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

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

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:   What is Year Decided?
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: 
123
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Hilbert v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2015-00020FMLA; disability discrimination; retaliation. Plaintiff brought an action alleging disability discrimination and retaliation pursuant to R.C. 4112.02 and violation of his rights under the FMLA. The court found that plaintiff's position required a Class A CDL. He was also informed that suspension of his CDL could result in termination well before he requested FMLA leave. As such, there was no causal connection between plaintiff's FMLA request and his termination. With regard to plaintiff's alleged disability, the court found that plaintiff's alleged alcoholism did not constitute a disability under the ADAA. Furthermore, the evidence presented did not support an inference that plaintiff was removed from his position, at least in part, because of the alcoholism. Instead, he was terminated for failure to maintain a Class A CDL. Accordingly, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.McGrath  2/24/2016 3/24/2016 2016-Ohio-1256
Fife v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00523Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(B); inmate; excessive force; assault; negligence. The court concluded that defendant's officers had the lawful authority and privilege to use such force as may have reasonably appeared necessary under the circumstances to both control or subdue plaintiff and prevent harm to others and themselves. Further, the court determined that the degree of force used during the incident was justified and privileged, and satisfied the duty of reasonable care. Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted and judgment rendered in favor of defendant.McGrath  2/24/2016 3/25/2016 2016-Ohio-1279
Nelson v. Univ. of Cincinnati 2014-00830Race discrimination; gender discrimination; R.C. 4112.02. First, the court found that plaintiff did not establish that comparable nonprotected persons were treated more favorably for both his race and gender claim. Second, defendant articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff, specifically that plaintiff made an unauthorized telephone call to the Vice Chancellor for Finance at the Ohio Board of Regents. Third, the court determined that the call was unauthorized and inappropriate, regardless of the content of the call or whether information was conveyed correctly. Plaintiff failed to show that defendant's articulated reason for his termination was pretext. Judgment in favor of defendant.Crawford  2/22/2016 3/25/2016 2016-Ohio-1278
Hartman v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2014-00790FMLA; disability discrimination; retaliation. Plaintiff brought the action alleging disability discrimination and relation pursuant to R.C. 4112.02 and violation of his rights under the FMLA. The court found that plaintiff entered into a last chance agreement with defendant as a result of incidents that occurred well before plaintiff first submitted his FMLA leave request. Furthermore, when plaintiff signed the agreement, he understood that any violation of work rules could result in termination. Plaintiff was ultimately terminated as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Construing the evidence most strongly in plaintiff's favor, the only reasonable conclusion was that there was no causal connection between the FMLA request and the termination decision. With regard to the disability discrimination claim, plaintiff admitted that the accident, which resulted in his termination and was a violation of the last chance agreement, was not attributable to hearing loss or any other health concern. Lastly, the court found that plaintiff's first attempt to file an EEOC action was not until the final incident that led to the last chance agreement. Consequently, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.McGrath  2/19/2016 3/24/2016 2016-Ohio-1254
Lloyd v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00844Negligence. Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant's custody and control, brought an action for negligence arising from an accident in which he was injured while adjusting a window in his dormitory. The magistrate found that plaintiff's dormitory floor had older-style windows and many of those windows would not stay in a raised position on their own. Inmates would often prop open the window utilizing a hook and string system that involved removing the nylon drawstring from a state-issued laundry bag, removing a metal hook from the spring frame of a bunk bed, and tying the hook to one end of the string. The other end of the string would then be fastened to the top of the window frame and then the hook would be fastened to the bottom of window to the hold the window up. The magistrate found that the danger presented by the window and the hook and string system were open and obvious conditions. The window was heavy and would not stay up on its own, and the danger associated with putting one's hand under the window was plainly apparent. As a result, the magistrate found that defendant owed plaintiff no duty relative to the hazardous conditions upon which he was injured and the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries was his own negligence. As a result, the magistrate recommended judgment in defendant's favor.Van Schoyck  2/18/2016 3/24/2016 2016-Ohio-1255
Groves v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00309-ADCourt found that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action based upon ODRC's decision to place restrictions on the purchase of nail clippers by inmates in certain security levels. Further, the court lacked jurisdiction over alleged violations of plaintiff's constitutional rights. Finally, plaintiff failed to prove that his toe nail infection was caused by the use of communal nail clippers. Judgment in favor of defendant.Borchert  2/18/2016 3/18/2016 2016-Ohio-1106
Parkey v. Youngstown Dev. Ctr. 2015-00833-ADPlaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging that defendant's client assaulted her in the Eastwood Mall parking lot in Niles, Trumbull County, Ohio. Defendant agreed to reimburse plaintiff for her glasses, which were damaged because of the assault. However, the clerk found that defendant should also be held responsible for the emergency medical treatment she obtained as a result of the assault. Lastly, the clerk reduced her compensable damages by the insurance amount available to her, and awarded her $417.55 plus the $25 filing fee.Reed  2/18/2016 3/30/2016 2016-Ohio-1342
Antenori v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00651-ADInmate property loss. Duty of care. Burden of proof. Judgment for defendant.Borchert  2/18/2016 5/3/2016 2016-Ohio-2802
Suburban Maintenance & Constr., Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2014-00506Breach of contract. Plaintiff claimed that a contract between defendant and it was ambiguous, and, as a result, plaintiff was required to do additional work not included in its bid price for the contract. Reading the contract as a whole and attempting to give meaning to all of its provisions, the referee found that the contested provision of the contract about the need to remove eight cubic yards of concrete was unclear, unambiguous, and subject to various interpretations. Lastly, while the referee granted plaintiff damages for the removal of the contract, he denied any other damages and costs prayed for as they were not supported by the greater weight of the evidence.Buzby  2/16/2016 3/24/2016 2016-Ohio-1253
Sears v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2015-00863-ADPlaintiff filed a complaint against defendant to recover damages which occurred when her car struck an orange construction barrel while traveling on IR-75 in Hamilton County, Ohio, a public road maintained by defendant. Because plaintiff did not offer any evidence that defendant did not keep the construction area where the accident occurred safe, the clerk ruled in defendant's favor.Reed  2/12/2016 3/30/2016 2016-Ohio-1343
123