A North Canton property owner is contesting a warrant granted to the city to inspect a six-unit rental property, arguing the Ohio Constitution demands more protections before a government can intrude onto someone’s property. At next week’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court of Ohio will consider whether the city established probable cause for the administrative search warrant allowing the inspection.

The case is one of 12 the Supreme Court will hear during three days of arguments from Jan. 6-8. Arguments begin at 9 a.m. each day and can be watched live by streaming them online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov or the Ohio Channel. The Ohio Channel also archives the oral arguments. 

Probable Cause, Warrants for Rental Inspections
North Canton passed laws in 2022 to enforce safety and sanitation standards with owners of rental properties. The laws prohibit renting properties of fewer than nine units unless the owner obtains a rental license from the city and allows an inspection. When CF Homes refused to allow a city inspection, the Stark County Common Pleas Court issued a warrant for one. In City of North Canton v. CF Homes, the property owner contends that the state constitution doesn’t permit a search unless probable cause is shown that something unlawful is occurring at the property. The city responds that searches for health and safety reasons conducted with a warrant aren’t unreasonable under the state constitution.

Detailed case previews from the Public Information Office about this case and each of the other 11 cases are available by clicking on the case names throughout the article or in the list of cases in the sidebar.

Delayed Trial Contested
In 1985, a Clermont County man shook his girlfriend’s six-week-old infant daughter, which led to severe brain trauma. The child would remain bedridden for the rest of her life. The man was convicted of misdemeanor assault. In 2006, the victim, then a 22-year-old woman, died. An autopsy report linked the injuries from the 1985 assault to her death. The report was submitted to the county prosecutor’s office, which took no further action at that time. In 2022, the man sought to have the record of his 1985 conviction sealed. When the prosecutor’s office was informed, it reopened the case and charged the man with involuntary manslaughter. In State v. Wilson, the Court will consider whether the 16-year delay between the time of death and the manslaughter charge violated the man’s constitutional rights to a fair trial.

Split Trials for Civil Cases
In 2020, two doctors in a kidney care specialty practice believed the organization was being mismanaged. They accused the company of fraudulent billing and opened a rival practice while still under contract with the current company. When the company tried to stop them from continuing their separate practice, the doctors filed a civil lawsuit. A trial court dismissed the doctors’claims but preserved the company’s counterclaims that the doctors’ actions and false accusations harmed the company. The doctors insisted that if a trial proceeded, under state law, the court must divide the trial into two phases. In El-Hitti v. Americare Kidney Institute, the Court will consider whether a single jury should determine if the doctors are liable and owe compensatory damages and punitive damages, or if the jury should first have to find the doctors are liable for compensatory damages before hearing any evidence that would entitle the jury to consider punitive damages.

Solar Farm Permit Rejection
In December 2021, a company applied to the Ohio Power Siting Board to develop, construct, and operate a 70-megawatt solar power electric generating facility on 1,289 acres in Jackson Township in Pickaway County. The Pickaway County Board of Commissioners and the Jackson Township Board of Trustees passed resolutions opposing the project. In November 2024, the board denied the application, finding the project failed to meet the requirement that the project serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” The board stated there was unanimous and consistent local opposition to the facility. The Court in In re the matter of Circleville Solar will consider whether local opposition can lead to the denial of a solar farm permit.

Multiple Counts for Child Endangering
A Cincinnati stepmother was indicted in 2022 on 11 counts of child endangering involving one of her stepsons. During deliberations, the jury asked two questions about which conduct aligned with which of the identically worded counts of the indictment. The judge directed jurors to the jury instructions and the evidence. The jury convicted the stepmother on four counts and dismissed the other seven. The appeals court overturned the convictions and sentence based on the jury’s confusion and lack of differentiation among the counts. In State v. Rodriguez, the county prosecutor maintains that distinct facts were presented at trial to support each of the convictions. The stepmother counters that reversal was necessary because the jury didn’t have adequate instructions to weigh the evidence and carry out its duty.

Recall of Expert Witnesses
In State v. Powell, the Court will consider whether a criminal defendant has an unconditional right to recall expert witnesses during the sur-rebuttal phase of a trial. A woman was convicted of murder and other charges in the death of her mother in Akron and after asserting a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) defense. During the trial, the prosecution’s expert introduced new evidence in rebuttal, challenging the methodologies of the defense experts. The woman sought to recall her experts to address these points, but the trial court denied the request. The appeals court reversed her conviction, ruling the denial impacted her ability to present her defense. The prosecutor argues trial courts have discretion over whether to allow sur-rebuttal evidence and that any error in denying the woman’s request was harmless. She contends the denial undermined her NGRI defense and violated her right to a fair trial.

Requests for DNA Testing After Conviction
A Cuyahoga County man convicted of murder is asking for additional DNA testing to prove his innocence. Following a 2015 shooting death inside a Cleveland bar, the man was arrested, tried, and convicted in the case. After having his initial appeal denied, the man applied for post-conviction DNA testing to have shell casings gathered at the scene analyzed. He believes those results could change the outcome of his case, but the trial court disagreed. The appellate court ruled the trial court needed to provide more explanation about its decision. In State v. Lash, the Court will decide whether courts are required to provide extensive reasoning when accepting or rejecting post-conviction relief applications.

Appeals of Court Orders to Arbitrate Disputes
A contract for a vehicle purchased in Cuyahoga County contained a clause requiring the arbitration of disputes and stated that the clause was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). When payments weren’t made, the creditor sued in municipal court in 2023. Several months later, the creditor asked the court to order that the dispute move to arbitration, and the court agreed. The individuals who purchased the vehicle argue in Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Beard that they had the right under Ohio law to appeal the court order that the dispute had to be arbitrated. The creditor counters that the contract is governed by the FAA, which prohibits appeals of orders to arbitrate.

Disbarment Recommended for Columbus Attorney
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct recommends the disbarment of a Columbus attorney who was convicted in 2014 of eight felonies, including rape and kidnapping. A disciplinary recommendation reached the Supreme Court in 2019, but was returned to the board until all of the attorney’s direct appeals were concluded. In October of this year, the board again recommended that the attorney be disbarred. In Columbus Bar Association v. Armengau, the attorney maintains he was wrongly convicted, argues he isn’t a danger to the public, and asks to be allowed to practice law again. The local bar association counters that the attorney’s serious convictions have been repeatedly upheld in court and warrant disbarment from practicing law.

State Agency Liability for Bridge Renovation Decisions
In Wilkes v. Ohio Department of Transportation, the Court will consider whether the agency can be held liable for injuries stemming from bridge design decisions during construction. In 2017, a man was fatally injured when a sandbag was dropped from a Toledo bridge undergoing renovation. The bridge’s permanent vandal fencing had been removed during construction, and no temporary protective measures were installed. The man’s estate argues the agency failed to mitigate a known risk and should be held to the same standards as private parties in tort cases, meaning the agency needs to protect against harmful acts that are reasonably foreseeable. The agency asserts it is immune from liability for its discretionary policy decisions, including the choice not to install temporary fencing.

Employer Liability in Slip and Fall
In 2019, a superintendent overseeing flooring remodeling work was injured after slipping and falling at the jobsite. He sued the flooring subcontractor company and the employee, alleging they were responsible for the slippery floor. Due to an expired statute of limitations, the case against the employee was dropped, but the injured superintendent continued to pursue the flooring company. However, because the employee was no longer named in the suit, the trial court dismissed the case, and the appellate court affirmed that decision on appeal. Now the Court must decide in Badra-Muniz v. Vinyl Carpet Serviceif the lawsuit against the flooring company can continue even though the employee is no longer a party.

Suing Employers for Employee Errors
In 2022, a patient at a Lucas County hospital filed a lawsuit, claiming she had a seizure, fell from her hospital bed, and suffered injuries. While she alleged the reason for her fall was based on the failures of the hospital employees, she only named the hospital in the lawsuit and not any staff member. The hospital sought to dismiss the case, arguing that under Ohio law, the hospital can’t be held liable without the patient first attempting to hold an employee liable. In Johnson v. Mercy Health Care, the Court will consider whether the patient must pursue an employee for the injuries in order to hold the employer responsible.