|
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
Bugh v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2016-00387JD | Medical negligence; inmate; magistrate; Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, the administrator of a former inmate’s estate, filed a complaint alleging medical negligence related to decedent’s breathing and diaphragmatic medical conditions. The magistrate determined that ODRC medical staff did not breach the standard of care because they continued to coordinate diagnosis and treatment for decedent despite decedent repeatedly refusing the care that was arranged. Further, the magistrate found that the opinions of defendant’s medical experts carried more weight than plaintiff’s experts’ opinions because they had more experience dealing with medical conditions similar to decedent’s. Therefore, the magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant. | Van Schoyck | |
6/26/2024
|
7/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2785 |
Donaldson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00371JD | Motion for Summary Judgment; Civ.R. 56; inmate; personal injury; negligence. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact related to defendant having actual or constructive notice of a faulty bedframe that caused plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
6/18/2024
|
7/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2784 |
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2024-00226PQ, 2024-00248PQ, 2024-00292PQ, 2024-00293PQ | On objections and motions, the Court adopted the Special Master's Report and Recommendation, overruled Requester's Objections, denied Respondent's Motion To Strike contained within Respondent's Response, and denied Requester's Motion For Leave. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendations, with respect to procedural motions before the Special Master, the Court (1) denied Respondent's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions for dismissal, (2) granted in part, and denied in part, Requester's motions to strike, striking late filed evidence and denying the imposition of other sanctions, and (3) denied Respondent's motions to strike as moot. With respect to the Special Master's recommendations as to the merits of consolidated Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2024-00226PQ, 2024-00248PQ, and 2024-00292PQ, the Court found that (1) Requester was not aggrieved by Respondent responding to Requester’s individual requests on a consolidated basis, and (2) Respondent violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) in those instances when it took more than five working days to produce the public records sought. The Court also denied all other relief sought in these cases. With respect to merits of Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00293PQ, the Court ordered Respondent to (1) produce all public records responsive to part 3 of Requester's public records request of January 17, 2024, (2) produce all additional public records responsive to part 4 of that request or to certify that no additional responsive records exist, (3) produce all public records responsive to part 6 of that request, as amended on February 12, 2024, and (4) redact all those records to protect third parties' statutory privacy rights. Additionally, the Court found that Respondent violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) by unreasonably delaying production of certain records sought. The Court denied all other relief sought in Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00293PQ. 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 actions brought in Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2024-00226PQ, 2024-00248PQ, 2024-00292PQ, and 2024-00293PQ that were incurred by the Requester, excepting attorney fees. Court costs were assessed against Respondent in Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2024-00226PQ, 2024-00248PQ, 2024-00292PQ, and 2024-00293PQ. | Sadler | |
6/7/2024
|
7/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2625 |
Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2024-00345PQ | Disqualification of opposing counsel; Arguments raised for the first time in reply; Disqualification is only granted when denial of that relief would prejudice the moving party; The party seeking disqualification has the burden of proving prejudice; Arguments made for the first time in reply memorandum are not properly before the court. | Marti | |
5/29/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2186 |
Cromartie v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00050JD | Objection; decision of the magistrate; Civ.R. 53; Civ.R. 6. Fifteen days after the magistrate’s decision, plaintiff filed objections. Without regard to the untimely objections, the court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision and therefore, adopted it as its own. The court rendered judgment in favor of defendant. | Sadler | |
5/22/2024
|
6/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2329 |
Foy v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00528JD | Civ.R. 56(C), Summary Judgment, False Imprisonment, Adult Parole Authority. Plaintiff failed to establish facts which would demonstrate that defendant held plaintiff pursuant to a facially invalid sentencing entry. Defendant established that plaintiff was subject to post-release control at the time of his release, and defendant’s decision to house plaintiff at the Oriana House was one consistent with plaintiff’s sentencing entry. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
5/17/2024
|
6/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2327 |
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2024-00226PQ, 2024-00248PQ, 2024-00292PQ, 2024-00293PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43(B)(1); R.C. 149.43(B)(2); R.C. 2743.75(D)(1); R.C. 2743.75(E)(3)(c); Evidence filed after deadlines set pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(E)(3)(c) will be stricken; A pubic office cannot be compelled to produce records pursuant to R.C. 2743.75 that were not requested in the public records request giving rise to the R.C. 2743.75 case; Factors bearing on the timeliness of a public office’s response to a records request; A public office waives an overbreadth defense in a R.C. 2743.75 action if it did not object to the request on overbreadth grounds before the action was filed; No relief is available in a R.C. 2743.75 action on a public records request not identified in the body of the R.C. 2743.75(D)(1) complaint. | Marti | |
5/8/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2185 |
Prather v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00401JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; negligence; conditions of confinement; constitutional claim; jurisdiction. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of negligence alleging that defendant’s failure to timely facilitate his notarized signature on a document and process his mail timely caused him to suffer economic loss through the failure of a prospective real estate transaction because plaintiff’s claim of negligence ultimately amounted to be a challenge to plaintiff’s conditions of confinement over which the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction. Additionally, it was determined that violations of internal prison policy do not, by themselves, provide a basis for a negligence cause of action. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
5/3/2024
|
6/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2328 |
Lerussi v. Calcutta Volunteer Fire Dept.
| 2023-00434PQ | Upon motion for reconsideration, the Court denied Requester’s motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s denial of an award of attorney fees and paralegal fees. | Sadler | |
4/30/2024
|
5/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1695 |
Aviv v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00741JD | Negligence; medical negligence; inmate; notice. ODRC was not liable for the attack on plaintiff, an inmate, by another inmate, because ODRC did not have adequate notice of an impending attack. The Court adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own and rendered judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
4/29/2024
|
5/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1969 |
Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00320JD | Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii)-(iii), Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(b), R.C. 2921.44(C), Inmate Assault, Negligence, Notice. Plaintiff failed to comply with Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii)-(iii) in providing a transcript or an affidavit of evidence. Accordingly, the Court accepted the magistrate’s findings and restricted consideration of Plaintiff’s objections to a review of the magistrate’s legal conclusions. Plaintiff objected to the magistrate’s negligence analysis, relying on R.C. 2921.44(C), a criminal statute. However, the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to consider violations of a criminal statute. Plaintiff also objected to the magistrate’s finding that Defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of the impending assault. The Court held that Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendant had notice. The Court overruled Plaintiff’s objections and adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
4/29/2024
|
5/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1971 |
Linson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00700JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; employment discrimination; retaliation; adverse employment action; Family and Medical Leave Act. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for employment discrimination based on age and disability because plaintiff failed to establish that she suffered an adverse employment action. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of retaliation as plaintiff failed to state a prima facie claim for retaliation since she could not show a causal connection between any alleged adverse employment action and her FMLA leave. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
4/10/2024
|
5/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1970 |
Aviv v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00741JD | Negligence; medical negligence; inmate; notice. ODRC was not liable for the attack on plaintiff, an inmate, by another inmate because ODRC did not have adequate notice of an impending attack. Magistrate recommended judgment for defendant. | Renick | |
4/10/2024
|
5/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1968 |
Maleky v. Ohio State Univ., Office of Compliment & Integrity
| 2023-00637PQ | On motion and objections, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Respondent’s Request for Clarification, overruled Requester’s Response to a Special Master’s Supplemental Report and Recommendation, and overruled Respondent’s Objections to the Supplemental Report and Recommendation. The Court adopted the Supplemental Report and Recommendation and ordered Respondent to produce certain documents to Requester. The Court assessed court costs to Respondent. 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. And the Court expressly incorporated by reference a Decision and Entry issued on February 9, 2024. | Sadler | |
3/27/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1266 |
Laney v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.
| 2023-00180JD | Summary Judgment, Civ.R. 56(C), Slip and Fall, Business Invitee, Negligence, Loss of Consortium, Hazardous Condition, Notice. Plaintiffs failed to establish facts which demonstrated that Defendant created the hazardous condition, or that Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Plaintiffs’ remaining claim for loss of consortium was derivative and was no longer viable. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
3/27/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1486 |
Law Office of Josh Brown, L.L.C. v. Ohio Secy. of State
| 2023-00510PQ | On Respondent’s motion, the Court granted Respondent's motion to stay execution of the Court's final judgment. The Court ordered that the Court's final judgment in this case is stayed until Respondent's appeal to the Tenth District Court of Appeals is concluded. The Court further ordered that no bond, obligation, or other security is required from Respondent in accordance with Civ.R. 62(C). | Sadler | |
3/20/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1265 |
Tyson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2021-00603JD | Inmate; medical information disclosure; breach of confidence; Biddle; intentional infliction of emotional distress. The magistrate found that there was no breach of confidence when defendant’s Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) Coordinator shared plaintiff’s gender identity with defendant’s Mental Health Manager as required by defendant’s PREA policy or when defendant provided plaintiff with records related to a conversation regarding plaintiff’s gender identity. The magistrate determined that plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was subsumed by the tort of breach of confidence and if it had not been, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrated that defendant was acting in good faith to comply with policies and plaintiff’s records requests, not to do serious emotional harm to plaintiff. Therefore, the magistrate recommended judgment for defendant. | Van Schoyck | |
3/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1481 |
Webb v. Buckeye Schools
| 2023-00700PQ | On Respondent’s objections, the Court overruled Respondent’s Objections To The Recommendations Of The Special Master, denied Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss, and denied Requester’s Motion To Strike. The Court adopted the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation. The Court ordered Respondent to produce all public records responsive to Requester's 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 Requester, excepting attorney fees. | Sadler | |
3/14/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1267 |
Highsmith v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety
| 2022-00494JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; defamation; qualified privilege. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of defamation because the alleged defamatory statements were made in the context of an administrative investigation into plaintiff’s testosterone use and thus were subject to qualified privilege. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
3/8/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1483 |
Rericha v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2019-01000JD | Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b); objections to a magistrate’s decision. After an independent review, the court found that the magistrate properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law. Therefore, the judge overruled defendant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, and awarded plaintiffs $945,491.56 in damages. | Sadler | |
3/8/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1480 |
West v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2022-00588JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; hostile work environment; Family and Medical Leave Act; discrimination; Americans with Disabilities Act; retaliation. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of interference with plaintiff’s rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) because she did not have a serious health condition entitling her to FMLA leave, and therefore, could not establish a prima facie case of interference with her FMLA rights. Defendant was also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims because COVID-19 was not regarded as a disability since the symptoms did not last more than six months. Defendant was further granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s disability retaliation claims because plaintiff never requested an accommodation and thus never engaged in a protected activity. Finally, defendant was granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s hostile work environment based on sexual orientation claims because the comments were infrequent and not unwelcome. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
3/6/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1484 |
Tanner v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00034JD | Civ.R. 56; summary judgment; R.C. 4112.02; employment discrimination. Plaintiff failed to meet burden to show that defendant was liable for employment discrimination when defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
3/1/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1485 |
Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00320JD | Negligence; inmate; notice. Defendant did not have notice of an impending attack on plaintiff and was therefore not liable for negligence. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant. | Van Schoyck | |
3/1/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1482 |
Webb v. Buckeye Schools
| 2023-00700PQ | Public 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
| 2023-00533JD | Civ.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 |
Evans v. Etna Twp.
| 2023-00582PQ, 2023-00583PQ, 2023-00584PQ | In 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 |
In re Erdman
| 2023-00629VI | Victims 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
| 2023-00689VI | Victims 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 |
Rohrig v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2023-00408JD | Civ.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.
| 2023-00020JD | Inmate; 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.
| 2023-00633PQ | On 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 |
Staton v. Cuyahoga Falls
| 2023-00559PQ | On 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 |
In re Killoran
| 2023-00689VI | Victims 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 |
Law Office of Josh Brown, L.L.C. v. Ohio Secretary of State
| 2023-00510PQ | On 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 Childress
| 2023-00631VI | Victims of crime. Magistrate’s decision adopted. Claim remanded for further investigation. | Sadler | |
2/6/2024
|
2/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-708 |
In re Thornton
| 2023-00258VI | Victims 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
| 2023-00629VI | Victims 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.
| 2019-00969JD | Assault 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.
| 2023-00498PQ | On 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.
| 2019-01146JD | Civ.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
| 2023-00728JD | Civ.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
| 2023-00592AD | Inmate; 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
| 2023-00727PQ | Public 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 |
Cook v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00334JD | Inmate; 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.
| 2022-00768JD | Summary 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 |
Wilkes v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
| 2019-00012JD | Wrongful 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 |
Evans v. Etna Twp.
| 2023-00582PQ, 2023-00583PQ, 2023-00584PQ | Public 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.
| 2023-00608AD | Medical negligence; expert testimony. Judgment for defendant. | Shaver | |
1/10/2024
|
2/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-721 |
Leach v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2022-00305JD | Civ.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 |
In re Childress
| 2023-00631VI | Victims 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 |
|