as-applied constitutional challenge in Ohio

2025Id., citing Groch v. Gen.

2025“A holding that a statute is unconstitutional as applied prevents future application of the statute in a similar context, but it does not 4. render the statute wholly inoperative.” Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, Ohio, 2016-Ohio-8118, ¶ 20 , citing Yajnik at ¶ 14, citing Ada v. Guam Soc. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 506 U.S. 1011 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting). {¶ 10} Here, the parties agree that the only issue for our review is whether the trial court erred when it concluded that R.C. 2323.43(A)(3) is unconstitutional on due-process grounds as applied to McNalley.

2024“A party raising an as-applied constitutional challenge must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statute is unconstitutional when applied to an existing set of facts.” Id. at ¶ 22, citing Groch v. GMC, 117 Ohio St.3d 192 , 2008-Ohio-546 , 883 N.E.2d 377 , ¶ 181.

2022Motors Corp., 117 Ohio St.3d 192 , 2008-Ohio-546 , 883 N.E.2d 377 , ¶ 181, quoting Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2005-Ohio-5334 , 836 N.E.2d 1165 , ¶ 38.

2021Mobil Oil Corp. v. Rocky River, 38 Ohio St.2d 23 , 309 N.E.2d 900 (1974), syllabus.

2021Mobil Oil Corp. v. Rocky River, 38 Ohio St.2d 23 , 309 N.E.2d 900 (1974), syllabus.

2017Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 167 , 2012-Ohio-2187, ¶ 22 .

2017Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 167 , 2012-Ohio-2187, ¶ 22 .

2025“A holding that a statute is unconstitutional as applied prevents future application of the statute in a similar context, but it does not 4. render the statute wholly inoperative.” Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, Ohio, 2016-Ohio-8118, ¶ 20 , citing Yajnik at ¶ 14, citing Ada v. Guam Soc. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 506 U.S. 1011 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting). {¶ 10} Here, the parties agree that the only issue for our review is whether the trial court erred when it concluded that R.C. 2323.43(A)(3) is unconstitutional on due-process grounds as applied to McNalley.

2019(Appellant's Brief at 12.) However, Conway allows that the same evidence might not satisfy the standard under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b) for successive petitions, which requires him to "show[] by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found" him guilty. {¶ 17} "A party raising an as-applied constitutional challenge must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statute is unconstitutional when applied to an existing set of facts." Simpkins v. Grace Brethren Church of Delaware, 149 Ohio St.3d 307 , 2016-Ohio- 8118, ¶ 22.

2023The practical effect of holding a statute unconstitutional as applied is to prevent its future application in a similar context, but not to render it utterly inoperative.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Wymsylo at ¶ 22 , quoting Yajnik v. Akron Dept. of Health, Housing Div., 101 Ohio St.3d 106 , 2004-Ohio-357 , ¶ 14, quoting Ada v. Guam Soc. of 10 Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 506 U.S. 1011 (1992).

2016The practical effect of holding a statute unconstitutional 'as applied' is to prevent its future application in a similar context, but not to render it utterly inoperative." ' " Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Yajnik v. Akron Dept. of Health, Housing Div., 101 Ohio St.3d 106 , 2004-Ohio-357 , ¶ 14, quoting Ada v. Guam Soc. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 506 U.S. 1011 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

2022In an as-applied constitutional challenge, the challenging party “bears the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence of a presently existing set of facts that make the statute[] unconstitutional and void when applied to those facts.” (Emphasis added.) Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2005-Ohio-5334 , 836 N.E.2d 1165, ¶ 38 .

2022In an as-applied constitutional challenge, the challenging party “bears the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence of a presently existing set of facts that make the statute[] unconstitutional and void when applied to those facts.” (Emphasis added.) Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St.3d 44 , 2005-Ohio-5334 , 836 N.E.2d 1165, ¶ 38 .

2026VVF Intervest, L.L.C. v. Harris, 2025-Ohio-5680, ¶ 41 . {¶ 11} The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Ohio’s Equal Protection Clause in Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution states, “All political power is inherent in the people.

2025Comm., 2006- Ohio-2181, ¶ 15 (“[A] litigant must raise an as-applied constitutional challenge in the first instance during the proceedings before the [agency] in order to allow the parties to develop an evidentiary record.”); see also Pivonka 2020-Ohio-3476, at ¶ 24 ; Binder v. Cuyahoga Cty., 2020-Ohio-5126, ¶ 25 .

2024The Due Process Clause is set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment and provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the Due Process Clause “guarantees more than fair process.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 , 117 S.Ct. 2258 , 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997).

2024The Due Process Clause is set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment and provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the Due Process Clause “guarantees more than fair process.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 , 117 S.Ct. 2258 , 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997).

2023Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 193 , 2006-Ohio-2181 , ¶ 16 {¶31} “A party raising an as-applied constitutional challenge * * * alleges that the application of the statute in the particular context in which he has acted, or in which he proposes to act, would be unconstitutional.

2022“Questions of law are reviewed de novo, independently 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS and without deference to the trial court’s decision.” Id., quoting Andreyko v. Cincinnati, 153 Ohio App.3d 108 , 2003-Ohio-2759 , 791 N.E.2d 1025, ¶ 112 (1st Dist.). {¶6} Kelly did not specify whether he was raising a facial or an as-applied constitutional challenge.

2022“A person to whom a statute may be constitutionally applied may not be heard to challenge the statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not before the court.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Taubman, 78 Ohio App.3d 834, 845 , 606 N.E.2d 962 (2d Dist.1992). {¶56} As explained above, Mr. Haynes’ first assignment of error challenges the length of his aggregate sentence, while R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 apply only to individual sentences.

2021Portage Nos. 2004-P-0071 and 2004-P-0072, 2005-Ohio-7052, ¶ 47 .

2018Summit No. 27869, 2016-Ohio-5310 , 2016 WL 4211252 , ¶ 13 (rejecting an as-applied constitutional challenge to Tier I registration requirements).

2017In general, the Equal Protection Clause is satisfied so long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification.” Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 11 , 112 S.Ct. 2326 , 120 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992). {¶ 35} Appellant raises an as-applied constitutional challenge to the application of R.C. 2907.03(A)(7).

2017In general, the Equal Protection Clause is satisfied so long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification.” Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 11 , 112 S.Ct. 2326 , 120 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992). {¶ 35} Appellant raises an as-applied constitutional challenge to the application of R.C. 2907.03(A)(7).

2016In such a case, if one child were prosecuted but not the other, the reasoning of In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104 , 2011-Ohio-2671 , would apply, and an as-applied constitutional challenge to R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) could be sustained. {¶ 34} Here, while only appellee was charged, he did not meet his burden to prove that the statute is unconstitutional as applied.

2016In such a case, if one child were prosecuted but not the other, the reasoning of In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104 , 2011-Ohio-2671 , would apply, and an as-applied constitutional challenge to R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) could be sustained. {¶ 34} Here, while only appellee was charged, he did not meet his burden to prove that the statute is unconstitutional as applied.

2016In that circumstance, it was reasonable for the court to refer to the statute as “not extinguish[ing] a vested right.” Ruther, 134 Ohio St.3d 408 , 2012-Ohio-5686 , 983 N.E.2d 291 , syllabus.

2016In that circumstance, it was reasonable for the court to refer to the statute as “not extinguish[ing] a vested right.” Ruther, 134 Ohio St.3d 408 , 2012-Ohio-5686 , 983 N.E.2d 291 , syllabus.

2016Id. at ¶ 13; 2013-Ohio-4505 , 2 N.E.3d 304 , at ¶ 50. {¶ 41} In an effort to save its claim that the fee is unconstitutional, OCSEA argues that record evidence is always required to evaluate an as-applied constitutional challenge.

2015SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-5476 IN RE ADOPTION OF H.N.R. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In re Adoption of H.N.R., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-5476 .] Adoption—Putative Father Registry—R.C. 3107.07(B)(1) and 3107.062— Procedural due process—As-applied challenge to putative-father-registry deadline—Putative father was not injured by aspect of statute he alleges is unconstitutional—Where there is no prejudice to the party allegedly wronged by a statute, the party cannot call upon the court to conduct an as- applied constitutional analysi

2015SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-5476 IN RE ADOPTION OF H.N.R. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In re Adoption of H.N.R., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-5476 .] Adoption—Putative Father Registry—R.C. 3107.07(B)(1) and 3107.062— Procedural due process—As-applied challenge to putative-father-registry deadline—Putative father was not injured by aspect of statute he alleges is unconstitutional—Where there is no prejudice to the party allegedly wronged by a statute, the party cannot call upon the court to conduct an as- applied constitutional analysi

2015(No. 2014-2201—Submitted June 24, 2015—Decided December 31, 2015.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Greene County, No. 2014-CA-35, 2014-Ohio-4959 . _____________________ O’CONNOR, C.J. {¶ 1} Appellant, C.S.M., brings an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of an aspect of Ohio’s Putative Father Registry (“OPFR”) that SUPREME COURT OF OHIO limits the time frame during which a man can register as a putative father in order to gain a right to receive notice of any subsequent adoption proceedings involving the man’s putative child.

2012(Hardy v. VerMeulen, 32 Ohio St.3d 45 , 512 N.E.2d 626 (1987), overruled.) __________________ LANZINGER, J. {¶ 1} This appeal is an as-applied constitutional challenge to R.C. 2305.113(C), the statute of repose for medical claims.

2012(Hardy v. VerMeulen, 32 Ohio St.3d 45 , 512 N.E.2d 626 (1987), overruled.) __________________ LANZINGER, J. {¶ 1} This appeal is an as-applied constitutional challenge to R.C. 2305.113(C), the statute of repose for medical claims.