A Busy First Quarter: The Ohio Supreme Court Decided Seven More Ohio Constitutional  Cases in the First Quarter of 2024

The Ohio Supreme Court continues to decide cases involving the Ohio Constitution.  In 2023, the court issued 23 opinions that addressed directly or indirectly the Ohio Constitution.  These cases were listed in an in earlier OCN post and summarized under the Court Decisions menu on the website. See link.

And in the first quarter of 2024, the court decided seven more cases (more detailed discussions of which are on the website. These include the following five civil cases and two criminal cases.


Smith v. Ohio State University, ____ Ohio St. 3d ____, 2024-Ohio-764, 2024 WL 947657, ___ N.E.3d ____ (March 6, 2024) (applying discretionary immunity to a suit against the university based on actions taken to curtail in-person instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic). Docket (2023-0009).

Schaad v. Adler, ____ Ohio St. 3d ____, 2024-Ohio-525, 2024 WL 589335,  ___ N.E.3d ____ (February 14, 2024) (upholding a state law that provided that during the COVID-19 pandemic, Ohio workers would be taxed by the municipality that was their principal place of work rather than by the municipality where they actually performed their work). Docket (2022-0316).

State ex rel. Thomas v. Wood County Board of Education, ______Ohio St. 3d ____ , 2024-Ohio-379, 2024 WL 396636,_____ N.E.3d ____ (February 2, 2024) (per curiam) (rejecting a suit seeking to remove a zoning amendment referendum from the ballot; treating the state’s 15% signature requirement as prospective and inapplicable; rejecting the argument that the referendum petition lacked an adequate summary of the zoning amendment; rejecting the argument that the challenged zoning referendum should be taken off the ballot because, if approved, it would be an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation).  Docket (2024-0072).

State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz, ____ Ohio St. 3d ____, 2024-Ohio-200, 2024 WL 251182, ___ N.E.3d ____ (January 24, 2024) (per curiam) (discussing the law-of-the-case doctrine and noting that: “[t]hough the rule is considered one of practice and not a binding rule of substantive law, it is necessary to ensure consistency of results in a case, to avoid endless litigation by settling the issues, and to preserve the structure of superior and inferior courts as designed by the Ohio Constitution”) (internal quotations omitted). Docket (2023-0125).

State ex rel. Jones v. Paschke, ____ Ohio St. 3d ____, 2024-Ohio-135, 2024 WL 186990, ___ N.E.3d ____ (January 18, 2024) (per curiam) (relying on Art. IV. sec. 4( C). of the Ohio Constitution and noting that it states that “[u]nless otherwise provided by law, there shall be a probate division and such other divisions of the courts of common pleas as may be provided by law”). Docket (2023-0611).


Mobarak v. Brown, ____ Ohio St. 3d ____, 2024-Ohio-221, 2024 WL 268894, ___ N.E.3d ____ (January 25, 2024) (per curiam) (rejecting a mandamus petition to review a criminal conviction because the petitioner had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law; relying on the Ohio Constitution, which provides that “[t]he courts of common pleas and divisions thereof shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters * * * as may be provided by law.” Ohio Const., Art. IV, sec. 4(B), and noting that “the court of common pleas is a court of general jurisdiction, with subject-matter jurisdiction that extends to all matters at law and in equity that are not denied to it.” (internal quotations omitted); construing the “provided by law” qualification as “mean[ing] that there must be a statutory basis for jurisdiction” and stating that “R.C. 2931.03 provides that basis, granting the courts of common pleas ‘original jurisdiction [over] all crimes and offenses, except in cases of minor offenses the exclusive jurisdiction of which is vested in courts inferior to the court of common pleas.’” Docket (2023-0369).

State v. Johnson, ____ Ohio St. 3d ____, 2024-Ohio-134, 2024 WL 1869871,  ___ N.E.3d ____ (January 18, 2024) (stating that “perjury is not constitutional error” and that the allegation of perjured testimony by the recanting witness which, at most, amounted to the unwitting use of perjured testimony, is not constitutional error; discussing state and federal cases without independently construing the claim that the refusal to order the evidentiary hearing is a violation of the defendant’s rights to due process of law and a fair trial pursuant to Art. I, sec. 16 of the Ohio Constitution.  Docket (2022-0488).

Scroll to Top