2022 Ohio 1130
Ohio2022Background
- Ryan Olthaus, a Cincinnati police officer, was accused on social media of being a white supremacist after making an "OK" hand gesture while providing security at a City Council meeting; Julie Niesen and Terhas White posted such accusations.
- Olthaus sued Niesen, White, and others for defamation, false light, and related claims; he sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to bar defendants from posting and from publishing his personal identifying information (and initially sought to proceed under a pseudonym).
- After a July 24, 2020 hearing, the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court issued a TRO prohibiting public dissemination of Olthaus’s personal identifying information but did not order removal of the social-media posts; a preliminary-injunction hearing was set.
- Under Civ.R. 65(A) a TRO may last no more than 14 days unless extended within that period. The court did not enter an order renewing the TRO until August 13, after the 14-day period expired (the TRO thus expired on August 8, 2020).
- Niesen and White appealed; the court of appeals found the TRO nonfinal. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review but dismissed the appeal as moot because the TRO had expired and the exceptions to mootness did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court-imposed speech-restraining TRO is immediately appealable | TRO that imposes a prior restraint on speech should be immediately appealable | TRO is not a final, appealable order | The Court did not decide the merits—dismissed appeal as moot because TRO expired |
| Whether the trial court validly extended the TRO under Civ.R. 65(A) | The trial-court orders preserved the TRO pending injunction hearing | The TRO expired because no timely extension was entered within 14 days | TRO expired on Aug 8; court lacked authority to extend after expiration |
| Whether the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception saves the appeal | Short duration makes the issue inherently unreviewable and likely to recur | Exception requires reasonable expectation of repetition between the same parties, which is lacking here | Exception does not apply: must repeat between same parties and no reasonable expectation of repetition (and Olthaus must proceed under his name) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13 (1970) (court’s jurisdiction limited to actual, live controversies)
- Travis v. Public Util. Comm., 123 Ohio St. 355 (1931) (mootness doctrine principles)
- Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (1910) (mootness/duty to dismiss when controversy ceases)
- Tschantz v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio St.3d 131 (1991) (courts do not decide moot questions)
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Allen Cty. Bd. of Cty. Commrs., 32 Ohio St.3d 24 (1987) (mootness principles)
- United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S. Ct. 1532 (2018) (standard for "capable of repetition yet evading review")
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) (same standard applied)
- State ex rel. Bechtel v. Cornachio, 164 Ohio St.3d 579 (2021) (Ohio application of repetition/evading-review exception)
- Calvary v. Upper Arlington, 89 Ohio St.3d 229 (2000) (discussion of repetition/evading-review exception)