A woman claims that she couldn’t be charged with crimes for resisting an order for an emergency hospitalization. And a group of workers argues that the governor illegally withdrew from a pandemic-era unemployment benefit program before it ended. These are among the issues the Supreme Court of Ohio will consider when it meets next week.

The Court will also consider an effort by a Stark County man to have DNA evidence from his 2007 trial retested. The man believes advances in DNA testing will point to another man as the perpetrator who robbed two store clerks, assaulting one of them and raping the other.

Watch Oral Arguments Online
The Court will hear three cases on May 19 and four more on May 20. 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 the Court’s 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, May 19
DNA Testing After Conviction
A Stark County man sentenced to prison for 22 years in 2007 applied for postconviction DNA testing 17 years later. The man believed advances in DNA testing might yield results that weren’t possible when he was convicted of rape and other charges stemming from robbing two gas stations and assaulting store clerks. A trial court considered his application and denied retesting the evidence presented at his trial. An appeals court overruled the trial court and ordered retesting of DNA from the rape victim, finding that evidence of another male’s DNA could potentially exonerate the man convicted of the crime. In State v. Jones, the Court will consider whether the trial court properly applied the statute governing DNA testing requests.

Prevailing Party Requests Attorney Fees
A state auditor’s report in 2015 determined that the director of a Columbus-area charter school hired an English language instructor, but the school didn’t offer the program to students. To recover the misspent funds, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office filed a lawsuit in 2021 against the director and the teacher. The director’s trial was put on hold pending a bankruptcy claim. In the teacher’s trial, the jury found against the state, and the court granted attorney fees to the teacher. In State ex rel. attorney general v. Mohiuddin et al., the state argues it has the right to appeal the attorney fee award, while the teacher counters that state law doesn’t permit the state’s appeal.

Former Judge Faces Discipline
The Board of Professional Conduct recommends a fully stayed, one-year suspension for Dominic Leone III, based on his conduct toward the Struthers mayor and during a domestic relations matter. The mayor obtained a civil stalking protection order against Leone, who was a Struthers Municipal Court judge at the time. The protection order followed an escalating pattern of harassment that included Leone calling the mayor derogatory names at a polling location. In an appeal of a domestic relations decision regarding his child, Leone alleged that the judge in his case had a religious bias against him. Leone, who resigned from the bench in 2023, argues in Disciplinary Counsel v. Leone that his speech in both matters is protected by the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Disciplinary Counsel v. Grendell, which addressed the First Amendment rights of judges. The disciplinary counsel maintains that Leone’s false statements and other actions warrant an actual timeout from practicing law.

Wednesday, May 20
Police Involvement With Emergency Hospitalization Orders
A physician ordered the emergency hospitalization of a woman, who, when stopped by police, was uncooperative and didn’t want to go to the hospital. She struggled with police, and they arrested her for obstructing official business and resisting arrest. In State v. Dowell, the woman contends that resisting an order for an involuntary hospitalization can’t be a crime or the basis for the charges she faced. The county prosecutor responds that the woman prevented police from discharging their duties under the emergency hospitalization statute, and such behavior supports the charge of obstructing official business. The case also involves conflicting interpretations of the law between two state appellate courts.

Attorney Fees in Public Records Cases
Violent fights in downtown Cincinnati led a resident to make a public records request to the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts. About a month after the incidents, the requester asked to inspect and obtain copies of records in the criminal case of a man who had received a disorderly conduct citation related to the fights. The clerk’s office told the requester that a judge was holding a hearing 11 days later on whether to restrict the documents from public access. The requester sued before the hearing to access the records and requested attorney fees. After the hearing on the motion to seal the records, the clerk’s office provided them to the requester, though there was an omission. In State ex rel. Utz v. Parikh, the Court will consider whether the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, or the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio applies and whether the requester is entitled to attorney fees.

Attorney Discipline for Client Signature on Form
A Lorain County lawyer opposes a proposed six-month suspension based on lying to a judge about why he signed his client’s name on a court document without the approval of the client or the judge. The Board of Professional Conduct found the lawyer committed two ethics violations when he falsely represented that his client signed a pretrial entry form. When the judge asked why the lawyer had printed his client’s name on the document, the lawyer made false statements to defend his actions. In Lorain County Bar Association v. Baker, the Court will consider the proposed sanction and the attorney’s argument that he didn’t violate the rules and, at most, should receive a fully stayed suspension.

Class Action Regarding Unemployment Benefits
In 2021, three Ohioans receiving an additional $300 per week in unemployment compensation benefits filed a class action lawsuit against Gov. Mike DeWine, who withdrew Ohio from the COVID-19 program 10 weeks before it was set to expire. In State ex rel. Bowling v. DeWine, the laid-off workers argue the governor didn’t have unilateral authority to withdraw the state from the program, and only an act of the General Assembly could permit it. The Ohio Attorney General’s Office maintains the case ended in 2022, when the Court first considered the workers’ claims and ruled the matter was moot. If the Court does reconsider the claims, the attorney general argues state law permits the governor to withdraw from a program he voluntarily entered into with the U.S. Department of Labor.