The city of Columbus enacted laws in 2022 to curtail aspects of firearms use. The laws put a cap on high-capacity magazines for firearms and required safe storage of guns when a child can access them. Opponents of the measures challenged the laws. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction, placing the laws on hold while the case is reviewed by the courts.

The city contests the injunction and wants the laws to take effect while the case is pending. In its appeals to an appellate court and now the Ohio Supreme Court, the city argues the government should always have the right to appeal a preliminary injunction that prevents a law from being implemented.

The Supreme Court will consider the dispute in Doe v. Columbus next week at oral arguments.

The six anonymous individuals opposing the laws contend that the restrictions are unconstitutional. The opponents say a preliminary injunction prevents an unconstitutional law from being imposed until a court can rule on the matter. The opponents also argue the city hasn’t met the requirements in Ohio law for appealing a preliminary injunction.

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office will join Columbus for arguments before the Court. The attorney general agrees that all levels of government represent the people and are harmed when enacted laws are blocked from going into effect. Because of this “irreparable harm,” the government should be permitted to appeal any preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of laws, the office’s amicus brief states.

As far as whether the Columbus restrictions on gun owners are constitutional, the attorney general takes the opposing view, noting the state and the city “could not disagree more.”

Anonymous Individuals File Lawsuit in Delaware County
The challenge to the 2022 Columbus laws was filed in Delaware County Common Pleas Court. The court denied the city’s request to move the case to Franklin County to consolidate it with a case pending there.

The five John Does and one Jane Doe argued the new laws violate both the right to bear arms in the Ohio Constitution and a state law about gun rights. The Delaware County court granted the injunction the Does requested. Columbus appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which dismissed the case in November 2023. In a two-sentence order, the Fifth District indicated it agreed with the Does that it couldn’t hear the case because the injunction wasn’t a final appealable order.

The Supreme Court accepted the case to review the legal issues about whether the city could appeal the preliminary injunction.

Disagreement Centers on Whether Remedy Will Be Available After Final Judgment
To appeal a preliminary injunction, it must be a final order, which is determined by conditions in R.C. 2505.02(B). The parties in this case primarily disagree about whether the city would have a meaningful or effective remedy later, through an appeal after the final judgment in the case. If the city has a meaningful remedy that it can later pursue, then the court order isn’t final and the city cannot appeal.

The city argues laws are crafted to protect people, and a preliminary injunction is a rare circumstance that causes serious harm to the community. With the new gun laws, gun-owning residents of Columbus don’t know if they need to comply with them or not, and Columbus residents may encounter gun violence that would otherwise be prevented by the laws, the city maintains. Because the laws can’t apply retroactively if the city prevails in a later appeal, the delayed implementation will cause harm in the interim that can’t be remedied, the city concludes.

The Ohio Council of Churches and the village of Scio, Ohio, submitted amicus briefs in support of the city’s positions.

The Does counter that when a preliminary injunction maintains the status quo in the law, the party objecting to the injunction isn’t harmed. And because the injunction doesn’t ring a bell that can’t be unrung, there also is no harm, the Does argue. Nor can a municipality be harmed when it is stopped from enforcing an unconstitutional law, such as the Columbus gun laws, the Does assert. They maintain that Columbus will have the opportunity to appeal later after the trial court rules.

The Does point to practical concerns if the government can always and immediately appeal preliminary injunctions – such as delays that prolong final decisions on the merits of cases. The delays occur because a trial court halts its proceedings and takes no further action until the appeal is resolved. A bright-line rule permitting the government to always appeal these types of preliminary injunctions doesn’t align with R.C. 2505.02(B), they conclude.

Watch Oral Arguments Online
The Supreme Court will hear 12 cases during three days of oral arguments next week. Four cases, including Doe, will be heard on March 11. The Court will consider four appeals each day on March 12 and 13. Oral arguments begin at 9 a.m. They will be streamed live online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov and on the Ohio Channel, where they are archived.

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, March 11
Government Immunity
The city of Cleveland and a lifeguard were sued after a man died while swimming at an indoor city pool. The lifeguard monitored the pool from a folding chair next to the elevated lifeguard chair. She said she stood up and walked around the elevated chair to check on the man, who was at the other end of the pool, and found him on his back at the pool bottom. In Hoskins v. Cleveland, the city argues it is immune from liability for the death. The executor of the man’s estate contends that the exception to government immunity for physical defects applies. The city asserts the elevated lifeguard chair wasn’t broken, and the lifeguard’s choice to use the lower folding chair doesn’t qualify as a defect. The executor responds that the chair setup created a blind spot that obstructed the lifeguard’s view of the entire pool.

Waiting Periods
In 2016, a man was sentenced in Franklin County to a mandatory three-year prison sentence for a firearm specification, plus 11 years for other crimes. He received 762 days credit for time he spent in jail while his case was pending. He was granted judicial release in 2022. In State v. Clinkscale, the prosecutor notes that Ohio law requires the offender to serve the three-year firearm specification sentence, then wait five years before asking for judicial release. The prosecutor contends that the courts incorrectly applied the offender’s jail-time credit to reduce the five-year waiting period. The offender maintains that after serving the three-year mandatory sentence, he also served five additional years – 762 days in jail plus about three years after the mandatory sentence was completed. He concludes he has completed all steps for judicial release. 

Attorney Discipline
A Cuyahoga County lawyer is challenging a proposed two-year suspension from the practice of law, with one year stayed, following his conviction for bringing methamphetamine into the county jail. The attorney admits he violated ethics rules but notes the Court imposed an interim suspension following his indictment in March 2023. In Disciplinary Counsel v. Norton, the lawyer argues that because he hasn’t been able to practice law for nearly two years, barring him from practicing for at least another year is unduly harsh compared to other lawyers sanctioned for substance abuse issues.

Wednesday, March 12
Injured Worker
A farmhand at a Madison County dairy was seriously injured in 2019. The safety guards on the sand spreader he was operating had been removed when the machine was repaired. He won a $1.9 million intentional tort lawsuit, arguing under state law that if an employer deliberately removes a safety guard, a jury can presume the employer intended to injure the worker. An appeals court reversed the decision. In Camara v. Gill Dairy, the Court will consider whether, for the worker to prevail, he must prove the guard was removed, and the employer consciously decided not to replace the guard.

Community Control
A Columbus pastor was convicted of several felonies for draining church accounts. In 2010, he was sentenced to five years in prison, followed by five years of community control. In 2015, he was granted judicial release and allowed to leave prison 11 months early. The judge again placed him on community control for five years. In 2019, the pastor violated his terms of judicial release, and the trial court ordered him to serve the five years of community control issued at sentencing. In State v. Thompson, the Court will consider whether the maximum time an offender can be sentenced to serve community control is five years.

Property Sales
A couple made a $1.01 million offer in 2021 to purchase a Bay Village lakefront property. They backed out of the deal, saying the seller didn’t disclose the existence of a sewer easement and a city sanitary sewer line on the property. The seller sued for breach of contract. In Ashmus v. Coughlin, the seller argues the sewer easement is a public record and the sewer line wasn’t a “material defect” required to be disclosed on the Ohio property disclosure form. The couple maintains that the seller knew the sewer line ran diagonally across the property and could inhibit the property’s use and value. They assert that the seller didn’t act in good faith.

Case Filing Deadline
A man was injured in 2018 when test-driving a motorcycle at a Franklin County dealership. The man filed a bodily injury lawsuit in 2020 and voluntarily withdrew it on Jan. 5, 2022, intending to refile it. The man refiled his lawsuit on Jan. 6, 2023. In Sauter v. Integrity Cycles, the Court will consider whether the one-year statute of limitations to refile the case expired on Jan. 5 or Jan. 6, 2023.

Thursday, March 13
Solar Farm
The developers of a proposed 175-megawatt solar power generation facility in Greene County are challenging the Ohio Power Siting Board’s denial of a construction and operating permit. The company argues the solar farm meets all the standards required to earn a permit, but the board denied the proposal solely because of local opposition. When the Court considers In re Kingwood Solar, it will examine whether the board properly applied the state law standard when finding the project wasn’t “in the public interest.”

Medical Negligence
In 2022, a patient in a Richland County hospital was under sedation and unsupervised when she fell out of bed and fractured her neck. She sued the hospital and 10 unknown healthcare providers she listed as “John Does.” After the one-year statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit expired, she added the actual name of the ER doctor and his employer to the lawsuit. The trial court dismissed the doctor and his employer in the case, finding the patient could have discovered the actual names within a year. In Lewis v. MedCentral Health System, the Court will consider whether a 2019 state law gave the patient an extra 180 days to add the names to the lawsuit.

Late Mortgage Recordings
In 2020, a homeowner filed a class action against a mortgage lender. When a borrower’s mortgage is paid off, the lender has 90 days to file the release of the mortgage with the county recorder. The class action alleged that the lender filed nearly 5,000 mortgage releases after the 90-day deadline and, under Ohio law, must pay the members of the class $250 each for the late releases. In February 2023, the trial court certified the class – nearly all of which involved late filings in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Voss v. Quicken Loans, the lender states that a law with an April 2023 effective date prohibited class actions seeking the $250 penalty for 2020 violations. The lender argues the law applies to this case because the damages would be determined after the April 2023 effective date. The homeowner counters that the trial court applied the law in effect at the time the class was certified and couldn’t apply a new law before its effective date.

Loan Defaults
After going into a real estate business with the owner of several nursing homes, the business partner was enlisted by a bank to cosign a $77 million commercial loan with the nursing home owner. The agreement said the business partner would be 100% responsible for the entire loan if payments weren’t made. The businesses failed to make the loan payments, and the bank sued the business partner for the full balance on the loan. In Huntington National Bank v. Schneider, the bank contends the agreement allowed the bank to pursue the business partner for the full balance without first trying to collect from the nursing home owner. The business partner argues the bank withheld the owner’s financial troubles from him but was obligated to disclose them before letting him assume liability for the entire debt.