Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

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?
Search Truncation Warning:
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 36 rows. Rows per page: 
1234
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Johnson v. Cleveland Police Dept. 2018-00569PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; sui juris; inmate; R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Overview: Inmate sought investigatory records from his criminal prosecution. Respondent argued that as a police department it was not sui juris in this court. The special master recommended that the court find that R.C. 2743.75 and R.C. 149.43 make every public office sui juris for enforcement of violation of R.C. 149.43(B). The special master further recommended that the court find requester had not provided respondent with the judicial finding required from inmates under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) and that respondent had properly denied his public records request for criminal investigatory records.Clark  4/30/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1715
Naymik v. Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 2017-00919PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; trade secret. Overview: Requester sought data, statistics and maps prepared by regional planning organization for inclusion in a bid to host a second national headquarters for Amazon, Inc. Respondent argued that the records were trade secret in their entirety. The special master recommended the court find that no part of the records were trade secret.Clark  4/27/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1718
Williams v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00125JDInmate; trial; wrongful death; survivorship; bifurcated. The magistrate determined that defendant did not have sufficient notice, actual or constructive, to be liable for the fatal injuries that plaintiff's decedent sustained. Further, there was no credible evidence that the inmate that stabbed plaintiff's decedent ever threatened to harm plaintiff's decedent. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  4/27/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1721
Rhoades v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr. 2018-00030JDImmunity Determination; Medical Malpractice, R.C. 9.86- Plaintiff moved for an immunity determination based on stipulated facts after a physician asserted immunity as an affirmative defense in a connected common pleas case. The parties stipulated and agreed that the physician acted as a community-based volunteer, that he was not an officer or employee of the University, and that he was not entitled to personal immunity under R.C. 9.86. As such, the court held the courts of common pleas have jurisdiction over any claims arising from the physician's provision of surgery and medical care to the plaintiff.McGrath  4/18/2018 5/8/2018 2018-Ohio-1804
Parks v. Webb 2017-00995PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 9.01; format; metadata. Overview: Requester sought draft meeting minutes in the format they were kept at the time of the request. Respondent stated it had no duty to provide a document that could be edited, and produced the record in PDF format that was both less functional and contained less or different metadata. The special master recommended that the court order respondent to provide the record in the format in which it was kept. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's report and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein.McGrath  4/17/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1716
Chernin v. Geauga Park Dist. 2017-00922PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 149.011(G); non-record; constituent; actual use. Overview: Requester sought letter used by park district board member to convey a constituent's opinions as well as support board limits on public participation at meetings. Respondent argued the letter was not shared with other members and therefore was not a "record." The special master found that the board member had made actual use of the letter to carry out and document the board's responsibilities, and it therefore met the definition of a record. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's report and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein.McGrath  4/17/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1717
Sheil v. Horton 2017-00772PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 149.011(A); public office; functional equivalent; person responsible; foundation; trade secret. Overview: Requester sought a speaker contract entered into by Tri-C Foundation, a non-profit entity incorporated to solicit and receive contributions for a community college. Respondent argued that the foundation was not the functional equivalent of a public office. The special master recommended that the court find the foundation was both the functional equivalent of a public office, and a "person responsible for public records." The special master further recommended that the court find no part of the contract constituted trade secret, and that the court should grant requester's claim for disclosure.Clark  4/16/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1720
Alexander v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2017-00606ADNegligence; bailment- Plaintiff, an inmate, sought damages for property defendant's agents lost after packing up plaintiff's belongings before his transfer to another correctional facility. Plaintiff provided inconsistent documentation. The court found plaintiff failed to prove a loss as to some of the items but awarded damages to plaintiff for other items after determining depreciation.Borchert  4/16/2018 4/30/2018 2018-Ohio-1666
Robinson v. Alexandria 2017-00808PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 9.01; ambiguous; overly broad; request for information; moot; nonexistent; illegible. Overview: Mediation reduced 338 unresolved public records requests to 37. The special master recommended the court order responses to five requests, and to produce an enlarged, readable version of illegible records previously produced in response to a sixth. The special master found the remaining requests either ambiguous, overly broad, or for non-existent records. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's report and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein.McGrath  4/4/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1719
Zavinski v. Dept. of Transp. 2013-00452JDWrongful death; damages; R.C. 2743.02; collateral benefit; objections. The court concluded that if a collateral benefit does not compensate for a loss that is included in the damage award, then such a collateral benefit should not be deducted from a recovery against the state pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(D). The court determined that the magistrate erred in determining that the sums of $125,000 for the interest in plaintiff's decedent's law firm, and $33,475.28 for the fees earned by plaintiff's decedent before he died, constituted other collateral recovery and should be applied to reduce the award against ODOT. Plaintiff was awarded $354,286 in damages.McGrath  3/27/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1503
1234