Noteworthy Cases

State ex rel. Sensel v. Leone, 707 N.E.2d 496, (Ohio Supreme Court 1999)

Several parents sent letters to the school superintendent commenting on the behavior of the school basketball coach with regard to allegations of abuse. The superintendent reviewed the letters and determined that an investigation into the coach’s behavior was unnecessary. He subsequently disposed of the letters. One parent requested copies of the letters pursuant to the Ohio Public Records Act. Ennis, Roberts, & Fischer successfully argued that the letters were not “records,” under the Act, and thus, the Court determined that the superintendent did not violate the public records law by disposing of the letters.

Three Rivers Levy Committee (Case # 210E1-104)

A citizen alleged that that the Three Rivers Levy Committee violated state law by publishing a false statement concerning a bond issue. Ennis, Roberts, & Fischer successfully defended the Committee by demonstrating that the Committee did not act with actual malice or with reckless disregard to the truth when it published the statement at issue. The Court’s decision helps demonstrate that the publication of campaign literature is granted great First Amendment protections and further suggests that campaign statements open to one or more interpretations are not likely to rise to the level of a violation.

Franklin City School District v. Middletown City School District Property Transfer (Case # 08-AP-000871)

The Middletown City School District requested that the State Board of Education compel the Franklin City School District to transfer six tracts of land to Middletown. Middletown filed the transfer request pursuant to Ohio Revised Code section 3311.06, which sets forth the considerations for transferring territory between school districts following a municipal annexation. Ennis, Roberts, & Fischer successfully argued that the property transfer would not serve the best interests of the students in the district, and consequently, the State Board denied the transfer request. The Board’s decision was subsequently affirmed by both the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and the Tenth District Court of Appeals.

Hamilton City School District Board of Education v. Dixon

Parents of an 18-year-old student with ADHD, bipolar disorder and oppositional defiant disorder sought an injunction compelling the school district to waive an Ohio Athletic Association rule, which limited students to eight semesters of athletic eligibility, in order to allow their son to participate in interscholastic sports during his final year of high school. The Court ruled that the student’s Individual Education Plan conditioned participation in school athletics on the student maintaining athletic eligibility and that the IEP was otherwise sufficient to provide the student with a free and appropriate education. Therefore, the Court denied injunctive relief and ruled in favor of the school district.