OHIO SUPREME COURT \ Scheduled cases The state’s high court will hear arguments in these four cases Wednesday in the Columbiana County Courthouse in Lisbon:

State of Ohio v. Hugh Hunter, Cuyahoga County

Legal question: Did a court decision void a state law authorizing additional prison time for repeat violent offenders?

In 2004, Hugh Hunter of Cleveland was charged with felonious assault after punching a church worker who said the building was closing. He was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison, and the judge added two more years because Hunter was found to be a repeat violent offender. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that extra time could be added by a jury but not the judge. The state law has since been changed but only after Hunter’s case ended. The defense is asking if the state or the federal rulings invalidate repeat violent-offender sentences.

Mary Niskanen v. Giant Eagle, Summit County

Legal question: Does a lawsuit for alleged negligence also require a claim for malice?

Niskanen filed a lawsuit for compensatory and punitive damages after her son, Paul, died after he took groceries without paying and began to load them in a car. Workers held him down and he died of asphyxiation. The case ended in favor of the store when the jury decided he was responsible for his injuries. But the state appeals court reversed the decision on the question of whether there was actual malice by the workers.

Kauffman Racing Equipment v. Scott Roberts

Legal question: Does an Ohio court have jurisdiction over a civil suit in which a man has bad-mouthed an Ohio company?

The racing company sold an auto engine block to Scott Roberts of Virginia in 2006. Roberts complained it was defective, shipped it back and then admitted he altered the block. KRE did not buy it back. Roberts then posted negative comments about the company on the Internet. An Ohio court dismissed a defamation case against Roberts filed by KRE since he has never been in Ohio. But KRE attorneys said Roberts’ comments come from a prior business transaction that occurred in Ohio.

Reynold Williams Jr. v. Spitzer Autoworld

Legal question: What laws apply when an oral promise and a contract disagree?

In 2004, Williams bought a vehicle from Spitzer in Canton. The sales contract signed by both Williams and the dealer included a trade-in allowance of $15,500. But two years later, Williams contended that the salesman had said the trade-in was $16,500 but reduced it. Williams won under the state’s Consumer Sales Practices Act that tripled the damages. The dealership appealed, saying Williams was allowed to introduce “parol evidence,” which is evidence of a verbal commitment under Ohio’s common law. Business groups and auto dealers are supporting the dealership; the Ohio attorney general and national consumer groups support Williams.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court