Two cases — one involving the prison sentence for causing a fatal crash and the other a city’s restriction on housing — are among those the Supreme Court of Ohio will consider during oral arguments next week.

In one case, a county prosecutor seeks to reimpose a 16-year-to-life prison sentence for a Cleveland motorist who struck and killed a firefighter at an accident scene. In a separate appeal, a Portage County property owner is contesting a city’s ban on allowing more than two unrelated individuals to live in a single-family home. The Supreme Court will hear these cases and six others when it meets on Feb. 10-11.

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 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.

Sentence for Deadly Highway Accident
In 2022, police vehicles blocked two lanes of traffic on Interstate 90 in Cleveland as firefighters responded to an accident. Two firefighters checked a damaged vehicle near the far-left lane, one of two lanes blocked by police cruisers. First responders then waved to motorists in the two right lanes to stop so they could cross the highway to attend to the crash victims parked on the I-90 shoulder.

An impatient driver swerved around the police cruisers. As the driver passed the accident scene at around 49 mph, a firefighter reemerged from the far right lanes and stopped to pick up debris on the roadway. The driver struck the firefighter, killing him. The motorist left the scene and was later arrested.

He was charged with murder based on the felonious assault of a first responder. A judge found him guilty and sentenced him to 16 years to life in prison. An appeals court reversed the decision, finding the driver did not act “knowingly” when he struck the firefighter, and that proving a defendant acted knowingly is required for a felonious assault conviction.

The appeals court instead found the motorist guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on reckless assault,  punishable by up to 11 years in prison. In State v. Bissell, the Court will consider whether the driver’s actions demonstrated that he acted knowingly.

Zoning Restrictions and Property Rights
A homeowner in Kent rented his six-bedroom house to six people. The city notified him that he was violating ordinances prohibiting more than two unrelated individuals from living in a single-family dwelling. Only two of the residents were related.

In Havel v. City of Kent Board of Zoning Appeals, the homeowner argues the ordinances infringe on his fundamental property rights as guaranteed in the Ohio Constitution. He also contends it is unclear how the restrictions improve public parking, water and sewer services, and police and fire protection, as the city zoning board claims.

The board counters that the restrictions are constitutional under police powers granted to municipalities in the state constitution and are supported by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Lawsuit Damage Caps
A jury awarded a 92-year-old Cuyahoga County man $1.4 million after a missed diagnosis by his cataract surgeon led to the loss of an eye. Because of the man’s age, he did not claim economic damages such as lost income. The award represented noneconomic damages for loss of a bodily organ and physical deformity.

State law caps noneconomic damages for medical malpractice at $500,000 for catastrophic injuries. The trial court ruled the cap violates the Ohio Constitution.

In Paganini v. The Cataract Eye Center of Cleveland, the Court will consider whether the General Assembly crafted the caps in a manner consistent with the state constitution.

Bank Tax
A Pennsylvania-based bank conducts about 20% of its business in Ohio and pays the state financial institutions tax (FIT). The tax is based on “equity capital,” which is the excess of assets over liabilities, and applies a lower tax rate as equity capital increases.

The bank sought a refund of FIT payments made from 2016 through 2020, arguing Ohio's calculation violates the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause. The bank maintained the FIT failed an “internal consistency” test developed by the U.S. Supreme Court because banks operating in multiple states pay a higher effective rate than banks operating solely in Ohio.

The Ohio tax commissioner denied the refund, finding any bank would pay the same FIT based on the amount of business conducted in Ohio. In Dollar Bank v. Harris, the Court will consider whether the tax violates the bank’s constitutional rights.

Case Dismissals and Refilings
Following a 2019 collision between a bicycle and a vehicle in Cincinnati, the bicyclist sued to recover damages for his injuries. In 2020, the court informed him that service wasn’t completed on the vehicle owner.

The bicyclist voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in March 2022 and refiled it in July. Service was completed in the refiled case. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, finding service wasn’t completed within one year of the initial filing of the lawsuit and the complaint wasn’t filed within the statute of limitations. An appeals court overturned the decision.

In Liles v. Sporing, the vehicle owner argues the filing was untimely. The bicyclist contends that he met the requirements of Ohio’s “saving statute.”

Adjustment to Utility Rider
Duke Energy of Ohio is permitted by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to recover infrastructure investment costs through a rider charged to consumers. An audit of the 2022-23 rider found it was calculated using an incorrect amount for “accumulated deferred income taxes,” resulting in lower charges to consumers. 

The PUCO approved an adjustment to correct the miscalculation.  In re review of Duke Energy Ohio Inc.’s Distribution Capital Investment Rider arises from a legal challenge by the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, which argues the adjustment is retroactive ratemaking prohibited by state law.

The PUCO and Duke Energy counter that the rider allows forward-looking adjustments and customers benefited from lower charges before the correction.

Tax Exemption for Parking Garage
In 2019, a Columbus redevelopment authority sought a tax exemption for an underground parking garage.  The Ohio tax commissioner denied the request, finding the garage was managed by a for-profit company. The Board of Tax Appeals denied the exemption because the garage wasn’t under the control and direction of a political subdivision.

In RiverSouth Authority v. Harris, the authority argues it qualifies for an exemption because it owns the garage, which it says is public property used for a public purpose.

Zoning Rejection Lawsuits
A national gas station chain received a permit to construct a station in Montgomery County. Opposition from a neighboring church and a senior retirement village led the Centerville City Council to reject the permit.

The chain filed an administrative appeal in common pleas court, and later filed a lawsuit seeking damages for delaying the station’s opening. The second lawsuit was transferred to a federal court, and while the lawsuit was pending, a judge ordered the city to grant the permit.

In Sheetz v. City of Centerville, the Court will consider whether the company may pursue separate lawsuits or must file a single action seeking all relief from the city and the religious groups.