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.
You may think the litigation whirlwind surrounding Nelsonville’s form of city government is finally waning. We’re down to just two major cases: one in the Ohio Supreme Court and one in the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
But not so fast.
There are still major legal issues to be decided in those two cases, the possibility of more appeals on the horizon, and the probability of a recall election of the charter city officials. The latter could prompt even more litigation.
Meanwhile, three charter officials and two citizens are demanding that charter council President Cameron Peck resign due to abusive communications with residents online.
Resident Lori Cook described Peck’s behavior online on Facebook as “erratic, volatile, threatening, unethical, and unprofessional.” Peck denies any wrongdoing and refuses to resign. As this plays out, there is potential for even more litigation.
Let’s recap.
Two years ago, in November 2024, Nelsonville voters approved Issue 23 to abolish the city charter as of January 1, 2026. The majority was overwhelming, with nearly 70% of the vote.
However, in August 2025, the city council — currently acting as the charter-based council — passed Ordinance 54-25, nullifying the vote to abolish the charter. By that time, the Athens County Board of Elections had already certified candidates for a new statutory form of government.
An onslaught of litigation then began. The Ohio Supreme Court declined twice in 2025 to determine which should prevail between the abolition of the charter and the nullification of the November 2024 ballot initiative.
After two years of various forms of litigation, we are now down to two major cases, which I will try to dissect.
In the Ohio Supreme Court
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. JONATHAN R. FLOWERS, ET. AL V. CITY OF NELSONVILLE.
Members of a statutory form of government originally filed this case in the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Athens County as a quo warranto matter. A quo warranto case allows a court to remove people from elected office. In this case, the plaintiffs asked the court to remove the charter officials and find Ordinance 54-25 null and void.
Both sides filed extensive briefs with the Court of Appeals. On June 10, 2026, the Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the charter officials should be removed.
The court said before it could decide that issue, the Athens County Common Pleas Court needed to issue a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of Ordinance 54-25 that preserved the charter.
In short, the common pleas court needed to issue a declaratory judgment before the appellate court could decide a quo warranto to remove people from office.
The statutory officeholders disagreed with the appellate court and filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court on July 22.
On September 11, the statutory office holders filed a 49-page legal brief arguing that the supreme court should decide the issue between statutory and charter forms of government and eliminate the need for further litigation.
In the brief, attorney Garry Hunter argues that only a court of appeals and the supreme court have the authority to decide quo warranto cases and it is not appropriate to require a prior common pleas court decision on the matter.
Since the appellate court already punted on the matter, Hunter says, the supreme court should just go ahead and decide the whole issue, nullify Ordinance 54-25, declare the statutory officials as the appropriate governing body and void the charter.
On October 13, the charter officials filed their brief through attorney Jonathan Robe. He outlines the whole history of litigation in the matter and joins Hunter in requesting that the supreme court decide the ultimate issue of who should be in power: statutory or charter.
Robe’s arguments are too long and complicated to adequately address in detail here. The thrust is that “as a matter of home rule,” the city charter was still in place at the time of the passage of Ordinance 54-25 and that an action pursuant to that charter should be upheld.
Hunter now has an opportunity to file a reply brief on behalf of the statutory officials. The supreme court then must decide whether it wishes to hear oral arguments on this case or decide it based upon the written briefs. Hunter has requested oral arguments, but they are not mandatory.
All of this is destined to take several more months … unless the supreme court punts again.
The high court really has three options: 1) send the case back to the court of appeals for that court to decide the validity of Ordinance 54-25, 2) decide the ultimate issue in favor of the statutory officials, or 3) decide the case in favor of the charter government.
If the case goes back to the court of appeals, regardless of who wins, it almost guarantees further appeals back at the supreme court level and more delay.
In the Fourth District Court of Appeals
On October 1, the state supreme court may have given a signal how it might rule on the case discussed above.
This case involves Rita Nguyen, who challenged her removal from the Nelsonville City Council in 2024. She wanted her position back.
The Fourth District Court of Appeals dismissed her case for being “moot,” indicating that a new statutory set of officials had been elected in November 2025 and therefore her former charter position no longer existed.
However, the court of appeals did not decide which form of government was legitimate — statutory or charter. There was no decision on the validity of Ordinance 54-25 repealing Issue 23.
Nguyen appealed the case to the Ohio Supreme Court. On October 1, the court sent the case back to the court of appeals to resolve the underlying issue of which form of government is legitimate before ruling on the merits of Nguyen’s claim.
The supreme court punted and it may do the same with the current Flowers case. This recent Nguyen opinion might be a prologue to the Flowers decision.
If both the Nguyen and the Flowers cases go back to the court of appeals, those decisions probably will again be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
All these legal actions likely will take months or perhaps a year or more to unwind.
Meanwhile, the statutory officials are pursuing a recall of the charter officials. Currently, that vote is scheduled for December 15, but likely will be changed.
Keep those seatbelts fastened, folks. We are still in for a bumpy ride.
