State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hunter
138 Ohio St. 3d 51
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Enquirer published juveniles' names in Aug. 2012; later name publication continued in Aug. 2012 and Sept. 2012 despite access orders.
- Judge Hunter revoked the Enquirer’s permission to broadcast/film after names were published in March 2013.
- Appellate court issued an alternative writ ordering stay of the revocation and allowed Enquirer access.
- Enquirer filed for writ of prohibition and preliminary injunction; contempt proceedings followed.
- Judge Hunter reinstated access on June 24, 2013, but with conditions that preserved the name publication ban; Enquirer sought contempt for violating the writ.
- First District held Hunter in contempt; Ohio Supreme Court reviews for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate writ was violated by Hunter's June 24 entry | Enquirer argues writ required access without name ban | Hunter contends writ did not lift or alter the name ban and allowed continued publication restrictions | Yes, writ was violated; contempt affirmed |
| Whether the order to publish ban was ambiguous to support contempt | Enquirer maintained the alt. writ clearly controlled; ban remained in effect | Hunter asserts ambiguity and subjectivity in enforcing the ban | No, order clear; contempt upheld |
| Whether the appellate court properly interpreted its own writ and standards | Enquirer contends judge violated explicit mandate of writ | Hunter argues writ allowed compliance by access with potential restrictions | Appellate court’s interpretation sustained; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Judge Hunter could reimpose publication ban under local rules | Enquirer claims improper prior restraint prohibited by writ | Hunter cites Loc.R. 14(D) and discretion to restrict publication | Contempt affirmed; reinstatement of ban not justified under writ |
| Standard of review for civil contempt | Discretion should ensure enforcement of court mandates | Abuse of discretion standard; no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ventrone v. Birkel, 65 Ohio St.2d 10 (Ohio 1981) (abuse of discretion standard for contempt decisions)
- State ex rel. Stine v. Brown Cty. Bd. of Elections, 101 Ohio St.3d 252 (2004) (contempt requires clear, definite order to be enforceable)
- State ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 127 Ohio St.3d 332 (2010) (court should interpret its own mandate; defer to trial court discretion)
- Scar nes cchia v. Rebhan, 2006-Ohio-7053 (7th Dist. Mahoning) (clear, definite order required for contempt)
- In re Ayer, 119 Ohio App.3d 571 (1st Dist. 1997) (indefinite/unclear orders cannot support contempt)
- Bay Mechanical & Elec. Corp. v. Testa, 133 Ohio St.3d 423 (2012) (abuse of discretion framework for reviewing contempt)
- Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (1988) (high reliance on trial court’s discretion in contempt)
- Hurst v. Hurst, 2013-Ohio-2674 (5th Dist. Licking) (whether order is definite enough to sustain contempt)
- Perkins v. Gorski, 2013-Ohio-265 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (clarity of order governs contempt liability)