The Ohio Supreme Court will convene next week in Mansfield. Students from 11 high schools will attend the court’s session – part of an educational program about the judicial branch.(by User:OHWiki/CC BY-SA 2.5)

The Ohio Supreme Court will convene next week in Mansfield. Students from 11 high schools will attend the court’s session – part of an educational program about the judicial branch. (by User:OHWiki/CC BY-SA 2.5)

The cases before the Ohio Supreme Court during the March 25 oral arguments in Mansfield may resonate with the more than 500 high-school students expected to attend.

While the nuances and legal issues vary, the facts of each appeal center on a juvenile – teens in an auto accident, a school bus driver’s obligations when dropping off children, and a youth’s sentencing in court.

In re D.S. challenges the constitutionality of notification requirements imposed on a teenager found guilty of a sexual offense and labeled as a juvenile sex-offender. The youth admitted to two counts of gross sexual imposition, and the Licking County court committed him to a juvenile correctional facility for two consecutive six-month terms. He objects to the timing of his sex-offender classification hearing, and he contends that registering his address with law enforcement every six months for two decades violates his constitutional rights.

In Watts v. Sallee, a first-grade student got off her school bus and ran down the street with a friend instead of walking across the road to go home. She crossed the street later and was injured when a car hit her. State law prohibits bus drivers from moving until children are safely on the side of the street where they live. As a government body, the school district maintains it is immune from financial responsibility for the girl’s injuries, and it argues the statute can’t be applied logically to the facts in this case because the bus driver had to continue with her route after the child ran off.

A teenager was killed in an auto accident after her friend attempted to drive across a four-lane divided highway in Pike County and was hit by a truck. The state’s transportation department had installed yellow flashing lights and advance warning signs on the highway before the accident. The state agency in ODOT v. Risner asserts that it can’t be sued for the policy choices it makes about roads and traffic. The agency also contends that it had no duty to upgrade the intersection to standards put in place after the intersection was built.

In-depth summaries of the appeals were released today. Court News Ohio published an article a few weeks ago explaining more details about March’s off-site court session in Richland County. Oral arguments that day will begin at 9 a.m. The arguments will be carried live online at sc.ohio.gov and broadcast live on The Ohio Channel.