[Cite as Cronin v. Governor of Ohio, 2022-Ohio-829.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

KEVIN CRONIN, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : 

 No. 110802 

 v. : 

 

GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL., : 

 

 Defendants-Appellees. : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 17, 2022 

 

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CV-21-947161 

 

Appearances: 

Kevin H. Cronin, pro se. 

Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and Iris Jin, Julie M. 

Pfeiffer, and Heather L. Buchanan, Assistant Attorneys 

General, for appellees. 

CORNELIUS J. O’SULLIVAN, JR., J.: 

Plaintiff-appellant, Kevin Cronin (“appellant”), appeals from the trial 

court’s August 26, 2021 judgment granting the motion to dismiss of defendantsappellees, the governor of Ohio and the Ohio attorney general (collectively “the 
defendants”)1 due to lack of standing. After a thorough review of the law and facts, 

we affirm. 

Procedural History 

In May 2021, appellant filed a “complaint for injury, with motion 

seeking an emergency temporary restraining order” against the defendants. 

Appellant sought “an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order barring the 

Governor from implementing [Senate Bill] 22 [(‘S.B. 22’)], a law to limit executive 

authority in acting under an emergency declaration.” Complaint, pg. 1. According 

to appellant’s complaint, “[t]he legislation violates the Ohio Constitution in 

impeding lawful executive action and impermissibly appropriates executive 

authority for the legislative branch of government, placing the health and safety of 

Ohio residents at higher risk.” Id.

In June 2021, the defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss 

appellant’s complaint and brief in opposition to his motion for a temporary 

restraining order. The motion to dismiss was made under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6). 

Appellant filed a brief in opposition to the motion. 

In June 2021, appellant filed a motion for preliminary injunction, 

which the defendants opposed. 

In August 2021, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to 

dismiss on the ground that appellant failed to demonstrate that he had standing to 

1 At all relevant times, the Ohio governor was Mike DeWine and the Ohio attorney 

general was David Yost. 
challenge S.B. 22. Appellant appeals, raising the following assignment of error for 

our review: “The trial court erred in failing to address the full scope of injury 

imposed by the unconstitutional SB 22 regime and the denial of standing to 

challenge SB 22.” 

Factual Background 

S.B. 22 was introduced in the Ohio General Assembly in January 2021. 

It was passed by both the Ohio House and Senate. In March 2021, Governor DeWine 

vetoed it pursuant to his authority under the Ohio Constitution. See Ohio 

Constitution, Article II, Section 16. The General Assembly then overrode Governor 

DeWine’s veto and thereafter S.B. 22 became law in Ohio. See id.

In part, S.B. 22: (1) limits the duration of a state of emergency issued 

by the governor to 90 days, permits the General Assembly to terminate the state of 

emergency after 30 days, and allows the General Assembly to extend a state of 

emergency by 60 day intervals (R.C. 107.42 (A)-(F)); (2) permits the General 

Assembly to rescind orders and rules in response to a state of emergency (R.C. 

101.36 (A)-(C)); (3) requires the governor and the Ohio Department of Health to 

report to the Ohio senate president and the Ohio speaker of the house any actions 

taken in response to the state of emergency (R.C. 107.43(B)); (4) establishes the 

“Ohio health oversight and advisory committee,” and authorizes the committee to 

oversee actions taken by the governor, Department of Health, or any other agency 

in response to a state of emergency or for the prevention of the spread of contagious 

or infectious diseases (R.C. 103.65 (A)-(F); R.C. 103.651); and (5) restricts a local 
board of health’s authority to issue quarantine and isolation orders to specific 

individuals or businesses who have been medically diagnosed with a disease or have 

come in contact with a disease and prohibits orders affecting a class of persons (R.C. 

3707.11; R.C. 3707.54). 

According to appellant’s complaint he has “Severe Aplastic Anemia, an 

immune-compromised blood disorder.” Complaint, at ¶ 2. He alleged that the 

provisions of S.B. 22 will impede his health and safety, as well as the public’s health 

and safety because it will expose him and the public “to sickness, risk of serious/long 

term health impairment or death, lost work, lost education and entertainment 

opportunities and additional costs of medical care.” Id. at ¶ 15. 

Law and Analysis 

Civ.R. 12(B) Motion to Dismiss 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss stated that it was being made under 

Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6). The substance of the motion does not address Civ.R. 

12(B)(1), however. Civ.R. 12(B)(1) provides for the dismissal of a complaint where 

the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation. The “subject 

matter jurisdiction of a court is a court’s power to hear and decide a case upon its 

merits.” Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 290 N.E.2d 841 (1972), paragraph 

one of the syllabus. 

“Although standing is required in order to invoke the jurisdiction of 

the court over a particular action * * *, lack of standing does not affect the subjectmatter jurisdiction of a court of common pleas.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 
Ohio St.3d 75, 2014-Ohio-4275, 21 N.E.3d 1040, paragraph three of the syllabus. 

Because lack of standing does not affect the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, lack 

of standing is not a matter subject to dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(1). PNC Bank, 

Natl. Assn. v. Botts, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-256, 2012-Ohio-5383, ¶ 22. 

However, “a lack of standing may properly be raised in a motion to 

dismiss premised on Civ.R. 12(B)(6).” (Citations omitted.) Revocable Living Trust 

of Mandel v. Lake Erie Util. Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97859, 2012-Ohio-5718, 

¶ 11. We, therefore, limit our discussion to whether the trial court properly granted 

the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). 

Appellate review of an order dismissing a complaint for failure to state 

a for relief is de novo. Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio4362, 814 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 5. When reviewing a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, we 

must accept the material allegations of the complaint as true and make all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio 

St.3d 278, 2005-Ohio-4985, 834 N.E.2d 791, ¶ 6. However, “unsupported 

conclusions of a complaint are not considered admitted * * * and are not sufficient 

to withstand a motion to dismiss.” State ex rel. Hickman v. Capots, 45 Ohio St.3d 

324, 324, 544 N.E.2d 639 (1989). For a defendant to prevail on the motion, it must 

appear from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that 

would justify a court in granting relief. O’Brien v. Univ. Comm. Tenants Union, Inc., 

42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975). 
Applying a de novo standard of review, we turn to the issue on appeal—

whether appellant’s complaint established his standing. 

Standing 

“A preliminary inquiry in all legal claims is the issue of standing.” 

Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 59, 2006-Ohio-6499, 858 

N.E.2d 330, ¶ 22. Standing is a constitutionally imposed jurisdictional requirement. 

ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. JobsOhio, 139 Ohio St.3d 520, 2014-Ohio-2382, 13 

N.E.3d 1101, ¶ 11. Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(B) provides that common 

pleas courts “shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters.” “A 

matter is justiciable only if the complaining party has standing to sue.” 

ProgressOhio.org at id., citing Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 134 

Ohio St.3d 13, 2012-Ohio-5017, 979 N.E.2d 1214. 

In Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 

N.E.2d 977, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated the requirements for standing as 

follows: 

To succeed in establishing standing, plaintiffs must show that they 

suffered (1) an injury that is (2) fairly traceable to the defendant’s 

allegedly unlawful conduct, and (3) likely to be redressed by the 

requested relief. These three factors — injury, causation, and 

redressability — constitute “the irreducible constitutional minimum of 

standing.” 

Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 

119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

Appellant’s allegations do not meet any of the three requirements. 
Injury 

“[T]he injury must be concrete and not simply abstract or suspected” 

to be compensable. Ohio Contrs. Assn. v. Bicking, 71 Ohio St.3d 318, 320, 643 

N.E.2d 1088 (1994). Further, an injury that is borne by the population in general, 

and which does not affect the plaintiff in particular, is not sufficient to confer 

standing. State ex rel. Walgate v. Kasich, 2013-Ohio-946, 989 N.E.2d 140, ¶ 11 

(10th Dist.), rev’d on other grounds, 147 Ohio St.3d 1, 2016-Ohio-1176, 59 N.E. 3d 

1240. To show standing, a private litigant: 

“[M]ust generally show that he or she has suffered or is threatened with 

direct and concrete injury in a manner or degree different from that 

suffered by the public in general, that the law in question has caused 

the injury, and that the relief requested will redress the injury.” 

Bowers v. Ohio State Dental Bd., 142 Ohio App.3d 376, 380, 755 N.E.2d 948 (10th 

Dist.2001), quoting State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 

Ohio St.3d 451, 469-70, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (1999). 

 Appellant’s complaint alleged that his and the public’s health and 

safety were at risk by implementation of S.B. 22. We are not unsympathetic to the 

genuine health concerns appellant and others suffer. However, appellant did not 

allege that he had suffered or was threatened with “direct and concrete injury,” or 

that his alleged injury or threat of injury was different from any alleged injury the 

public suffered or was threatened with. 

Rather than any allegation of a direct and concrete injury, appellant 

repeatedly made speculative allegations. He alleged the following for example: (1) 

“The Governor’s Orders have created safety and stability in addressing [COVID-19], 
which could be challenged under SB 22” (Complaint, ¶ 2); (2) “Among other 

restrictions, SB 22 provides that the Governor’s emergency orders, including the 

current covid19 health orders, may be forced to expire or be rescinded by the 

legislature” (Id. at ¶ 7); (3) “The implementation of SB 22 places plaintiff and [the] 

public at significant health risk, facing the legislature’s cancellation of the 

Governor’s protective health directives, which could lead to” various alleged 

negative consequences (Id. at ¶ 14); and (4) “SB 22 threatens to cancel emergency 

measures of the Governor and health advisors that have protected plaintiff and the 

public, potentially proposing wild swing in policy and emergency response” (Id. at 

¶ 16) (All emphasis added.) These speculative statements of possible future harm 

do not confer standing to appellant. 

Moreover, appellant failed to differentiate his alleged harm from that 

suffered by the public in general. Rather, appellant’s alleged harm and the public’s 

alleged harm are the same. 

This case is akin to State ex rel. Walgate, 2013-Ohio-946, 989 N.E.2d 

140. In State ex rel. Walgate, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that plaintiffs who 

challenged various gambling laws based on the alleged negative effects of gambling 

on them and their communities lacked standing to sue because they failed to allege 

any direct, concrete injuries outside those affecting the general public. Id. at ¶ 20-

22. The Supreme Court found that the negative effects of gambling “do not 

constitute concrete injuries to appellants that are different in manner or degree from 
those caused to the general public, were not caused by the state’s conduct, and 

cannot be redressed by the requested relief.” Id. at ¶ 22. 

Likewise, in this case, appellant’s interest in health and safety is the 

same interest shared by the general public. Because appellant failed to allege that 

he suffered a direct and concrete injury different from that allegedly suffered by the 

public in general, he has no standing to bring this action. 

Causation 

Appellant’s complaint failed to allege causation as well. Appellant 

needed to allege that the defendants’ conduct was “fairly traceable to [their] 

allegedly unlawful conduct.” Moore, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 

N.E.2d 977, at ¶ 22. Rather than alleging that Governor DeWine engaged in 

unlawful conduct, appellant’s complaint did the opposite — it complimented 

Governor DeWine’s actions relative to the Covid-19 pandemic. See, e.g., Complaint 

at ¶ 2 (alleging that appellant “utilizes and benefits from health services and public 

safety and health directives issued under the Governor’s emergency declarations to 

protect public health and safety during the [COVID-19], global health epidemic” and 

that the “Governor’s Orders have created safety and stability in addressing [COVID19].”). Appellant failed to allege that any action taken by Governor DeWine caused 

him injury. 

Appellant likewise failed to allege that any action taken by Attorney 

General Yost harmed him. In regard to Attorney General Yost, appellant alleged 

that he was “authorized to represent the state of Ohio in legal matters and in 
challenges to the constitutionality of enacted laws, pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 

§2721.12,” and that he held “responsibility to defend the constitutionality of enacted 

laws, pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code §2721.12.”2 Complaint at ¶ 4, 12. 

Redressability 

Redressability means that a plaintiff is “likely to be redressed by the 

requested relief.” Moore, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 N.E.2d 977, at 

¶ 22. Appellant’s request for relief was for the trial court to “impose a restraining 

order to prohibit the Governor from executing and implementing the SB 22 

requirements.” Complaint, at request for relief. The governor would not have been 

constitutionally able to do that. After the Ohio House and Senate passed the bill, 

Governor DeWine vetoed it. The General Assembly then overrode Governor 

DeWine’s veto, resulting in it “becom[ing] law notwithstanding the objections of the 

governor.” Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 16. 

On this record, appellant failed to demonstrate the threshold 

requirement of standing — that is, injury, causation, and redressability. The trial 

court therefore did not err in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Exceptions to an Individual Plaintiff’s Standing 

Public-Right Standing and Taxpayer Standing 

Appellant contends that in addition to having traditional standing, he 

also had standing under the concepts of public-right standing and taxpayer 

2 R.C. 2721.12(A) provides that “if any statute or the ordinance or franchise is 

alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general also shall be served with a copy of the 

complaint in the action or proceeding and shall be heard.” 
standing. Appellant failed to allege that he had either category of standing at the 

trial-court level. Parties cannot raise any new issues for the first time on appeal, and 

the failure to raise an issue at the trial level waives it on appeal. Gangale v. Bur. of 

Motor Vehicles, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-1406, 2002-Ohio-2936, ¶ 58. Even if 

appellant had raised public-right standing and taxpayer standing at the trial-court 

level, his contention of standing on those grounds would have failed.

The public-right doctrine presents “an exception to the personalinjury requirement of standing.” Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d at 503, 715 N.E.2d 1062. 

The doctrine provides that “when the issues sought to be litigated are of great 

importance and interest to the public, they may be resolved in a form of action that 

involves no rights or obligations peculiar to named parties.” Id. at 471. To succeed 

in bringing a public-right case, a litigant must allege “rare and extraordinary” issues 

that threaten serious public injury. Id. at 504. Not all allegedly illegal or 

unconstitutional government actions rise to this level of significance. Id. at 503. 

Public-right standing is available only in mandamus actions “to procure the 

enforcement or protection of a public right.” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. 

Appellant’s action was not brought as a mandamus action. It also did 

not seek to protect or enforce a public right; rather his action was brought as a 

“Complaint for Injury,” wherein he challenged the constitutionality of S.B. 22. 

Public-right standing does not apply to this case. 

Taxpayer standing applies when “public officers attempt to make an 

illegal expenditure of public money, or to create an illegal debt, which [a taxpayer], 
in common with other property holders of the taxing district, may otherwise be 

compelled to pay.” State ex rel. Masterson v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 162 Ohio 

St. 366, 123 N.E.2d 1 (1954). “In the absence of statutory authority, * * * a taxpayer 

lacks legal capacity to institute a taxpayer action unless he [or she] has some special 

interest in the public funds at issue.” State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 110 Ohio St.3d 1, 

2006-Ohio-2947, 850 N.E.2d 27, ¶ 13. 

Appellant did not challenge expenditures to or from any fund. He also 

did not seek to compel any relief from any fund. Taxpayer funding standing is 

wholly inapplicable to this case. 

In view of the above, the public- and taxpayer-standing exceptions to 

personal-injury standing did not apply in this case. 

Conclusion 

Appellant failed to demonstrate that (1) he had a direct and concrete 

injury due to S.B. 22, (2) any alleged harm he suffered or will suffer are because of 

S.B. 22, and (3) his alleged harm would be redressed by his requested relief. On this 

record, he failed to establish that he has standing to bring his action. The doctrines 

of public-right standing and taxpayer standing do not confer standing to appellant. 

The trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 

12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Appellant’s sole 

assignment of error is without merit and hereby overruled. 
Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellees recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the common pleas court to carry 

this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

CORNELIUS J. O’SULLIVAN, JR., JUDGE 

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR