In Inside Courts, retired judge Tom Hodson explains the complexities of the law and legal cases, helping you understand what’s at stake — and how it affects you.
While the two Nelsonville councils — deemed “charter” and “statutory” — meet separately, the issue of which should prevail will be decided by the courts.
What appears to be a simple legal question of whether the Issue 23 referendum takes precedence or the charter government’s revocation of Issue 23 takes priority has taken a circuitous route through the courts.
The question has been before the Ohio Supreme Court twice without resolution, with two cases currently resting in the Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals and in the federal U.S. District Court in Columbus.
Additionally, it has been before the Athens County Court of Common Pleas three previous times without resolution. It now sits there for its fourth visit.
We are now down to two active cases: One has been filed again in the Athens County Court of Common Pleas asking for a declaratory judgment, and one in the Fourth District Court of Appeals asking the appellate court for a quo warranto ruling.
All are hoping the fourth time is the charm and a decision with some finality will be rendered either by the common pleas court or the appeals court.
Let me be your guide on this circuitous legal route and clarify some of the legal procedures. We will travel as chronologically as possible so you can see the status of each case.
Background
In November 2024, Nelsonville voters overwhelmingly approved Issue 23, which abolished the city’s charter-based government in favor of one with an elected mayor and ward-based city council. The initiative called for the new government to be in place on Jan. 1, 2026.
The city council approved an ad hoc committee to oversee the transition, even as it asked voters to implement a mayoral government while retaining the charter. That bid failed in the May primary election. Three months later, the council adopted Ordinance 54-25, overturning Issue 23 on grounds that it lacked a “transitional plan and authority.”
The city then asked the Ohio Supreme Court to order the Athens County Board of Elections to remove the names of candidates for a statutory form of government from the November 2025 ballot.
The high court said it did not have the authority to do so and denied the city’s request.
The city then asked the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider its decision and rule on which government should prevail come January 2026: statutory or charter. The high court again refused to do so.
Athens County Court of Common Pleas
Case #2
Because the supreme court punted on what form of government should prevail, Andrea Nicole Thompson Hashman, who was running unopposed for city auditor under the statutory form of government, initiated two legal proceedings in the Athens County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 29, 2025.
In one of those actions, Hashman asked the court for a declaratory judgment designating the statutory form of government endorsed by the 2024 referendum as the proper form of government, and therefore that only the statutory candidates should be on the ballot for election in November 2025.
We will call this common pleas case #2.1. (We’ll address case #1 shortly.)
In response, the City of Nelsonville filed a motion on Oct. 20, 2025, for judgment on the pleadings, asking Judge Patrick Lang to dismiss Hashman’s case before it was even scheduled for trial. Hashman’s attorney filed a counter-argument to that motion on Nov. 17, 2025.
On Dec. 10, 2025, Judge Lang issued a decision granting the city’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. He opined that the case turned on the very narrow issue of “standing” — whether a party is aggrieved enough to be before the court.
Judge Lang recited the history of the legal battles between the referendum and subsequent ordinance, but noted that there was no court ruling that kept Hashman off the ballot. She had been duly elected as a member of the statutory Nelsonville city government on Nov. 4, 2025, and therefore she was not aggrieved.
In summary, Judge Lang wrote: “Because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to Defendants or like to be redressed by declaratory relief, she lacks standing Moreover, because Plaintiff has not been denied office, any challenge to her right to assume office is not ripe.”
Case 2.2
The other legal action Hashman took on Sept. 29 was a request for a preliminary injunction — a court order while a case is pending — asking that the court, without a trial, to find that Hashman would suffer irreparable harm if the court let the election go through with both statutory and charter candidates on the ballot.
We will call this common pleas case #2.2.
Judge Lang denied that motion on Oct. 23, 2025, saying that Hashman had not met the four-pronged test needed to be granted a preliminary injunction. Specifically, Lang said that Hashman had not established by clear and convincing evidence “that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, nor that she will suffer irreparable injury if the requested relief is denied.”
In short, the judge said her request for immediate relief failed on at least two branches of the four-pronged test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
On Jan. 5, 2026, Hashman appealed Judge Lang’s rulings to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction from the eastern suburbs of Cincinnati, north to Circleville and east to Marietta. That makes it appellate case #1.
That case, however, is on hold by agreement of all the parties. Since Hashman filed common pleas case #4, the outcome of that case may negate the need to go forward with the appeal. The stay order went into effect on Feb. 3.
Case #3
Meanwhile, “25 Citizens of Nelsonville, Ohio, Cory W. Taylor and others,” filed a document in the Hashman case on Dec. 8, 2025. The plaintiffs’ submission was a motion to block all the candidates for the statutory government, who had been elected on Nov. 4, from taking office on Jan. 1, 2026.
This certainly muddied the legal waters.
On Dec. 11, 2025, Judge Lang ruled that the 25 Citizens document should not have been part of the Hashman case. Instead, he ordered that the 25 Citizen pleading be separated as its own case and given the common pleas case number 25CI0386. It, therefore, became common pleas case #3.
Judge Lang dismissed the case on Dec. 13, 2025, saying that it was so defective on its face that the case had to be dismissed.
In an eight-page decision, Judge Lang detailed why the document did not meet specified state court rules: It was not filed by an attorney; and it therefore was replete with fatal errors.
No appeal was filed on Case #3, so it is over.
Common pleas case #1 and federal court case
To put everything in proper perspective, we also need to look at common pleas case #1, which is ancillary to all the other litigation.
Before his 2023–24 stint on council, Greg Smith had filed numerous lawsuits against the city. They were all purportedly settled under the terms of a settlement agreement.
On May 5, 2025, the City of Nelsonville and City Auditor Taylor Sappington filed a legal action against Smith, claiming that he had fraudulently entered into a settlement agreement with the City of Nelsonville to resolve his many previous lawsuits against the city.
The city claimed that Smith was not abiding by the terms of the agreement. The lawsuit was a “complaint for fraud, fraudulent inducement, constructive fraud, breach of contract, specific performance, restitution, anticipatory breach of contract, civil conspiracy,” and sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
In short, the city alleges that Smith breached the settlement agreement and had no intentions of abiding by it.
On July 18, 2025, Smith filed a 79-page answer to Nelsonville’s complaint, plus a counter lawsuit against Nelsonville, claiming the city had violated Smith’s terms of the agreement — plus violated his civil rights under federal law. He also claims a breach of his freedom of speech.
The counterclaim is against the City of Nelsonville, plus the following people in their official capacities: former Auditor Sappington and former Law Director Jonathan Robe. He also added council members Nic Joseph-Saul, Cameron Peck, Cory Taylor, Nancy Sonick, Gregg Clement and Opha Lawson.
After a flurry of motions, on Oct. 25, 2024, common pleas case #1 was split into two parts. Smith’s claims against city officials for a breach of his federal civil rights were severed and sent to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio, in Columbus.
The other claims in the original case remain in the Athens County Court of Common Pleas.
Now what happens? Well, at the request of both parties, the federal court has stayed (put on hold) any further proceedings in that portion of the case, until the status of who is the rightful Nelsonville’s government is decided.
Two new cases join the docket
Whew! One might think that we have whittled this whole issue down to one for the common pleas court to decide which form of government will prevail.
But you would be wrong.
Currently, there are two cases pending: one in the Athens County Court of Common Pleas and another an original action in the Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals.
Both seek a final resolution. Let me explain.
Common pleas case #4
On Jan. 21, 2026, Hashman — now auditor in the statutory city government — filed a new 27-page lawsuit in the Athens County Court of Common Pleas against the City of Nelsonville and all the people claiming to be officeholders under the charter form of government.
She is asking the court for a declaratory judgment removing all charter officeholders from their positions and replacing them with those elected to statutory offices in November 2025. In effect, she is asking Judge Lang to declare once and for all that the proper form of government is the statutory form.
However, not so fast.
Appellate court case #2
On Feb. 5, 2026, attorney Garry Hunter filed a lawsuit on behalf of all the statutory office holders against the current charter officer holders who have not relinquished their positions. This suit, however, was filed directly in the Fourth District Court of Appeals, making it appellate case #2.
This lawsuit, 26CA0003, is different from the one common pleas court case #2, which asked the court for a declaratory judgment. Remember that case #2 also is before the appellate court, but on hold until the issue of which government is the rightful one is decided.
Appellate case #2 seeks a quo warranto order to remove the charter people from office. Quo warranto is a legal remedy to determine whether someone rightfully holds public office.
The complaint says that quo warranto is the proper way under Ohio statutes to remove someone from office. It infers that the method on common pleas case #4 of a declaratory judgment is not proper.
According to Ohio Revised Code Sec. 2733.03, a quo warranto action must be filed either in the Ohio Supreme Court or the local appellate court. Hunter chose to file in the Fourth District Court of Appeals, which will ultimately either have a trial on this matter or decide it based on written arguments of law.
Along with his complaint, Hunter filed an extensive memorandum of law and evidence supporting his claims. He also asked that the appellate court place a hold on both the charter and statutory governments from enacting any legislation until the courts have resolved who is rightfully in power.
In a twist worthy of a TV movie, the charter government has appointed its former law director, Jonathan Robe, to represent it in the case brought by Hunter, the city’s law director before Robe.
Both common pleas case #4 and appellate case #2 are in their early stages. It will be interesting to see if they both proceed separately from one another, or whether the common pleas case will be stayed while the appellate court sorts out who should be in office.
