Betty Sutton

Betty Sutton stated in a 2020 questionnaire that she was running to ensure “courts are fair and impartial” and that her experiences have given her a “unique insight into the law, how it should be interpreted, and a deep understanding of the importance of fairness and justice for all who come before the court” and reiterated that the court’s decisions have real-life impacts on people.

In M.J. v. Akron City School District (2023), in which Judge Sutton authored the opinion, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals considered whether a school district and several employees were protected by statutory immunity from claims arising after an armed man impersonated a police officer and gained access to students. The court partly reversed and partly affirmed the trial court. It held that the school district and Board of Education were entitled to have the full three-step immunity analysis completed, so that issue was sent back to the trial court. However, the individual employees were not entitled to immunity at the summary-judgment stage because reasonable people could disagree about whether their actions were reckless. The ruling allowed claims against the individual employees to continue while requiring further review of the school district’s immunity.

In Akron v. Berenato (2023), in which Judge Sutton authored the opinion, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals considered whether a criminal proceeding was valid when the defendant was not provided a proper interpreter during his initial court appearances. The court reversed the conviction and vacated his no-contest plea, holding that the trial court failed to properly advise Berenato of his rights and failed to ensure that he understood the proceedings. The court found that the lack of a proper interpreter made the proceedings invalid under Ohio Criminal Rule 5(A). Judge Sutton emphasized that courts must make sure defendants understand the charges and their constitutional rights, particularly when there is a language barrier. The case was sent back to the Akron Municipal Court for a new initial appearance. 

In Petty v. Lorain (2023), in which Judge Sutton authored the opinion as presiding judge, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals considered whether a Lorain resident had standing to challenge a city ordinance governing how a proposed city charter was distributed to voters. Petty argued that the city improperly mailed the proposed charter only to people who had voted in the previous general election, violating the Ohio Constitution. The court affirmed summary judgment for the City of Lorain, holding that Petty lacked standing because he did not show that the mailing policy caused him a direct, personal injury. The proposed charter had already been rejected by voters, and Petty did not claim that he was personally prevented from voting or receiving the charter. Judge Sutton therefore applied standing requirements to prevent the court from deciding a constitutional question without a concrete injury.

In Gibson Bros., Inc. v. Oberlin College (2022), in which Judge Sutton joined the unanimous opinion, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals considered whether Oberlin College was responsible for defamation, interference with business, and emotional distress claims brought by Gibson’s Bakery after a 2016 student protest. The court affirmed the judgment against Oberlin, upholding the jury’s findings and substantial damages. The court explained that the case was not about students’ First Amendment right to protest, but about whether the college itself engaged in unlawful conduct that harmed the Gibsons. The court also upheld the limits on punitive damages and the award of attorney fees. Judge Sutton’s concurrence means she agreed with the court’s conclusions, including its treatment of free-speech protections and the college’s liability. 

In A.S. v. Summit County Prosecutor (2022), in which Judge Sutton authored the opinion, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals considered whether an Ohio court could remove a firearm disability for a person who lived in Florida. The court reversed the trial court, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because Ohio law clearly requires a person seeking relief from a weapons disability to apply in the county where the person lives. A.S. had moved to Florida after an involuntary commitment in Ohio and argued that Florida law required him to seek relief in Summit County. Judge Sutton rejected that argument, finding the Ohio statute’s language was clear and unambiguous. The decision meant A.S. could not obtain relief from his firearm disability through the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.

In State v. Ridgeway (2021), in which Judge Sutton authored the opinion, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals considered whether there was enough evidence to convict Ridgeway of criminal mischief for altering a political bumper sticker criticizing a local mayor. The court reversed his conviction, holding that prosecutors failed to prove the bumper sticker belonged to someone else. The sticker was found on Ridgeway’s car, creating a presumption that it was his property, and the State did not provide enough evidence to overcome that presumption. The court did not decide Ridgeway’s First Amendment claim because the evidence was already insufficient to support the conviction. The decision vacated his conviction and ended the criminal-mischief case against him.