The Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral arguments in six cases next week – three in Columbus on April 14 and three more in Carroll County on April 15 as part of a traveling civic education program for students. More than 900 students from four high schools are expected to attend Off-Site Court, which will take place at Carrollton High School.

Traffic stops and searches are the topic in two Off-Site Court cases, and an appeal to be heard in Columbus examines whether an out-of-state car dealership must pay business taxes for vehicle sales and leases to Ohio residents.

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 Court’s oral arguments.

Detailed case previews from the Office of Public Information are available by clicking the case names throughout the article or in the sidebar.

Tuesday, April 14
Taxes on Out-of-State Vehicle Dealers
The Ohio tax commissioner found that a West Virginia dealership owed Ohio about $362,000 in commercial activity tax (CAT) for tax years 2010 through 2016 based on the sales and leases of vehicles to Ohio residents. In Straub Nissan v. Harris, the tax commissioner notes that the dealership collects Ohio sales taxes from Ohio customers and fills out their title and registration forms. The vehicles are ultimately received in Ohio, making the purchases and leases subject to CAT, the commissioner contends. The dealership counters that the CAT is based on where buyers and lessors receive their vehicles, which occurs in West Virginia, not Ohio, when they complete the transaction and drive off the lot.  

Refiling Civil Lawsuits
An investor consulted with an investment firm and claimed the company’s failure in 2014 and 2015 to properly execute a stock sale cost him millions of dollars. He sued the company in Cuyahoga County in 2016, then, using the Ohio saving statute, voluntarily dismissed the case and refiled it in 2018. The investment firm challenged the case, and a trial court dismissed the suit in 2022, finding the investor didn’t submit a required expert witness report. The investor filed a third time in 2023, and an appeals court ruled that the saving statute could only apply to some of his claims . In Kohn v. Glenmede Trust, the Court will consider whether all or none of the claims can be pursued when the case is refiled for the third time.

Sentencing on Firearm Specifications
A Cuyahoga County man fired shots from a revolver at a former friend’s house and into the air in 2023. He was convicted of discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited premises and was also convicted of one-year and three-year firearm specifications. The trial court sentenced the man for the crime and imposed the one-year firearm specification. In State v. Holliman, the county prosecutors argue a trial court doesn’t get to choose whether to impose the one-year or the three-year specification. That decision should be left to prosecutors, they maintain. The man asserts that state law leaves the decision up to trial courts.

Wednesday, April 15 (in Carroll County)
Proving Substantial Impairment
A man was convicted of rape after a DNA match was made a decade after the 2010 assault in Cleveland was reported. His conviction was based on the victim’s substantial impairment. In State v. McClain, the Court will review whether the prosecutor proved the man knew the victim was substantially impaired.

Traffic Stop for Tailgating
In 2020, state troopers pulled over a car on the Ohio Turnpike for driving too closely to a commercial truck. During a subsequent search of the vehicle, the troopers found illegal drugs. The driver in State v. Lebron-Novas challenges the legality of the search, pointing to inconsistencies between a trooper’s testimony and the dash-cam video. The prosecutor contends that the testimony and the video viewed together support the officer’s reasonable suspicion for stopping the driver.

Constitutionality of Drug Dog Sniff
During a 2023 traffic stop in Hamilton County, a driver declined to allow police to search her vehicle. While the police had their dog sniff around the exterior of the car, the dog jumped up and sniffed inside the driver’s side window. The dog responded, indicating the presence of contraband. In State v. Barton, the Court will consider whether the search was illegal because the dog trespassed into her car.