Tuesday, June 30, 2026
In re A.S., Case Nos. 2025-1224 and 2025-1225
Ninth District Court of Appeals (Summit County)
Gateway Royalty LLC et al. v. EAP Ohio LLC, Case No. 2025-1265
Seventh District Court of Appeals (Carroll County)
State of Ohio v. Yhanteg Morrell, Case No. 2025-1277
Fifth District Court of Appeals (Muskingum County)
In the matter of the application of Frasier Solar LLC, Case No. 2025-1364
Ohio Power Siting Board
What Criteria Are Followed to Grant Legal Custody to Nonparents?
In re A.S., Case Nos. 2025-1224 and 2025-1225
Ninth District Court of Appeals (Summit County)
ISSUE: If a child is adjudicated as dependent, but the child’s natural parent regains legal custody and the juvenile court closes the case, must the court first find that the natural parent is currently unsuitable before awarding custody to a nonparent?
BACKGROUND:
The parents of a child identified as A.S. are her mother C.S. and her father L.H. In 2017, the Summit County Juvenile Court found that A.S. was a dependent child, which is a term used to describe a lack of adequate parental care.
Various custody arrangements were put in place. As part of a path to reunify with her child, C.S. was required to complete a case plan developed by Summit County Children Services. She subsequently met those requirements.
In 2019, the juvenile court approved the return of A.S. to the legal custody of her parents in a shared arrangement. L.H. was later diagnosed with cancer, and in 2021, the arrangement was shifted with C.S. designated as the residential parent for school purposes while L.H. was receiving treatment.
C.S. remarried in 2022. Her husband had been convicted 14 years earlier of a sexual offense against a minor under age 13. When he and C.S. married, his sex-offender registration period had ended, and he had no other convictions for sexual offenses.
Grandparents Seek Legal Custody of Child
In 2023, A.S.’s paternal grandparents filed a request in court to modify the child’s custody arrangement. The grandparents maintained that L.H. had been the one caring for A.S.’s basic needs and that A.S. had problems getting to school when she was with her mother. They also alleged that the mother’s home wasn’t a safe place for A.S. to live because of the new stepfather’s history. In the midst of the legal proceedings, L.H. passed away in early 2024. C.S.’s brief states there was no evidence she had failed on the requirements of her case plan, and the children services agency found that her husband posed no risk to the children.
In spring 2024, the juvenile court ruled that there had been a change in circumstances, and it was in A.S.’s best interest to be placed in the legal custody of her paternal grandparents.
C.S. appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, arguing the juvenile court had to first make a finding that she was an unsuitable parent before removing A.S. from her custody. The Ninth District disagreed and upheld the juvenile court decision.
C.S. appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Ninth District also certified that its decision conflicts with rulings from other Ohio appellate courts and notified the Supreme Court. The Court accepted C.S.’s appeal, agreed to review the conflict among the appellate courts, and consolidated the cases.
Mother Argues Courts Improperly Revived 2017 Unsuitability Finding
C.S. emphasizes that the juvenile court closed the underlying dependency case in 2019 and awarded shared legal custody to her and A.S.’s father. C.S. maintains that in 2023, when A.S.’s grandparents asked the court for legal custody, she had the same fundamental, constitutional protections as any natural parent who isn’t part of an active dependency case. She contends that she couldn’t lose legal custody of A.S. unless the juvenile court made a new determination that she was unsuitable.
In C.S.’s view, the Ninth District decision deems a child’s parent forever unsuitable once a juvenile court finds a child to be dependent, regardless of what the parent does after that finding. C.S. instead advocates for the approach taken by the Eighth District Court of Appeals in In re B.K. (2013). The Eighth District concluded that a court’s adjudication 10 years earlier that children were dependent wasn’t evidence of the parents being unsuitable in later circumstances.
Based on state Supreme Court case law, when a natural parent has custody, the parent can’t lose it without a determination that he or she is unsuitable at the time the trial court is making its decision. Noting that she regained custody of A.S. in 2019, C.S. argues it defies common sense for a court to retract her restored custody of A.S. based on a presumption from the earlier, closed case that she must still be unsuitable. When a nonparent wants to modify custody, courts must first determine whether the parent is currently unsuitable, then decide whether changing legal custody of the child is in the child’s best interest, C.S. contends.
Grandparents Counter That Courts Focus on Changes and Best Interest
The grandparents maintain that once a parent is found unsuitable in a dependency case, courts don’t have to make a later finding that the parent is again unsuitable. Instead, they argue, the focus is on whether there has been a change in circumstances and what is currently in the child’s best interest.
The grandparents contend that a change in circumstances in support of modifying a court order of legal custody must be substantial and be based on facts that arose since the order that weren’t previously known to the court. Among the changed circumstances the grandparents noted regarding A.S.: her mother’s inability to get her to school; A.S. living more frequently with her ill father, who was living with them; her father’s death; and her mother’s marriage to a person convicted of a sex offense with a minor.
The child’s best interest is the key consideration in these proceedings, not the suitability of the parent, the grandparents argue. They maintain the Eighth District decision in B.K. isn’t in conflict with this case because the court never had to address any changed circumstances or the child’s best interest. The grandparents conclude that the analyses of A.S.’s case by the juvenile court and the Ninth District were correct.
Children Services Agency Didn’t Submit Brief
Because the Summit County Children Services didn’t file a brief in the case, it has waived participation in oral argument.
Public Defenders File Friend-of-the-Court Brief
An amicus curiae brief supporting C.S.’s arguments was submitted jointly by the offices of the Cuyahoga County Public Defender and Franklin County Public Defender.
– Kathleen Maloney
Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket (2025-1224 and 2025-1225).
Contacts
Representing C.S.: Joseph Shell, js@pwfco.com
Representing the grandparents of A.S.: Ronald Gatts, ron@gattslaw.com
Can Oil Producer Deduct Post-Production Costs From Royalty Payments?
Gateway Royalty LLC et al. v. EAP Ohio LLC, Case No. 2025-1265
Seventh District Court of Appeals (Carroll County)
ISSUE: Must an owner of an overriding royalty interest in an oil and gas lease split the post-production costs with the oil and gas producer if the contract granting the interest is silent on the matter?
BACKGROUND:
In Ohio and across the country, oil and natural gas producers enter into leases with property owners. A typical lease requires paying the landowner a royalty based on the amount of oil and gas extracted from the land. The oil and gas producer may opt to sell the rights to drill for the minerals. When selling the rights, the producer may want to retain a financial interest and contract with the new producer to receive an overriding royalty interest, commonly known as an ORRI. In some cases, an oil or gas producer will grant an ORRI to specialists it has hired to assist in extracting the oil and gas.
Under industry standards, the cost of producing oil and gas and bringing it to the surface is paid solely by the producer. These costs of “production” aren’t passed on to the royalty owners or the ORRI owners. However, after the minerals reach the surface, producers work with other companies to refine the products and increase their value. These are known as “post-production” costs.
In 2010, Patriot Energy Partners owned oil and gas leases in Ohio. Patriot sold the leases to Chesapeake Exploration but retained an ORRI to receive a portion of the revenues that Chesapeake earned from producing oil and gas. The contract between the companies didn’t specify whether the ORRI holder would be required to share in post-production costs.
Drilling, Royalty Rights Passed to Others
Patriot later sold some of the ORRI rights to Gateway Royalty. Chesapeake later sold its drilling rights to EAP Ohio.
After extracting gas, EAP Ohio paid other companies for post-production services, enabling it to create separate products and increase the value of the gas. When EAP paid its ORRI to Gateway, it deducted half the post-production costs from the payment. Gateway filed a lawsuit in Carroll County Common Pleas Court, arguing that nothing in the contracts the parties inherited allowed for the deduction of post-production costs. The trial court agreed and disallowed EAP’s deductions, which the parties estimated to be about $2.6 million.
EAP appealed to the Seventh District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision.
EAP appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which agreed to hear the case.
Cost-Sharing an Industry Standard, Driller Asserts
EAP argues the historical rules for oil and gas royalties, including ORRI, are that royalty owners don’t pay for the production costs of getting the minerals out of the ground, but do pay for post-production costs unless their contracts say otherwise. Ohio has established through case decisions that production costs can’t be passed on to a royalty holder unless a contract allows it. However, no Ohio case has addressed post-production costs, EAP maintains. The driller asserts that Ohio should follow the lead of Texas, Oklahoma, and other long-standing oil-producing states, which recognize that post-production cost-sharing is implied in ORRI agreements.
EAP argues that the reason for sharing post-production costs is fairness. The producers enhance the value of the oil and gas through post-production. Since the ORRI is calculated as a percentage of revenue from sales, the driller and ORRI holders earn more from their products when the gas is enhanced, EAP explains. If the driller pays the full costs for post-production, the ORRI holders get the benefit of the increased revenue, but don’t pay for any of the expenses to earn the higher selling price, EAP asserts. It is only fair that Gateway pays half the production costs because it is receiving higher royalties from EAP’s efforts to enhance the products, EAP argues.
The Seventh District and other Ohio courts denying post-production costs are basing their decisions on other Ohio lower court rulings that have never directly addressed ORRIs and post-production costs, EAP argues. In cases from other states where ORRI holders generally do not pay post-production costs, all of them allow some post-production costs to be shared. EAP asserts. If the Seventh District’s opinion is affirmed, Ohio will be the only state that prohibits all cost-sharing of post-production costs unless it is expressly authorized in the ORRI agreements, EAP concludes.
Post-Production Costs Not Shared in Ohio, Royalty Owner Argues
Ohio oil and gas producers have historically paid for all post-production costs, and royalty owners don’t split those costs, Gateway argues. Ohio also doesn’t follow “default” oil and gas industry rules regarding royalty payments, the company asserts. Gateway cites the Court’s 2016 Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia LLC decision, in which the Court found that an oil and gas lease is a contract that is subject to the traditional rules of contract interpretation.
Gateway agrees with the Seventh District’s conclusion that if cost-sharing isn’t indicated in the ORRI agreement, then drillers can’t pass on any post-production costs to royalty owners. Gateway points to the positions of other established oil and gas companies that have been active in Ohio for decades and have filed amicus curiae briefs urging the Court to uphold the Seventh District’s decision. Those companies maintain that post-production costs have never been passed on to royalty owners in Ohio, and while other states might consider cost-sharing to be implied in the contract, Ohio courts have not.
Gateway maintains that, regardless of industry custom, EAP hasn’t shown that the Ohio oil and gas industry has adopted a custom of sharing post-production costs. Rather, the royalty owners have been expecting the producers to fully pay them. Without a provision in EAP’s agreements requiring the sharing of the costs, they cannot be passed on to ORRI holders, Gateway concludes.
Friend-of-Court Briefs Submitted
Amicus curiae briefs supporting EAP’s position were submitted jointly by Ascent Resources-Utica and Gulfport Appalachia and by University of Texas Law School Professor Christopher Kulander. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce also submitted an amicus brief in support of EAP.
Amicus briefs supporting Gateway’s position were filed by:
- Beck Oil and Gas and TDX.
- D&D Energy.
- Eagle Realty.
- Eric Petroleum Corp.
- Chris Figge, L&M Oil Company's former vice president.
- National Association of Royalty Owners-East.
- Gary Sitler, retired president of Stocker & Sitler Inc.
- Petrox.
– Dan Trevas
Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.
Contacts
Representing EAP Ohio: Benjamin Flowers, bflowers@abkf.com
Representing Gateway Royalty LLC et al.: Molly Johnson, molly@jandjohio.com
Does Prior Juvenile Offense Count as Conviction to Increase Penalty in Later Case?
State of Ohio v. Yhanteg Morrell, Case No. 2025-1277
Fifth District Court of Appeals (Muskingum County)
ISSUE: Can a prior adjudication as a serious youthful offender be treated as a conviction for the purpose of enhancing a sentence in a later case without violating due process rights in the Ohio and U.S. constitutions?
BACKGROUND:
Yhanteg Morrell and the Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office negotiated a plea deal in 2024 on charges involving the minor children of Morrell’s girlfriend. Morrell pled guilty to endangering children, which is a second-degree felony, and misdemeanor domestic violence. The Muskingum County Common Pleas Court accepted the plea.
At sentencing, the prosecutor noted Morrell had an earlier adjudication as a juvenile that included a “serious youthful offender (SYO) dispositional sentence.” An SYO disposition involves a blended sentence – a traditional juvenile disposition plus an adult sentence that is put on hold. The case remains in the juvenile court system, with the goals of rehabilitation and treatment, and the adult sentence is stayed unless the youth doesn’t complete the juvenile disposition.
The prosecutor argued Morrell’s earlier SYO sentence required that his sentence in the current case be elevated to mandatory prison time. Morrell countered that the prior juvenile decision couldn’t be used to enhance his prison sentence.
The trial court agreed with the prosecutor, sentencing Morrell to six to nine years in prison.
Morrell appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which overturned the trial court decision. Based on the Supreme Court of Ohio decision in State v. Hand (2016), the Fifth District concluded that an earlier SYO disposition can’t be treated as a conviction for purposes of sentencing in a later case.
The prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case.
Juvenile Sentence Can Enhance Later Criminal Penalty, Prosecutor Contends
In SYO cases, the juvenile court imposes a stayed adult criminal sentence as part of the blended sentence. The prosecutor notes that juveniles facing an SYO sentence are provided with several legal protections associated with adult criminal cases – right to counsel, right against self-incrimination, protection against double jeopardy, and others. However, youth don’t have the right to a jury trial in juvenile courts. The prosecutor argues that even though juveniles aren’t entitled to a jury trial, the due course of law clause in the Ohio Constitution and the due process clause in the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment permit juvenile courts to impose a blended sentence containing an adult criminal penalty. That was the ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. D.H. (2009), the prosecutor maintains.
In the Hand case, though, a challenge was made to the constitutionality of R.C. 2901.08(A), which allowed certain juvenile adjudications to be treated as convictions for purposes of sentencing. The Supreme Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional, concluding that due process is violated when adjudications are treated as equivalent to adult convictions for sentencing purposes.
The prosecutor contends that Hand should be overruled. The prosecutor argues due process only requires that the earlier conviction, or disposition, had enough due process protections to make it reliable. If that is accurate, then the earlier conviction can be used as the basis for enhancing the penalty for a later conviction, the prosecutor maintains. Given the array of protections provided to a youth in an SYO proceeding, an SYO sentence can be treated as a prior conviction to enhance a penalty in a later case, the prosecutor argues.
Juvenile Sentence Can’t Serve as Conviction When Imposing Later Penalty, Morrell Counters
Morrell responds that the SYO process doesn’t convert a juvenile case outcome into an adult criminal conviction. In Hand, the Court emphasized that juvenile proceedings lack full procedural protections of adult criminal court, including the right to a jury trial. The Court also explained that juvenile cases are civil proceedings and focus on rehabilitation, not punishment, because of the diminished culpability of children. Morrell asserts that the Court stressed the differences between the juvenile adjudications and adult convictions, stating, “A juvenile adjudication is not a conviction of a crime and should not be treated as one.”
Even in the most serious cases, juvenile conduct must be treated differently and with less finality than adult criminal convictions, Morrell argues. He contends that the prosecutor’s approach undermines the purposes of the juvenile justice system and moves instead in the opposite direction. The approach is irreconcilable with Hand and inconsistent with Ohio juvenile justice, Morrell maintains.
He asserts that the prosecutor’s proposition of law to the Supreme Court fails to present a new and substantial constitutional question because the Court has already answered the question in Hand. Upholding Hand would preserve due process, respect the legislative design of the juvenile justice system, and apply settled law to the facts of this case, he concludes.
Groups File Additional Briefs, Some Will Argue in Court
The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Ohio Attorney General’s Office filed amicus curiae briefs supporting the Muskingum County prosecutor. Also, the Ohio attorney general will be permitted to argue in the case, sharing the oral argument time allotted to the prosecutor.
– Kathleen Maloney
Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.
Contacts
Representing the State of Ohio from the Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office: John Dever, jcdever@muskingumcounty.org
Representing Yhanteg Morrell: Christopher Brigdon, chris@brigdonlaw.com
Representing Ohio Attorney General’s Office: Mathura Sridharan, mathura.sridharan@ohioago.gov
Representing Professor Nathaniel M. Fouch of Capital University Law School: Trane Robinson, trane.robinson@squirepb.com
Does Proposed Knox County Solar Project Comply With State Law?
In the matter of the application of Frasier Solar LLC, Case No. 2025-1364
Ohio Power Siting Board
ISSUES:
- Does a proposed project for a solar-powered electric generation facility fail to comply with state law because the project won’t minimize adverse visual impacts and would cause flooding and drainage problems on surrounding properties?
- Does the proposed solar project also violate state law because the company didn’t properly evaluate the impact to roads and bridges and didn’t provide the necessary information on the probable impact to wildlife?
BACKGROUND:
In October 2023, Frasier Solar applied to the Ohio Power Siting Board for approval to construct, operate, and maintain a solar-powered electric generation facility in Knox County. Developed by Open Road Renewables, the project would include 840 acres of solar panels on 1,395 acres of property secured by Frasier Solar and generate up to 120-megawatts of electricity. The facility would be located in parts of Clinton Township, Miller Township, and Mount Vernon.
The siting board staff conducted an investigation and found that, with 60 conditions, the project would comply with the requirements of R.C. 4906.10, allowing the board to grant a certificate for the project to move forward.
In August 2024, Frasier Solar and others – the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Environmental Council, two unions of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and property owner Ethan Robertson – submitted a joint stipulation and recommendation to the board supporting the project and incorporating a total of 62 conditions to minimize potential adverse environmental impacts.
Intervening in the case to oppose the project: Preserve Knox County Ohio, a group of 165 members who own or live on land in Knox County; the organization Knox Smart Development; and its founder Jared Yost.
After holding hearings, the board issued an opinion and order in June 2025 approving the application to construct, operate, and maintain the facility subject to the 62 conditions.
Preserve Knox County appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which must hear the appeal of the siting board decision.
Residents Argue Potential Harms of Project Not Properly Evaluated
Preserve Knox County contends in its brief that the 800-plus acres of solar panels and the project substation will harm the neighboring residents’ views of the scenic countryside, transforming it into “industrial blight.” The group maintains that the solar panels will reach up to 8.5 feet at their flattest with maximum vertical heights of 12 feet. The lightning masts in the substation are estimated at 65 feet, and the “gen-tie line,” a transmission line connecting the substation to an existing American Electric Power substation, would be 60 feet high, the group adds.
“The Project will have devastating impacts on the aesthetic quality of life for hundreds of people,” and Frasier Solar has offered no meaningful steps to mitigate these “unsightly views,” the group’s brief states.
Preserve Knox County also raises concerns that the project construction could increase stormwater runoff and cause flooding in an area already vulnerable to drainage problems. In addition, Frasier hasn’t identified measures it will take to address road congestion and damage during construction, the group asserts. Nor has Frasier properly investigated the potential harm to birds, such as sandhill cranes and bald eagles, or other wildlife in the area, Preserve Knox County alleges.
The group argues that based on state law, the project shouldn’t have been approved because probable environmental effects weren’t determined; the facility isn’t designed with minimum adverse visual impacts; and the project doesn’t serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
Siting Board Maintains That Permit Conditions Address Concerns
The board responds that it approved the Frasier Solar project subject to 62 conditions intended to mitigate its visual and environmental impacts. The board considered reliable evidence in the record and found the evidence reasonably and adequately supported the project’s approval.
The board maintains that state law doesn’t require that all negative impacts of a project be eliminated, only that the board tries to minimize them. The board notes that Frasier Solar provided visual studies and land surveys to support its application. The board determined that the project’s visual impact would be minimized by the required conditions. In one, Frasier Solar must submit an updated landscape and lighting plan to address facility-caused aesthetic issues and install fencing or vegetation to make views from residences more appealing.
Other conditions would minimize flooding, require a comprehensive transportation management plan, and address any road and bridge damage, the board maintains. It also explains that Frasier Solar met its obligation to survey the project’s effect on plants and animals inside the project boundaries and out to a quarter mile beyond the boundaries. Certain conditions mandate that work on the project stops if sensitive species, such as the sandhill crane, are encountered, the board notes.
Solar Company Highlights Positives
The Supreme Court allowed Frasier Solar to intervene in the case. The company argues the project will offer numerous benefits to the local community while preserving the agricultural nature of the area. The facility will also benefit the state by providing an additional 120 megawatts of clean energy power generation, the company asserts.
The company explains that the project consists of smaller, distinct solar fields instead of one, large, concentrated field. By dispersing the solar fields, their visible sizes are lessened to nearby residences and the number of wildlife corridors for movement are increased. The company also contends that the agricultural nature of the area will be maintained because the property will contain pastures for sheep grazing, which is a method to control vegetation on the land.
The evidence showed that the project met the criteria in state law for approval, the company concludes.
Environmental Group Submits Arguments Backing Siting Board
The Ohio Environmental Council filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the siting board.
– Kathleen Maloney
Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.
Contacts
Representing Preserve Knox County Ohio LLC et al.: Jack Van Kley, jvankley@vankley.law
Representing the Ohio Power Siting Board from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office: Amy Botschner, amy.botschnerobrien@ohioago.gov
Representing Frasier Solar LLC: Michael Settineri, mjsettineri@vorys.com
These informal previews are prepared by the Supreme Court's Office of Public Information to provide the news media and other interested persons with a brief overview of the legal issues and arguments advanced by the parties in upcoming cases scheduled for oral argument. The previews are not part of the case record, and are not considered by the Court during its deliberations.
Parties interested in receiving additional information are encouraged to review the case file available in the Supreme Court Clerk's Office (614.387.9530), or to contact counsel of record.