Ohio cities and the state disagree on the constitutionality of an Ohio law banning municipalities from regulating flavored tobacco and alternative nicotine products.

A group of 21 Ohio cities is challenging a state law banning them from locally regulating flavored tobacco and alternative nicotine products. In the dispute before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the cities argue the law violates their constitutional right of home rule, the ability to enact their own laws to govern their municipalities. The state counters that the General Assembly can opt to regulate a field uniformly for the entire state. The Supreme Court will hear the case and seven other appeals on June 9 and 10.

Oral arguments begin at 9 a.m. each day in Columbus and can be watched live by streaming them online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov or the Ohio Channel. The Ohio Channel also archives Supreme Court oral arguments.

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.

Tuesday, June 9
Taxability of Bill Payment Services
A company that offers financial e-commerce services in Ohio asked the state tax commissioner for a refund of $1.89 million in sales taxes collected from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2015. The company claimed that sales taxes were incorrectly collected on debit authorization services and bill pay/disbursement authorization services provided to their clients. On appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals agreed that the debit authorization services weren’t taxable, but the tax commissioner needed to review the taxability of the bill pay services. In Checkfree Services v. Harris, the Court will review whether the bill pay services are taxable as automatic data processing or electronic information services under Ohio law.

Home-Rule Challenge to Ban Placed on Municipalities
Across Ohio, cities have passed local laws to restrict flavored tobacco and alternative nicotine products including flavored menthol cigarettes and flavored vape liquids. In 2024, state lawmakers enacted a statute to ban municipalities from regulating the products in any way that conflicts with or preempts the state law. In Columbus v. State, both sides explain that voters adopted the addition of the home-rule provision to the Ohio Constitution in 1912. The attorney general notes that the state can pass “general laws” that are applied uniformly throughout the state. The attorney general contends that the 1912 understanding of “general laws” supports the state’s view that the 2024 ban is constitutional because it is a general law. The 21 cities argue the state law directly regulates municipalities, and the voters in 1912 would have understood that to be unconstitutional when they adopted home rule. The 2024 ban isn’t a general law, but instead aims to improperly limit municipal lawmaking, the cities maintain.

Duty to Register Place of Employment Address
Under state law, a Cleveland man is required as a sex offender to notify law enforcement of certain information, including changes to place of employment address. The man was employed by an employment organization that assigned him to a job with a janitorial company, which sent cleaning crews to various locations in northeast Ohio. During one assignment, the man traveled for several weeks with a crew to clean a children’s camp in Geauga County. He was convicted in 2024 for failing to register his employment address in that county. In State v. Smith, the man argues his place of employment address was at the Cleveland company, and the camp was simply a work site. Based on the registration statute, temporary work sites don’t need to be registered with local law enforcement, the man argues. The prosecutor responds that the man must register his job sites with the local sheriff’s office.

Criminal Resentencing Requirements
A Lake County man was tried twice for crimes he committed during an April 2020 drive-by shooting at an apartment complex. The victim didn’t testify at the man’s first trial, and he received an 11 to 12.5-year prison sentence. Because of trial errors, an appeals court ruled that a second trial was required. The victim testified at the second trial, and more information about the shooting was presented. The man was convicted of the same crimes, and the judge imposed a 17 to 19-year sentence. To hand down a longer sentence at a second trial, the trial judge was required under U.S. Supreme Court precedent to demonstrate that the additional time on his sentence isn’t motivated by vindictive reasons. In State v. Jackson, the Court will consider whether the trial judge provided a sufficient explanation for increasing the sentence.

Wednesday, June 10
Class-Action Lawsuit Against Insurer
Customers of an auto insurance company believed they received less than the actual cash value (ACV) of their totaled cars because the insurer used a new valuation method to determine the amount. The insurer argued that the new adjustment enabled it to better align the ACV with the true cost of a comparable vehicle, noting that most vehicles sell for less than their list price. The customers received approval by a Cuyahoga County trial court to proceed with a class-action lawsuit, and an appeals court affirmed that decision. In Davenport v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, the Court will consider whether the case can be resolved by presenting evidence as a group or whether vehicle owners must pursue their claims on an individual basis.

Appeals of Land Contract Disputes
A Pike County couple sold a house and other structures to another couple through a land contract. The buyers, who still owed the sellers money, took out additional loans and then defaulted on them. One of the creditors asked a trial court to convey the Pike County property to them to satisfy the debt. The owners didn’t participate in the lawsuit because their attorney told them they would receive the balance due on the land contract regardless of who paid the debt. The court awarded the creditors the property but did not require the creditors to pay the owners anything. When the owners appealed, an appeals court dismissed the case as moot. In Drushal v. Miller, the Court will consider whether the trial judge had authority to convey the property to the creditors and whether the owners missed their chance to contest the transfer.

Appeals of Civil Protection Orders
A Franklin County magistrate granted a civil stalking protection order to a woman in 2024 against her ex-boyfriend. The judge reviewed and adopted the decision, which stated that it was a “final, appealable order.” The man appealed, but the appellate court ruled it didn’t have jurisdiction to consider the case because he was required by court rules to first file objections to the order in the trial court. In A.A. v. S.P., the man contends that because the decision was a final, appealable order, he had a substantive right to have his appeal heard even if objections weren’t first filed. He agrees with other state appeals courts that have found they could consider appeals in the same circumstances.

Receiver’s Right to Claim Immunity
After a Logan County powerboat manufacturing company failed to build a customer a boat, the buyer sued. Because of the boat-maker's precarious financial situation, the trial judge presiding over the case appointed a receiver to safeguard more than $1.1 million in company assets. The receiver didn’t have oversight over the boat company owner, who filed for bankruptcy protection. As the case was pending, the owner secretly removed most of the company's equipment and moved to Florida. With nothing left to settle the debt, the boat buyer sued the receiver in federal court for failing to manage the property. The receiver told the federal court he is entitled to immunity from personal lawsuits because he was acting as an officer of the court that appointed him. In Caradimitropoulo v. Kruse, the Court agreed to address the federal court’s question as to whether Ohio law provides immunity to receivers.