Supreme Court of Ohio 2006 Annual Report - Supreme Court - State ...
Supreme Court of Ohio 2006 Annual Report - Supreme Court - State ...
Supreme Court of Ohio 2006 Annual Report - Supreme Court - State ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
November<br />
In re J.J.<br />
Case no. <strong>2006</strong>-0064<br />
Web cite <strong>2006</strong>-<strong>Ohio</strong>-5484<br />
When a trial court possesses subjectmatter<br />
jurisdiction over a case, a<br />
procedural error when transferring the<br />
case to a visiting judge is grounds for<br />
a timely objection, but does not void<br />
the trial court’s judgment by negating<br />
its subject-matter jurisdiction over the<br />
case. In addition, when two different<br />
panels <strong>of</strong> the same court <strong>of</strong> appeals issue<br />
conflicting rulings on a legal matter, the<br />
conflict may not be certified for review<br />
by the <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, but must be<br />
resolved through an en banc session in<br />
which all judges <strong>of</strong> the court <strong>of</strong> appeals<br />
participate.<br />
Cuyahoga App. No. 86276, 2005-<br />
<strong>Ohio</strong>-6096. Judgment reversed and<br />
cause remanded.<br />
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer,<br />
Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor and<br />
O’Donnell, JJ., concur.<br />
Lanzinger, J., concurs in judgment<br />
only.<br />
<strong>State</strong> v. Stahl<br />
Case no. 2005-0773<br />
Web cite <strong>2006</strong>-<strong>Ohio</strong>-5482<br />
Rules that the admissibility at trial <strong>of</strong><br />
third-party hearsay testimony about<br />
statements that a since-deceased<br />
crime victim made during a medical<br />
examination depends on whether<br />
the statements were made under<br />
circumstances that would lead an<br />
objective witness reasonably to believe<br />
the statements would be available later<br />
for a trial.<br />
Summit App. No. 22261, 2005-<strong>Ohio</strong>-<br />
1137. Judgment affirmed.<br />
Resnick, Lundberg Stratton,<br />
O’Connor and O’Donnell, JJ.,<br />
concur.<br />
Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lanzinger,<br />
JJ., dissent.<br />
Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive Inc.<br />
Case no. 2005-0331<br />
Web cite <strong>2006</strong>-<strong>Ohio</strong>-5481<br />
If a consumer is harmed by a supplier’s<br />
unfair or deceptive trade practice, the<br />
consumer is entitled to recover actual<br />
economic losses and other damages<br />
resulting from the supplier’s violations <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Ohio</strong> Consumer Sales Practices Act.<br />
Summit App. No. 21836, 2004-<strong>Ohio</strong>-<br />
7166. Judgment reversed and cause<br />
remanded.<br />
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer,<br />
Lundberg Stratton and Lanzinger,<br />
JJ., concur.<br />
O’Donnell, J., dissents.<br />
O’Connor, J., not participating.<br />
Am. Financial Servs. Assn. v. Cleveland<br />
Case nos. 2005-0160 and 2005-0161<br />
Web cite <strong>2006</strong>-<strong>Ohio</strong>-6043<br />
Holds three Cleveland city ordinances<br />
violate the home-rule provision <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Ohio</strong> Constitution because state<br />
statutes setting regulatory guidelines for<br />
<strong>Ohio</strong> residential mortgage lenders are<br />
“general laws” to prescribe a uniform<br />
statewide regulatory scheme and<br />
provisions <strong>of</strong> the Cleveland ordinances<br />
conflict with the state law by prohibiting<br />
lending practices within the city that<br />
are implicitly permitted under the state<br />
statute.<br />
Cuyahoga App. No. 83676, 159<br />
<strong>Ohio</strong> App.3d 489, 2004-<strong>Ohio</strong>-6416.<br />
Judgment reversed.<br />
Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton,<br />
O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ.,<br />
concur.<br />
O’Connor, J., concurs in judgment<br />
only.<br />
Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.<br />
101