A Summit County woman has battled her addiction and is in pursuit of regaining custody of her daughter. The daughter’s grandparents have legal custody of the child and question whether the mother and her new husband can adequately care for the girl.

The Supreme Court of Ohio will weigh the constitutional rights of the woman who was once deemed an “unsuitable parent” against the grandparents’ claim that the best interest of the child directs that she remain in their care. In re: A.S. is one of seven cases the Supreme Court will consider during oral arguments on June 30 and July 1.

Oral arguments begin at 9 a.m. each day in Columbus and can be watched live by streaming them online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov or the Ohio Channel. The Ohio Channel also archives Supreme Court 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, June 30
Criteria for Granting Custody to Nonparents
A juvenile court returned legal custody of a child to her parents in 2019 in a shared arrangement. In 2023, the child’s paternal grandparents requested legal custody of the child. They raised concerns about the sex offense conviction of the mother’s new husband and the amount of care they and the child’s father were providing. The father died while the court was considering the request. The court placed the child in the grandparents’ custody. In In re A.S., the mother argues the juvenile court couldn’t take away legal custody of her child without first determining that she was currently an unsuitable parent. The grandparents respond that the court properly found the child’s circumstances had changed and that it was in the child’s best interest to place her with her grandparents.

Oil and Gas Royalties
A typical oil and gas lease requires a driller to pay the landowner a royalty based on the amount of oil and gas extracted from the land. In some cases, drillers may opt to sell the rights to drill for the minerals, and may retain a financial interest, which is commonly known as an overriding royalty interest. A company with gas drilling rights in Carroll County retained an overriding royalty interest and later sold it to another company. A different company then began drilling for gas, and after bringing it to the surface, worked with other companies to refine the products and increase their value. The driller deducted half the “post-production” costs from the payment to the overriding royalty interest owner. In Gateway Royalty v. EAP Ohio, the Court will determine whether post-production costs can be deducted if the contract granting the overriding royalty interest is silent on the matter.

Effect of Prior Juvenile Sentences
As part of a plea deal with Muskingum County prosecutors, a man pled guilty in 2024 to a second-degree felony and a misdemeanor. The court imposed a mandatory minimum prison term based on a “serious youthful offender (SYO) dispositional sentence” the man received when he was a juvenile. An SYO sentence involves a traditional juvenile disposition, plus an adult sentence that is put on hold unless the youth doesn’t comply with the juvenile disposition. In State v. Morrell, the prosecutor maintains that a juvenile sentence can be used to enhance a later criminal penalty in adult court. The man counters that the Court ruled in State v. Hand (2016) that a juvenile adjudication isn’t a conviction and can’t be used to enhance a later sentence.

Proposed Solar Facility in Knox County
A proposed solar-powered electric generation facility in Knox County would include 840 acres of solar panels on 1,395 acres of property secured by Frasier Solar. The Ohio Power Siting Board approved the project subject to 62 conditions. The project is opposed by Preserve Knox County Ohio, which is a group of 165 members who own or live on land in Knox County, and an organization called Knox Smart Development. These groups contend in In re application of Frasier Solar that the potential visual and environmental harms weren’t properly evaluated by the siting board. The board maintains that the conditions required for the project will address the concerns. The solar company intervened in the case, focusing on the clean energy power to be generated and arguing the project meets the requirements of Ohio law.

Wednesday, July 1
Class-Action Lawsuit Certification
A state audit of a city’s water and sewer rates prompted residents to file a class-action lawsuit against the water department. The citizens claimed that since 2012, a number of actions by local government officials had led to overpayments for the services. The city objected to the certification of the customers as a class, arguing their issues regarding water rates are not common, and any lawsuits should be filed on an individual basis. A Lorain County trial court agreed with the city and refused to certify the class. In Hilton v. Lorain, the Court will consider whether the trial judge conducted the required “rigorous analysis” when determining not to certify the water and sewer customers as a class.

Business Tax on Prescription Drug Sales
The Ohio tax commissioner determined that Perrigo Sales Corporation underpaid its commercial activity tax (CAT) for tax years 2016 through 2018 by $304,023. Perrigo manufactures generic prescription drugs and sells them to wholesale distributors, such as AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal Health. The distributors deliver the drugs to retail pharmacies. Through agreements with the distributors, Perrigo sets a wholesale acquisition price for the drugs. After selling the drugs to the retail pharmacies, the distributors send a “chargeback” to Perrigo that adjusts the drug prices by the difference between the wholesale acquisition price and the price the pharmacies paid. The adjustments lessen the amount that becomes the basis for the CAT. In Perrigo Sales Corporation v. Harris, the tax commissioner argues Perrigo must pay CAT on the wholesale acquisition prices invoiced to distributors. Perrigo asserts that the actual amount it charges the retail pharmacies should be the basis for the CAT.

Data Center Electric Generation Systems
In 2019, state lawmakers permitted electric distribution utilities to assist commercial customers in “constructing a customer sited renewable energy resource.” In 2025, AEP Ohio sought state regulatory approval to assist two data center operators in Licking County by installing, owning, and operating solid oxide fuel cell systems on the data center properties to help produce electricity. A business organization challenged the arrangement, arguing the law did not allow AEP to own the generation systems, and doing so would allow it to use its monopoly electric distribution business to pick and choose which businesses could expand in its service territory. In re Application of Ohio Power Co. asks the Court whether the law allows AEP to own the systems or only help construct them.