In re Faris

4 Citing cases

  1. State ex Rel. Ferguson v. Court of Claims

    98 Ohio St. 3d 399 (Ohio 2003)   Cited 28 times
    Considering "qualitative differences between the previous criminal proceedings and civil reparations action that prohibit the application of res judicata"

    Stare Decisis {¶ 26} Ferguson contends that the Court of Claims abused its discretion by failing to follow its previous judgments in In re Faris (1996), 85 Ohio Misc.2d 37, 684 N.E.2d 112, and In re Carver (1997), 91 Ohio Misc.2d 178, 698 N.E.2d 151, and in relying on the unreported decision of a three-commissioner panel in In re Sawyer (Jan. 20, 1995), Ct. of Cl. No. V93-61412, in determining Ferguson's claim. He asserts that the Court of Claims thereby violated the doctrine of stare decisis and former S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 2 (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d xxi.

  2. State ex Rel. Ferguson v. Court of Claims

    No. 02AP-299 (Regular Calendar) (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2002)

    Pursuant to R.C. 2743.51 and 2743.52, the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to make awards of reparations for economic loss arising from criminally injurious conduct, if the court is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the requirements of an award of reparations have been met. The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that the requirements for an award of reparations under the Victims of Crime Act have been met by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Faris (1996), 85 Ohio Misc.2d 37. R.C. 2743.60(E) provides certain limitations on claims and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

  3. In re Geeter

    2004 Ohio 946 (Ohio Misc. 2004)

    We find that a mere felony indictment on a finding of probable cause followed by a guilty plea to a lesser offense (misdemeanor) to be insufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim/applicant engaged in felonious conduct, unless there is probative evidence such as a police/investigation report and witness statements, which clearly indicates by a preponderance of the evidence, that the applicant engaged in felonious conduct. See In re Faris (1996), 85 Ohio Misc.2d 37 and In re Sawyer, V93-61412tc (1-20-95). In this case, we note that there is a police report and a witness statement with respect to the applicant's alleged misconduct on February 10, 2003.

  4. In re Carver

    91 Ohio Misc. 2d 178 (Ohio Misc. 1997)   Cited 3 times

    The arrest report in the claim file indicated that the Sawyer applicant sold L.S.D. to an undercover police detective. A panel of commissioners found that the Sawyer applicant's misdemeanor guilty plea, in addition to the information contained in the police report, was sufficient to find that the applicant engaged in felonious conduct within ten years prior to the criminally injurious conduct, despite the lack of a felony conviction. In In re Faris (1996), 85 Ohio Misc.2d 37, 684 N.E.2d 112, a judge of the Court of Claims held that "a mere felony indictment of probable cause followed by a guilty plea to [a] lesser offense, a misdemeanor, is not sufficient to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the applicant engaged in felonious conduct." The judge distinguished Sawyer, supra, based on the lack of evidence of felonious conduct in the Faris file.