Disputes over the discovery of hydraulic fracturing waste fluids in natural gas wells and the approval of a 2,100-acre solar facility will be heard during oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Ohio next week. The Supreme Court will also consider appeals of six criminal cases that include questions about prolonging a traffic stop that was based on a possible mistake and sealing the records of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The Court will meet Nov. 18 and 19 in Columbus. Arguments can be watched live by streaming online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov and on the Ohio Channel, beginning at 9 a.m. each day. The Ohio Channel also archives the oral arguments. 

Drillers Allege Damages to Wells From Waste Disposal
A state investigation found one of Redbird Development’s injection wells for underground disposal of the fluids used to drill for natural oil and gas had leaked into gas-producing wells in Washington County. One of the wells impacted is operated by Bethel Oil and Gas, which owns about 3,800 acres of land in Washington and Athens counties. Based on the report, Bethel filed a lawsuit against Redbird and 15 other injection well operators, arguing their actions damaged their oil and gas production or would damage their future ability to produce oil and gas.

A trial court dismissed the lawsuit at the initial pleading stage, finding Bethel failed to present sufficient facts to verify its claims. In Bethel Oil and Gas v. Redbird Development, the Court will consider whether there is a “plausibility requirement” that Ohio courts must follow, and whether Bethel had to show in its initial pleading that it was not just possible, but probable, that the injectors caused the widespread damage the company alleged.

Opposition Argues Solar Project Not in Public Interest
Fountain Point Solar Energy received approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board in September 2024 to build a solar facility in Logan County. The facility will span 2,141 acres across a 2,768-acre project area in Bokescreek Township and generate 280 megawatts of electricity. A group called Citizens Against Fountain Point opposes the facility and challenges whether the project serves the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” – a requirement under Ohio law.

In In the Matter of the Application of Fountain Point Solar Energy, the group contends that there is unanimous opposition to the project, and that the board improperly gave extra weight to information submitted by a Bokescreek Township trustee and a local school board member. The group also raises concerns about public safety and the township trustees’ ability to enter into a first responder agreement because of conflicts of interest. The board counters that it properly weighed all testimony and is authorized to decide how to evaluate comments from witnesses. The board argues it logged all opposition to the project and it’s too soon to address a first responder agreement that hasn’t yet been put in place. The benefits and public interest of the project outweigh the downsides, the board concludes.

The Court also will consider arguments in six criminal appeals. Detailed case previews from the Office of Public Information are available by clicking on the case names throughout the article or in the list of cases in the sidebar.

Continuation of Traffic Stops
A Linndale police officer pulled over a driver at night because of a headlight that wasn’t working. During the traffic stop, the officer was walking to the cruiser to check whether the driver had a license and insurance when a second officer, who was at the front of the vehicle, said the headlights were both working. The first officer learned from dispatch that the driver had a warrant and hadn’t reinstated his license. The driver was arrested, and police searched the vehicle, resulting in convictions for drug offenses. The Cuyahoga County prosecutor in State v. Fips argues the officer’s suspicion of a possible criminal offense permitted him to investigate further even if the headlight was operating. The driver asserts that once the basis for the traffic violation was dispelled, he couldn’t continue to be detained to check the validity of his driver’s license.

Cause-of-Death Proof
In 2019, a Franklin County woman connected a man recovering from a drug addiction with a drug dealer. The man bought a small dose of heroin, and the woman drove him home. Hours later, the man was found dead with heroin, kratom, Ritalin, and Benadryl in his system. The go-between was charged with involuntary manslaughter, and a pathologist testified at her trial that the combination of drugs led to his death, but couldn’t say the heroin caused the overdose. The woman was convicted, but an appeals court reversed the conviction. In State v. Seymour, the Court will consider whether the prosecution had to prove that the heroin was a substantial factor in causing the death or that the heroin alone was enough to convict the woman.

Dismissals After Plea Accepted
A man agreed to plead guilty to a rape charge as presented in a bill of information with a minimum prison sentence of three to 11 years and a maximum to be calculated. The day before sentencing, the Knox County prosecutor received the trial court’s approval to dismiss the bill of information, because of errors, and to seek an indictment. Because the penalty for the offense was 15 years to life, the sentence presented to the man was incorrect and a bill of information couldn’t be used for a criminal offense punishable by life in prison. The man was subsequently indicted, tried, and convicted of rape. In State v. Thoen, the man argues that once the trial court accepted his guilty plea in the first case, being indicted and tried for the same offense violated his constitutional protections against double jeopardy. The prosecutor responds that a legally defective plea isn’t the same as a verdict and doesn’t carry the same expectation of finality for a defendant.

Self-Defense Claims
A Belmont County man argues a jury mistakenly convicted him of discharging a firearm into an occupied structure. The convictions resulted from an argument between the man and a handyman he had hired to assist with remodeling work. Both men regularly carried guns, and when they got into an argument in the man’s house, he shot six times at the handyman. Two bullets went into the neighbor’s house across the street. A jury acquitted the man on assault charges, presumedly accepting his claim of self-defense. An appeals court vacated his firearm discharge conviction, finding the trial court must not have explained how the self-defense claim applies to both the assault and discharge offenses. In State v. Bradley, the Court will decide whether the trial court had to explain the man’s self-defense claim more clearly.

Sealing of NGRI Convictions
A Lucas County man was found not guilty by reason of insanity for a 2002 rape and burglary. He was committed to a psychiatric care facility and was released in 2013. In 2022, the trial court denied his request to seal his record. State v. Johnson addresses a conflict among Ohio appeals courts on whether a person found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) is eligible to have their criminal record sealed. The applicant maintains that five Ohio appeals courts have ruled that state law clearly allows any individual who has been found not guilty to ask to seal the record. An NGRI verdict is a type of not guilty verdict, he argues. The Lucas County prosecutor counters that the law doesn’t specifically list NGRI as qualifying for sealing and that expanding the law to include NGRI would threaten public safety.

Evidence Evaluation
A Cuyahoga County man appealed his rape conviction, arguing the accuser provided the only evidence against him and that the accuser’s testimony was inconsistent. The appeals court agreed, vacated the sentence, and ordered a new trial. The county prosecutor appealed the ruling, arguing the appeals court inappropriately expanded the scope of its review and substituted its judgment for that of the jury. In State v. Reillo, the Court will determine whether an appeals court, when weighing the evidence, can only overturn a jury verdict if it points to evidence that clearly conflicts with the testimony used by the jury to convict.