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 105 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Hicks v. Newtown 2017-00612-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; ambiguous; overly broad; kept; person responsible; functional equivalent; actual use; contract. Overview: Requester sought certain funding records relating to a joint venture between respondent village and a private school to construct athletic facilities on public property. Respondent claimed that any responsive records were in the possession of the private school, and thus not records of the village. The special master found that the portions of the request seeking "transparent information" regarding donors and an unidentified loan were ambiguous, and overly broad, and therefore should be dismissed as improper requests. The special master found that documents the village mayor said were presented to him as contractual assurance of the school's financial resources were utilized by the village to document its functions, decisions, procedures, and operations under the contract, and were therefore "records." The special master found that by law and the terms of the contract, the private school maintained these records for the village as a "person responsible for public records." The special master recommended that the village be ordered to provide requester with the records used by the village.Clark  11/30/2017 12/11/2017 2017-Ohio-8952
Ohio Crime Victim Justice Ctr. v. Cleveland Police Div. 2016-00872-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 5153.17; R.C. 2151.421; HIPAA; children services; joint investigation; privacy; sexual assault; rape; crime victim; medical; attorney-client; uncharged suspect. Overview: Requester sought complete criminal investigation files on two suspects. Respondent police department denied the request as to text relating the intimate details of alleged sexual assaults. Respondent claimed that exceptions for children services records applied to police investigative reports of the same incidents, as a "joint investigation." The special master found that the police department properly redacted the intimate details of alleged sexual assault, and that requester's unsupported claim to represent the victim did not establish waiver. The special master found that the statutory exceptions for children services reports did not apply to police department reports created for a related criminal investigation, other than content information obtained by the police department from preexisting children services reports. The special master found that none of the records were maintained in the process of medical treatment, or by a "covered entity," and therefore did not meet the definition of "medical records," or records subject to HIPAA.Clark  11/17/2017 12/11/2017 2017-Ohio-8950
Wengerd v. E. Wayne Fire Dist. 2017-00426-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 1333.61; kept; person responsible; trade secret; copyright; grant application; attorney-client; moot. Overview: Requester sought copies of federal grant application forms filed by respondent fire district. Respondent claimed that the contents of the applications were not "records" of the fire district, or alternatively were trade secret and copyright interests held by the fire district and a privately contracted grant writer. The special master found that the applications were public records documenting the official activities of the fire district, and that the contents did not reveal any secret trade methodology. As technical writing to answer questions in an application form, the contents involved negligible creativity as a claimed "literary work." Requester's purpose qualified as "fair use" in any case. The special master recommended a finding that the contents of the grant applications did not fall under either the Ohio uniform trade secrets act, or federal copyright law. The special master found the that respondent had properly redacted the narrative portions of requested itemized attorney billing statements.Clark  11/8/2017 12/11/2017 2017-Ohio-8951
Speros v. Secy. of State 2017-00389-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; election; database; moot; drafts; format; create new record; reasonably identify; organize; policy. Overview: Requester sought Ohio voting results in machine-readable format from eight congressional elections, in a single, comprehensive file. The special master found that requester had reasonably identified the records sought. Respondent eventually provided all existing responsive data in a separate machine-readable spreadsheet file for each election, but testified that none of its database software was programmed to produce a single, comprehensive file. The special master recommended the court find that the request for the underlying data was moot, and that the demand for respondent to aggregate all responsive data into a single file was an improper request to create a new record. The special master found that the court cannot impose optional record-management policies or practices that are not required by law. Clark  10/27/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8453
Yu v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr. 2015-00001Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; lack of informed consent; negligence. The court found that Dr. Emlich was not an employee of OSUMC, and that pursuant to R.C. 2317.54, plaintiff could not prevail on a claim of lack of informed consent against OSUMC as a matter of law. Further, plaintiff provided no evidence from which to infer that OSUMC breached any duty to plaintiff with respect to telephonic interpreter services provided to plaintiff. Defendant OSUMC's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  10/27/2017 11/27/2017 2017-Ohio-8697
Tingler v. Ottawa Cty. Prosecutor's Office 2017-00248-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43(B)(8); inmate; law enforcement; investigatory records; incarceration; subsequent to request. Overview: Requester sought criminal law enforcement investigatory records maintained by respondent. Requester was on probation pursuant to criminal conviction at the time of the request, but violated probation and was incarcerated by the time the special master rendered determination. The special master recommended a finding that the requested records were excepted from disclosure by R.C. 149.43(B)(8), as the exception is one that may be based on the facts and circumstances at the time of the determination.Clark  10/20/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8451
Johnson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00768Inmate; negligence; bifurcated; damages. The magistrate found that the greater weight of the evidence supported the finding that plaintiff's headaches and associated pain and suffering persisted up to a few months after he fell out of an upper bunk. Plaintiff was awarded damages in the amount of $8,500, and after applying the 25 percent diminishment for contributory fault determined at the liability trial, plaintiff was entitled to an award of $6,375.Van Schoyck  10/19/2017 11/27/2017 2017-Ohio-8696
Washington v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr. 2017-00029False imprisonment- Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant's custody, alleged his term of imprisonment had expired. The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review any alleged errors in plaintiff's sentencing entry. Defendant's evidence established that, at all relevant times, it confined plaintiff pursuant to a facially valid sentencing entry. The court granted summary judgment to defendant.McGrath  10/17/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8467
Turner v. Lyndhurst 2017-00379-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; information; create new records; overly broad; ambiguous. Overview: Requester sought to enforce a records request for documents that would answer her questions about how city funds were spent. The special master determined that the city promptly provided responsive expense reports, and had not violated R.C. 149.43(B) when it denied an ambiguous and overly broad portion of the request for "any public document regarding" a large budget segment. The city was ordered to produce a small number of documents that had been adequately specified, and promptly filed a notice of compliance with the order. No objections were filed by either party. 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 decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. The complaint was ordered dismissed to the extent that it was moot, and in all other respects for failure to state a claim.McGrath  10/17/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8452
Schadhauser v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00349, 2016-00423, 2016-00657Negligence- Plaintiffs, inmates at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution ("CCI"), asserted they contracted histoplasmosis and suffered permanent and progressive injuries after being exposed to pigeon droppings at CCI. Plaintiffs failed to identify any expert witnesses or provide expert reports. On summary judgment, plaintiffs relied on their own affidavits and asserted statements from treating physicians and medical records establish they were diagnosed with histoplasmosis caused by exposure to pigeon droppings. The statements of treating physicians contained in the affidavits were hearsay and were insufficient to prove proximate cause. Lacking expert testimony, plaintiffs could not meet their burden of proof and the court granted summary judgment to defendant.McGrath  10/11/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8465