepted and held for the Court's decision on a motion for reconsideration in State v. Aalim. I will write more on Belton, Aalim, and related issues later today or tomorrow. [Update: here.]

In Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Co. the Court accepted two propositions of law regarding the form and interpretation of oil and gas leases, in particular with reference to the existence and scope of an implied covenant to explore further. Broadly speaking, the plaintiff landowners sought a declaratory judgment and quiet title action to terminate the leases on their property due to the defendant's failure to explore beyond the depth of the Gordon Sands formation, which apparently exists some 3000 feet below ground in southeastern Ohio. The Fourth District held that Ohio law does not recognize an implied covenant of further exploration.

LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank and London Insurance Agency is a Tenth District case that appears primarily to substantively ask when a claim for insurance agent or agency negligence accrues. But it includes a second proposition of law regarding the scope of Rule 2.2 of the Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions, which states in part that "The law stated in an opinion of the Supreme Court shall be contained in its text, including its syllabus...and footnotes." The Tenth District below found some conflict between the text of an opinion and its syllabus, and found itself to be bound by the syllabus. The respondent, LGR, did not file a memorandum in response to jurisdiction, as it is permitted to do under Supreme Court Practice Rule 7.03(A)(1). Failing to file any response (not even a waiver of memorandum) is uncommon in the Ohio Supreme Court, which, unlike the Supreme Court of the United States, can and does accept cases without calling for a brief from the respondent. (Indeed, waiving a response to a petition for certiorari is very much the rule in the US Supreme Court, rather than the exception. If that Court takes interest in the case, it will order the respondent to file a brief. I have never seen the Ohio Supreme Court do this, though it surely has the authority to under Practice Rule 7.08(B)(5).)

Capital Care Network of Toledo v. Department of Health is an appeal by the State of a Sixth District decision finding that a regulation requiring ambulatory surgical facilities that provide abortion to have a written transfer agreement with a local hospital presented an undue burden on access to abortion.

In re Adoption of PLH asks whether the determination of whether a putative father "willfully abandon[s]" a mother during her pregnancy, within the meaning of R.C. 3107.07(B)(2)(c), includes a requirement that the putative father failed to provide care and support to the mother. If a putative father has willfully abandoned a mother, his consent is not necessary for the mother to place the child for adoption. [Disclosure: Micheala Stagnaro, who represents the appellant father in this case, is not affiliated with my firm, Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson.]

Finally, Cummings v. Harvey Abens Iosue Co., LPA asked whether the Eighth District improperly dismissed an appeal for failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court accepted, vacated, and remanded for consideration of the appellant's first proposition of law by the court of appeals.