Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 30 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Webb v. Buckeye Schools 2023-00700PQPublic Records; R.C. 149.43(B)(2); A public records request is not overbroad if it the requester sets discernable bounds to what it seeks by identifying the subject matter, officials with knowledge of the subject matter, and a relevant time frame; Nothing in the text of R.C. 149.43 precludes requests comprehensively addressing a topic if the request is sufficiently clear; A request is not overbroad simply because there are many responsive records; The undue burden concept of Civ. R. 26(B)(6)(b) does not apply to public records requests; a requester does not seek “complete duplication of the voluminous files kept by government agencies” if it only seeks a subset of a type of record; A public office denying a public records request on the grounds that the request seeks a “complete duplication of the voluminous files kept by government agencies” has the burden of proving the volume of the records involved.Marti  2/27/2024 3/7/2024 2024-Ohio-813
Marzan v. Univ. of Cincinnati 2023-00533JDCiv.R. 56; summary judgment; premises liability; negligence; attendant circumstances; open and obvious; workers’ compensation. Workers’ compensation was plaintiff’s sole remedy for damages after an injury on an uneven sidewalk. Additionally, defendant owed no duty to plaintiff because the sidewalk’s defective condition was open and obvious, and no attendant circumstances were present at the time of the injury. Judgment rendered for defendant.Sadler  2/23/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-857
In re Erdman 2023-00629VIVictims of crime. No objections filed. Magistrate’s decision adopted. Claim remanded for economic loss calculations.Sadler  2/21/2024 2/27/2024 2024-Ohio-706
In re Killoran 2023-00689VIVictims of crime. No objections filed. Magistrate’s decision adopted. Claim remanded for economic loss calculations.Sadler  2/21/2024 2/27/2024 2024-Ohio-710
Evans v. Etna Twp. 2023-00582PQ, 2023-00583PQ, 2023-00584PQIn consolidated cases, after neither party filed timely written objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation that recommended a judgment in favor of Respondent, the Court found that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation.Sadler  2/21/2024 3/7/2024 2024-Ohio-816
Rohrig v. Ohio State Univ. 2023-00408JDCiv.R. 56, summary judgment, Civ.R. 12(C), judgment on the pleadings, premises liability, negligence, breach of contract, legal malpractice, defamation, fraud, hostile work environment. Defendant was entitled to judgment on the pleadings for Plaintiff’s claims of premises liability, negligence, breach of contract, legal malpractice, defamation, and fraud, because there was no set of facts that Plaintiff could prove to support his claims after drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of hostile work environment because Plaintiff failed to proffer evidence that he was an employee of Defendant; thus no genuine issue as to any material fact existed on his claim for hostile work environment. Judgment for Defendant.Sadler  2/16/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-856
Townsend v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2023-00020JDInmate; defamation; rules infraction board; motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; qualified privilege; absolute privilege. Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a complaint for defamation against defendant which stemmed from statements made about him in a conduct report and at a Rules Infraction Board proceeding. The court found that defendant did not make any false statements about plaintiff. Further, the court found that defendant’s statements were subject to qualified privilege. Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted and judgment was rendered in favor or defendant.Sadler  2/14/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-855
Jones v. Dept. of Youth Serv. 2023-00633PQOn Respondent’s objection, the Court sustained the objection to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation. The Court adopted, in part, the Report and Recommendation. The Court ordered Respondent to produce certain evidence. The Court determined that Requester was entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by the Requester, excepting attorney fees.Sadler  2/8/2024 3/7/2024 2024-Ohio-815
In re Childress 2023-00631VIVictims of crime. Magistrate’s decision adopted. Claim remanded for further investigation.Sadler  2/6/2024 2/27/2024 2024-Ohio-708
In re Killoran 2023-00689VIVictims of crime; R.C. 2743.51(F)(5)(b); civil protection order fees. Applicant proved that the civil protection order she obtained physically separated herself from the offender. Claim for civil protection order fees granted. Magistrate recommended claim be remanded for economic loss calculations.Shaver  2/6/2024 2/27/2024 2024-Ohio-711
Staton v. Cuyahoga Falls 2023-00559PQOn Respondent’s objections, the Court sustained Respondent’s first objection that challenged whether requested documents were records. The Court found Respondent’s second, third, and fourth objections were moot. The Court rejected the Special Master's Report and Recommendation.Sadler  2/6/2024 3/7/2024 2024-Ohio-818
Law Office of Josh Brown, L.L.C. v. Ohio Secretary of State 2023-00510PQOn Respondent’s objections to a Report and Recommendation, the Court overruled the objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The Court ordered Respondent to produce all emails responsive to Requester’s first public records request. The Court determined that Requester was entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by the Requester, excepting attorney fees.Sadler  2/6/2024 3/7/2024 2024-Ohio-819
In re Thornton 2023-00258VIVictims of crime. Objections overruled. Magistrate’s decision adopted. Applicant’s claim denied.Sadler  2/2/2024 2/27/2024 2024-Ohio-705
In re Erdman 2023-00629VIVictims of crime; work loss; R.C. 2743.51(G); collateral source; R.C. 2743.51(B)(5); attorney’s fees; R.C. 2743.51(F)(5)(b). Magistrate recommended claim be remanded to Attorney General for economic loss calculations. Original calculations contained errors, however, claim for attorney’s fees was properly denied.Shaver  2/2/2024 2/27/2024 2024-Ohio-707
Dove v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2019-00969JDAssault and battery; damages; pain and suffering; work loss; collateral recovery; R.C. 2743.02(D); magistrate; Civ.R. 53. The magistrate determined damages for plaintiff’s assault and battery claims, which arose when her supervisor pushed her and exposed her to pepper spray. The magistrate found that plaintiff was entitled to $50,000 for her emotional suffering, and $134,843.99 for work loss after reductions were taken for interim income and unemployment benefits. After a further reduction for a private settlement and reimbursement for the filing fee, the magistrate recommended a total award of $174,868.99.Van Schoyck  2/2/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-854
Doe v. Ohio State Univ. 2023-00498PQOn objections by both parties, the Court overruled the objections, denied multiple motions to strike and a motion to amend a previous filing, and adopted the Report and Recommendation. In denying the motions to strike and the motion to amend, the Court held that proceedings under R.C. 2743.75 are special statutory proceedings, and the parties may not exceed the bounds of the statutory procedure, or the briefing schedule issued by the Special Master. The Court ordered Respondent to produce the documents recommended by the Special Master with limited redactions of identification numbers and physical addresses. The Court also ordered that Requester was entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by the Requester, excepting attorney fees.Cain  1/30/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-565
Moody v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Serv. 2019-01146JDCiv.R. 53(D), Retaliation; R.C. 4112.99. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim pursuant to R.C. 4112.99 was tried to before a magistrate who recommended judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff filed objections arguing that the magistrate erred in finding that (1) plaintiff was required to file incident reports under defendant’s incident reporting policy and plaintiff violated said policy by failing to file such incident reports, (2) plaintiff failed to prove that defendant’s investigation and pre-disciplinary meeting was pretext for retaliation, and (3) plaintiff failed to prove a causal connection between plaintiff’s protected activity and defendant’s adverse employment actions. Upon independent review, the Court overruled plaintiff’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own.Cain  1/29/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-560
Aaron v. Supreme Court of Ohio 2023-00728JDCiv.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; res judicata; claim preclusion; negligence; Sup.R. 42(C). Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata after having had the same claims against the same defendant dismissed by the court in a previous case. Judgment for defendant.Sadler  1/26/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-570
Cook v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol 2023-00592ADInmate; investigation; negligence; public duty immunity; special relationship. Judgment for defendant.Shaver  1/26/2024 2/28/2024 2024-Ohio-722
Columbus Police Body Camera v. Columbus Div. of Police 2023-00727PQPublic Records; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(jj) and (A)(17)(a); R.C. 149.43(B)(1)149.43(A)(1)(jj) and (A)(17)(a) exempt two things from public record status: the “image *** of a child” and “information that could lead to the identification of a child *** when *** the law enforcement agency knows or has reason to know the person is a child[.]” A child’s residential address is information that could identify a child; If a record contains both information exempted from public record status and public record information the public record information must be made available unless the exempt material is inextricably intertwined with the record as a whole; A record containing both public record and exempted information must be produced unless the exempted information is so pervasive that redaction would thoroughly eviscerate the record as a whole; The public office has the burden of proving such intertwining, and any doubts are resolved against complete withholding, The extent of any redaction must be carefully restricted.Marti  1/25/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-569
Wilkes v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2019-00012JDWrongful death; construction; negligence; discretionary immunity. Plaintiff’s son died when a bag of sand from a construction site was thrown over an overpass. The court found that defendant was not immune from liability because it did not consider putting vandal fencing around the construction area. Further, the court found that the criminal activity of a third party, not defendant’s negligence, was the proximate cause of the decedent’s death. Therefore, judgment was entered in favor of defendant.Sadler  1/12/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-558
Cook v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2022-00334JDInmate; negligence; battery; excessive force; O.A.C 5120-9-01; magistrate; Civ.R. 53(D). Plaintiff was handcuffed after he disobeyed several orders from ODRC staff and suffered minor temporary numbness. The magistrate found, through testimony from corrections officers and ODRC medical staff, that plaintiff was unable to prove his claims because ODRC used the minimum amount of force necessary to control the situation and the handcuffs were removed within a reasonable time. Therefore, the magistrate recommended judgment in defendant’s favor.Sheets  1/12/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-562
Khatri v. Ohio State Univ. 2022-00768JDSummary Judgment, Qualified Immunity, Civ.R. 56(C), 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), Civil Conspiracy, Wrongful Termination. Defendant established that tolling statues did not apply to Plaintiff’s claims for civil conspiracy and wrongful termination in violation of public policy as the state of Ohio has consented to be sued in only one forum – the Court of Claims. Additionally, the Court held that the savings statute did not apply to Plaintiff’s third attempt at filing the same claims. The remainder of Plaintiff’s claims for conversion, intellectual theft, unjust enrichment, and lost opportunities were held to be untimely filed. Plaintiff’s initial cause of action originated more than four years prior to the filing of this case. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted.Sadler  1/12/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-563
Leach v. Ohio State Univ. 2022-00305JDCiv.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; discrimination; hostile work environment; probationary employment; direct evidence. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and hostile work environment harassment because defendant terminated plaintiff’s probationary employment for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and did not engage in hostile work environment harassment as a matter of law. Judgment for defendant.Sadler  1/10/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-561
Evans v. Etna Twp. 2023-00582PQ, 2023-00583PQ, 2023-00584PQPublic Records; R.C. 149.011(G); R.C. 149.43(B)(1); A party suing to enforce a public records request must prove that the materials he seeks are records if their status as such is disputed, and must do so with clear and convincing evidence; An official’s personal notes, made to personally focus his thoughts or aid his recollection are not records if they are not shared with other officials or preserved as part of his office’s general records; Notes’ status as non-records are reinforced when the information they contain is captured in official recordings of the office’s proceedings; A public office satisfies its R.C. 149.43(B)(1) obligation to make public records available if it offers to make the records available and the requester fails to act on the offer.Marti  1/10/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-566
Wells v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr. 2023-00608ADMedical negligence; expert testimony. Judgment for defendant.Shaver  1/10/2024 2/28/2024 2024-Ohio-721
Matis v. Toledo Police Dept. 2023-00600PQAfter neither Requester nor Respondent filed timely written objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, the Court found that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The Court ordered Respondent to produce certain records to Requester in accordance with the Special Master’s recommendations.Sadler  1/9/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-567
In re Childress 2023-00631VIVictims of crime; Statute of limitations; R.C. 2743.56(B); R.C. 2743.60(A)(2)(a); R.C. 2743.60(A)(2)(b). Untimely claim of parents of adult victim was barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations. However, claim of deceased victim’s minor daughter was timely filed pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(A)(2)(b). Magistrate recommended claim be remanded for further investigation of minor’s dependency claim.Shaver  1/9/2024 2/27/2024 2024-Ohio-709
Maleky v. Ohio State Univ., Office of Compliment & Integrity 2023-00637PQPublic Records; R.C. 149.43(a)(1)(v); R.C. 149.43(B)(1); 20 U.C.C. § 1232g, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”); records generated in connection with proceedings addressing educator misconduct are not “education records” protected by FERPA, even if they refer to students; If there is sufficient evidence that a public office has failed to produce all responsive public records the office must either produce the remaining responsive records or certify that none exist; Clear and convincing evidence is required if the office provides affidavit testimony or its equivalent that no additional records exist; “Some evidence” is sufficient if the office does not provide affidavit testimony negating the existence of additional responsive records; Some evidence exists if the requester establishes facts that would usually result in the existence of the additional records; Some evidence also exists if other records refer to or otherwise suggest the existence of the additional records.Marti  1/5/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-568
LeRussi v. Calcutta Volunteer Fire Dept. 2023-00434PQPublic Records; R.C. 2743.75(F)(2); Orders entered pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) may be enforced via contempt proceedings.Sheets  1/3/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-564