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 58 rows. Rows per page: 
123456
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Tweedy v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs. 2019-00464JDCiv.R. 56(C), employment discrimination. Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, filed an action asserting that defendant was liable to her for employment discrimination based upon her race, age, and gender. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff cannot prove that her position was filled by a member outside the protected class or that her position was filled by a similarly situated probationary employee who engaged in the same conduct was treated more favorably than she was under similar circumstances. The court granted defendant’s motion, finding that plaintiff had not presented any evidence that defendant treated her less favorably than similarly situated probationary employees and, thus, could not establish her prima facie case.McGrath  6/24/2020 8/4/2020 2020-Ohio-3944
McCain v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2019-00828JDCiv.R. 12(C), defamation, inmate. Plaintiff, an inmate under the custody and control of the defendant, filed an action asserting that defendant was liable to him for defamation based on an allegedly false conduct report authored by defendant’s employee. Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings arguing plaintiff’s claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Finding that the time begins to run on a defamation claim from the time the words are written or spoken, and not when plaintiff becomes aware of them, the court granted defendant’s motion because plaintiff’s claim was filed more than one year from the time the conduct report was authored.McGrath  6/24/2020 8/4/2020 2020-Ohio-3946
Burfitt v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2019-00686JDMedical malpractice; expert witness; L.C.C.R. 8(E); summary judgment; Civ.R. 56. Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a medical malpractice claim against defendant for care received while incarcerated. In order to sustain a medical malpractice claim, plaintiff must produce expert testimony to establish both the standard of care and that the malpractice was the proximate and direct cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Local court rules state that a party may not call an expert unless a written report from that expert has been produced. Defendant moved for summary judgment because plaintiff did not produce a written report from an expert. Plaintiff admitted in his response that he had been unable to retain an expert because he is incarcerated. Based on these facts, the court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding plaintiff’s failure to retain an expert and provide a report. The court determined that plaintiff could not sustain his burden of proof. Therefore, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.McGrath  6/17/2020 7/28/2020 2020-Ohio-3863
Toland v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs. 2018-01352JDDisability discrimination; failure to accommodate; retaliation; summary judgment; Civ.R. 56. Plaintiff, an employee of defendant, filed claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate a disability against defendant for events that occurred in the employer/employee relationship. The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination. The court determined that plaintiff was unable to use the indirect method of proving discriminatory intent because she did not provide evidence of an adverse employment action such as reduced pay, demotion, or loss of benefits. Although plaintiff produced evidence that she was given a written reprimand, the written reprimand did not constitute an adverse employment action. The court determined that plaintiff was unable to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because one instance of formal discipline for failing to reschedule a meeting, increased job duties, a performance review of meets expectations, and an office relocation would not dissuade a reasonable worker from making and supporting a charge of discrimination. The court found that plaintiff’s claim for failure to accommodate was barred by the statute of limitations because the actions supporting the claim occurred in July 2016 and plaintiff filed her claim in October of 2018. Plaintiff claims she was also not accommodated in June of 2019 however, the court determined that plaintiff did not move to supplement her claim after June 2019 so that claim was not properly before the court. Therefore, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.McGrath  6/17/2020 7/28/2020 2020-Ohio-3864
Myers v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2019-00261JDNegligence; notice of impending attack; constructive notice; magistrate; Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, an inmate, filed this case against ODRC after he was attacked by another inmate at defendant’s institution. In this situation, defendant may be held liable only if it had adequate notice of the impending attack. The magistrate found that plaintiff was able to prove that defendant had constructive notice of the attack. Plaintiff proved constructive notice by providing evidence that he approached corrections officers twice about threats against him; inmates threatened him in the presence of corrections officers; it was obvious that the other inmates were angry with him; and that a corrections officer read a snitch kite aloud in the presence of other inmates in clear violation of ODRC policy. The magistrate found that plaintiff proved damages in the form of temporary swelling and abrasions to his face. The magistrate recommended that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.00.Sheets  6/8/2020 7/28/2020 2020-Ohio-3862
Robinson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2019-00369JDDental malpractice; summary judgment; Civ.R. 56. Plaintiff, an inmate under the custody and control of defendant, asserted that defendant engaged in dental malpractice arising from negligent dental care plaintiff received while incarcerated. A dental malpractice claimant must provide proof of the recognized standard of care in the medical community through expert testimony. The court found that plaintiff failed to provide an affidavit or other expert testimony regarding the recognized standard of care. Plaintiff claimed he was unable to obtain his medical records that would support his malpractice claim. However, the court found that plaintiff failed to make any written request for his medical records accompanied by a written request of an attorney or physician, and thus plaintiff cannot support his dental malpractice claim. Judgment rendered in favor of defendant. McGrath  5/27/2020 6/26/2020 2020-Ohio-3484
McCreery v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2019-00079JDNegligence; notice of impending attack; Civ.R. 53; objection to magistrate’s decision; Civ.R. 5. Plaintiff, an inmate under the custody and control of defendant, asserted that defendant was negligent in failing to protect him from an attack by another inmate. The magistrate found that plaintiff failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence that he notified prison officials prior to the assault. When one inmate attacks another inmate, actionable negligence arises only where prison officials had adequate notice of an impending attack. Magistrate recommended judgment be rendered in favor of defendant. Plaintiff objected to magistrate’s decision, but failed to properly serve his objections pursuant to Civ.R. 5. Further, the court held that if Civ.R. 5 were satisfied, plaintiff provided no basis for overturning findings of magistrate. Judgment entry adopting magistrate’s decision.McGrath  5/18/2020 6/26/2020 2020-Ohio-3485
Johnson v. Ohio Bur. of Sentence Computation 2019-00986JDFalse imprisonment; fraud; motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; magistrate; Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, an inmate, claims that he is falsely imprisoned by the state of Ohio because defendant miscalculated his prison sentence. Plaintiff further claims that defendant committed fraud by concealing the miscalculation of his prison sentence in a habeas hearing before the Ohio Supreme Court. The court found that plaintiff has at all times been confined pursuant to valid sentencing entries. Further, the court determined that plaintiff’s sentence has been properly calculated by defendant. Finally, the court determined that plaintiff filed his claim for fraud outside of the statute of limitations. Therefore, the magistrate recommended that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment be granted.McGrath  5/18/2020 6/26/2020 2020-Ohio-3486
Al-Jahmi v. Ohio Athletic Comm. 2017-00986JDNegligence; recklessness; primary assumption of risk; express assumption of risk; discretionary immunity; summary judgment; Civ.R. 56. Plaintiff was fighting in a boxing event approved by defendant, who also appointed the fight inspector, referee, and ringside physician. During the event, plaintiff suffered several blows. Plaintiff collapsed and died three days later. The court determined that boxing is an inherently dangerous activity where risk of head injury cannot be eliminated and further that plaintiff signed a waiver releasing any claims for negligence, thus defendant could not be held liable for negligence due to primary and express assumption of risk. The court found that defendant was not liable for recklessness in licensing and appointing ringside physicians and referees because they are clearly legislative acts and/or basic policy decisions and thus covered by discretionary immunity. The court found that discretionary immunity did not apply to plaintiff’s claim of recklessness in failing to stop the fight. However, the court found that the defendant was not reckless in failing to stop the fight because the nature of boxing imposes a low duty on defendant, which was met because neither the referee nor the ringside physician saw signs of head injury in the plaintiff during the fight. Therefore, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.McGrath  5/13/2020 6/26/2020 2020-Ohio-3487
Bishop v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr. 2017-00830JDNegligence; medical negligence; magistrate; Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, a patient at the defendant facility, filed an action asserting that defendant was negligent in caring for plaintiff after plaintiff fell upon exiting her hospital bed. Plaintiff asserted that because she was a fall risk several measures, including a bed alarm, use of the bed rails, and moving her closer to the nurses’ station, should have been put in place to prevent a fall. The magistrate found that plaintiff failed to prove that the use of a bed alarm would have prevented her fall. The magistrate further found that plaintiff failed to prove that the standard of care required any other measures to be put in place. Ultimately, the magistrate found that plaintiff made a conscious decision to leave her bed and attempt to walk. Therefore, the magistrate recommended that judgement be rendered in favor of defendant.Renick  5/4/2020 6/26/2020 2020-Ohio-3483
123456