The Ohio attorney general is asking the Supreme Court of Ohio to allow the state to pursue a lawsuit alleging the illegal sale of flavored electronic cigarettes in Delaware County. Two lower courts dismissed the case. They agreed with the smoke-and-vape shop that the issue falls under federal law, preempting attempts by Ohio to sue in state courts.

The Supreme Court will hear the appeal in State ex rel. Ohio attorney general v. Central Tobacco and Stuff and seven other cases during three days of oral arguments on Aug. 4, 5, and 6. The August oral arguments are the last ones scheduled for 2026.

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, August 4
West Chester Man Appeals Death Sentence
A West Chester Township man was sentenced to death for the April 2019 murders of his wife, his in-laws, and his wife’s aunt. In his first trial in 2022, the jury deadlocked on a verdict . At his 2023 retrial, the man opted for the case to be heard by a three-judge panel. In State v. Singh, the man challenges aspects of his waiver of a jury for his second trial and contests evidence presented about his Beretta handgun, which wasn’t the murder weapon. He also raises nearly a dozen issues regarding the effectiveness of his trial attorneys. The county prosecutor contends that the man’s jury waiver met all requirements and notes that the defense attorneys brought up the Beretta in opening statements as proof that he wasn’t the killer. The prosecutor dismisses claims of ineffective assistance, arguing some decisions were trial strategies and other supposed issues are speculative.

Judicial Authority to Block Early Release
In 2024, a Trumbull County man pleaded guilty to two felony drug charges. At sentencing, the trial judge noted the offender’s long criminal history and sentenced him to 27 months in prison. The judge added a condition that the man couldn’t participate in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s transitional control program or any department effort designed to shorten a sentence. In State v. Talbert, the Court will consider whether a trial judge can block an inmate’s transfer to a less restrictive setting at sentencing, or whether the judge can only make that decision after receiving notice of the department's intent to transfer the offender.

Federal Law and Flavored E-Cigarettes
The Central Tobacco appeal questions whether federal restrictions on e-cigarettes prohibit a lawsuit filed in state court. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has oversight of tobacco products and that authority was extended in 2016 to include nontraditional products such as e-cigarettes. As of this year, the FDA has approved 45 menthol- or tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes for sale in the United States. The attorney general argues the Delaware County store violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act by deceptively selling e-cigarettes in flavors such as “blueberry raspberry gami” and “strawmelon” knowing that they were illegal and not approved by the FDA. The attorney general maintains that the federal government oversees manufacturers’ product labeling and standards, while the states continue to regulate the sales of the products. The store counters that the case isn’t about e-cigarette sales but premarket authorization. Only the federal government can enforce laws against the sales of a new tobacco product that hasn’t received FDA marketing authorization, the store contends.

Wednesday, August 5
Gun Forfeiture Objection
In May 2024, a Summit County man got into an argument following a minor car accident. The man then threw two punches at the other driver and threatened to kill the other driver with a gun. Police found a loaded gun in the man’s car, but it wasn’t in the man’s possession during the fight. The man was charged with two misdemeanors, and neither charge included a specification to require the forfeiture of his weapon. He agreed to plead guilty to a single lesser charge and to participate in a “forfeiture hearing” regarding the gun. A trial court ordered the gun to be forfeited. In State v. Stone, the gun owner argues the court had no right to retain his weapon because state law requires a forfeiture specification to be included in a charge.

Reagan Tokes Sentencing and Mental Health Commitments
In 2023, a defendant in Wood County was found not guilty by reason of insanity and hospitalized. Another defendant in the county was found incompetent to stand trial and required to stay in a psychiatric hospital. The trial court informed both of the number of years they were subject to the court’s jurisdiction given their commitments to the facilities. The trial court later revised the orders, imposing longer periods of confinement based on the Reagan Tokes Act, which requires courts to impose minimum and maximum prison terms for serious felonies. In State v. Wahl, the individuals argue the Reagan Tokes sentencing structure applies only to people who are sentenced to serve prison time. The county prosecutor responds that the state law regarding commitments required that their commitment end dates be based on the maximum prison term they could have received for their most serious offense had they been convicted.

Tax Exemptions on Fuel for Truck Lifts and Loaders
State law allows transportation-for-hire companies an exemption from sales taxes that are paid on fuel used for the “repair, and maintenance of, parts for, or items attached to or incorporated in, motor vehicles.” A trucking company that hauls waste and recyclingfiled claims with the Ohio tax commissioner for refunds totaling $723,590 in sales taxes paid on diesel fuel for their trucks. The request was based on the fuel the trucks use for their power takeoff (PTO) systems, such as lift arms and front-end loaders. The refunds were denied because tax authorities found that the fuel used for the PTO equipment was not “attached to or incorporated in” the trucks. In Republic Services of Ohio Transportation v. Ohio tax commissioner, the company asserts that the PTO fuel is “incorporated” into the trucks to power the PTO equipment, and is necessary for picking up and transporting waste and recyclables. The tax commissioner asserts that the PTO fuel doesn’t temporarily or permanently bind to the trucks or their fuel tanks, disqualifying the claimed exemption.

Attorney Fees for Breach of Settlement
In 2021, a Hamilton County homebuyer and a custom builder clashed over the quality of work done to construct a residence with the highest level of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for homes. After an extended legal dispute, the buyer and builder settled in 2024, allowing each to walk away from the deal. Shortly after the settlement, the buyer filed a lawsuit against the homebuilder for refusing to provide the LEED-related materials created for the home unless the buyer paid $6,700. A trial court dismissed the lawsuit, finding it breached the settlement agreement to end all litigation, and ordered the buyer to pay the builder’s attorney fees. In Dornette v. Redknot Holdings, the Court will consider whether each party must pay their own attorney fees or if an exception to the rule allows the trial court to order the losing party to pay for the winner’s fees.

Thursday, August 6
Municipality Compensation to Townships After Separating
The village of Hebron received approval in 2022 to separate from Union Township in Licking County. Once the village separated from the township, it no longer paid taxes to the township. At the end of 2023, a 3-mill tax levy for fire and emergency medical services expired, and township voters, but not village residents, approved a new five-year, 7-mill levy. At issue in State ex rel. Union Township, Licking County v. Village of Hebron is whether a state law applies that requires the village to compensate the township for lost tax revenue for 12 years and, if so, how the annual amounts should be calculated. If R.C. 709.19 applies to this case, Union Township argues Hebron must compensate the township based on its taxes assessed each year. That calculation encompasses the new 7-mill levy, the township maintains. Hebron asserts that the calculations can’t be based on a later tax levy enacted after the village separated from the township and that wasn’t voted on by its residents.