|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2024-00345PQ | On Requester’s objections to a Report and Recommendation, the Court overruled Requester's Objections and adopted the Special Master's Report and Recommendation. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendations, the Court (1) denied a motion to dismiss filed by Respondent, (2) granted the claim for production of records as detailed in the Report and Recommendation, (3) permitted Respondent to redact exempt items from records as provided in the Report and Recommendation, (4) ordered Respondent to release unredacted records as outlined in the Report and Recommendation, and (5) noted that, based on the record, it appeared that Respondent had complied with the Court's order to release unredacted records as outlined in the Report and Recommendation. The Court 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 Requester, excepting attorney fees. | Sadler | |
8/13/2024
|
9/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3379 |
|
In re Whitacre
| 2024-00281 | Victims of crime. No objections filed. Magistrate's decision adopted. | Sadler | |
8/1/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3274 |
|
Masters v. Pub. Records Office of Univ. Compliance & Integrity
| 2024-00139PQ | After neither party filed timely written objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, 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. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendations, judgment was entered in favor of Respondent. | Sadler | |
8/1/2024
|
9/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3378 |
|
Hammersmith v. Univ. of Cincinnati
| 2024-00313AD | Premises liability; personal injuries; open and obvious hazard. Judgment for defendant. | Shaver | |
7/19/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3286 |
|
Bavaria v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2022-00495JD | Breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; fraud, rescission; unjust enrichment; civil conspiracy; declaratory judgment. Plaintiff and defendant collaborated to develop a genetically modified mouse model and entered into a licensing agreement for that mouse model. Defendant independently developed a genetically modified mouse model using the parties’ original mouse model, which defendant licensed for use by a third-party laboratory. A hospital obtained defendant’s genetically modified mouse model from the laboratory and used it to develop a gene therapy product. The gene therapy product generated profits for the hospital and licensing fees for defendant. Based on the hospital’s use of the mouse model, plaintiff claimed it was entitled to $49 million in damages from defendant due to defendant’s alleged breach of its contractual and equitable duties. After a bench trial, the court found plaintiff failed to meet its evidentiary burden on its claims and granted judgment in favor of defendant. | Cain | |
7/19/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3217 |
|
In re Whitacre
| 2024-00281 | Victims of crime; statute of limitations. Applicant failed to file his claim within three years of the date of the alleged criminally injurious conduct, as required pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(A)(2). Magistrate recommended that Attorney General’s final decision be affirmed. | Shaver | |
7/16/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3275 |
|
Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2024-00345PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v); R.C. 2930.07; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(dd); Constitutional Right to Privacy; Information that identifies a victim to a crime, victim/witness telephone numbers, personal identifiers, and residential and familial information of a designated public service worker were properly redacted; Public Office did not meet it’s burden regarding email addresses being redacted pursuant to any Constitutional Right to Privacy. | Peterson | |
7/15/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2997 |
|
Pasco v. Youngstown State Univ.
| 2024-00079AD | University student; kickball; personal injuries; negligence; offer of settlement. Judgment for plaintiff. | Shaver | |
7/12/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3283 |
|
Killingsworth v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00562JD | Inmate; use of force; battery; negligence. The magistrate found that where plaintiff, an inmate, lunged at defendant’s staff member and disobeyed direct orders, the use of OC spray was reasonable, and officers were privileged to use such force. Therefore, the magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant. | Renick | |
7/12/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3218 |
|
Jackson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jobs & Family Servs.
| 2024-00439PQ | Public records; R.C. 149.43(B)(1); R.C. Chapter 329; R.C. Chapter 5101; R.C. 2743.75(D)(1), Civ. R. 54(D); County jobs and family services agencies are distinct from the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services; a public records request to a county jobs and family services agency is not a request to the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services; A claim not asserted in the body of a R.C. 2743.75(D()(1) complaint will not be considered; Civ. R. 54(D) gives a court discretion to waive the imposition of costs on an indigent party. | Marti | |
7/11/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2998 |
|
Neilsen v. Scioto Cty. Pros.
| 2024-00219PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43(A)(1); Personal notes created by public official or employee are not public records subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43. | Cain | |
7/11/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2996 |
|
Renfro v. Grace Property Serv., Pines Condo Assn.
| 2024-00559PQ | Upon a Special Master's recommendation, pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) the Court sua sponte dismissed Requester’s Complaint. | Cain | |
7/11/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3001 |
|
Renfro v. Grace Property Serv., Pines Condo Assn.
| 2024-00559PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.011(A); A property management firm managing a condominium is not a public office within the meaning of R.C. 149.011(A). | Marti | |
7/10/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3002 |
|
Hicks v. Court of Claims
| 2024-00515PQ | Upon a Special Master’s recommendation, the Court determined that the complaint brought under R.C. 2743.75 constituted a case of first impression that involved an issue of substantial public interest. In accordance with R.C. 2743.75(C) the Court dismissed Requester's complaint without prejudice and directed Requester to commence a mandamus action in the court of appeals with appropriate jurisdiction as provided in R.C. 149.43(C)(1). | Cain | |
7/10/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2999 |
|
Anderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2024-00121AD | Inmate; medical transport; injuries; medical claim; negligence; medical malpractice; expert opinion; lack of jurisdiction over constitutional claims. Judgment for defendant. | Shaver | |
7/9/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3285 |
|
Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00100JD | Magistrate’s Decision, Use of Force, Negligence, Inmate. Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant’s custody, was suspected of exchanging contraband. Plaintiff was instructed to report to the porter’s closet for a strip search. A physical altercation then occurred between plaintiff and defendant’s employees. The magistrate held that plaintiff failed to prove his claims of battery and/or negligence by a preponderance of the evidence and that the force used by defendant’s employees was reasonable and necessary. In addition, the magistrate found that defendant’s employees were more credible than plaintiff. Judgment was recommended in favor of defendant. | Peterson | |
7/8/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3219 |
|
Hicks v. Court of Claims
| 2024-00515PQ | Recommendation for dismissal as case constituted a case of first impression that involved an issue of public interest in a case brought under R.C. 2743.75. | Peterson | |
7/3/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3000 |
|
Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00635JD | Summary Judgment; Civ.R. 56; battery; assault; statute of limitations; inmate. Plaintiff failed to file his assault and battery claim prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s assertion of a negligence claim in the response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment was not proper under Civ.R. 56 and could not be used to evade the applicable statute of limitations for assault and battery. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
7/1/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3220 |
|
Reese v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2024-00386AD | Inmate; property loss; bailment; intentional infliction of emotional distress; admission of liability. Judgment for plaintiff. | Shaver | |
6/28/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3287 |
|
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 |
|
In re Chrisman
| 2023-00658 | Victims of crime. No objections filed. Magistrate's decision adopted. | Sadler | |
6/13/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3272 |
|
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 |
|
In re DiPippo
| 2023-00551 | Victims of crime. No objections filed. Magistrate's decision adopted. | Sadler | |
6/6/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3266 |
|
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 |
|
In re Chrisman
| 2023-00658 | Victims of crime. Applicant failed to prove that witnessing the crime scene over twenty years ago proximately caused the need for chronic depression medication currently sought. Magistrate recommended that Attorney General's final decision be affirmed. | Shaver | |
5/28/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3273 |
|
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 |
|
In re DiPippo
| 2023-00551 | Victims of crime; R.C. 2743.51(C); criminally injurious conduct. Applicant failed to prove that she was a victim of criminally injurious conduct when a stolen motor vehicle crashed into her unoccupied residence. Magistrate recommended that Attorney General’s final decision be affirmed. | Shaver | |
5/21/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3267 |
|
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 |
|
Goff v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2024-00114AD | Inmate; package; mail; crochet purse; bailment; property loss; actual value; insurance. Judgment for plaintiff. | Shaver | |
5/14/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3284 |
|
Otterbacher v. Ohio Expositions Comm.
| 2024-00017AD | Breach of contract; concessions stand; cash transactions; verbal warning; point of sale; receipts; percentage contractor; Ohio State Fair. Judgment for defendant. | Shaver | |
5/10/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3281 |
|
In re Howells
| 2023-00653 | Victims of crime. No objections filed. Magistrate's decision adopted. Claim remanded for economic loss calculations. | Sadler | |
5/9/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3270 |
|
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 |
|
Sultaana v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 202-00027AD | Inmate; property loss; negligence; duty of care; bailment; proof of damages. Judgment for plaintiff. | Shaver | |
4/25/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3282 |
|
Blodharn v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00218AD | Inmate; property loss; negligence; duty of care; bailment; proof of damages. Judgment for plaintiff. | Shaver | |
4/25/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3277 |
|
In re Howells
| 2023-00653 | Victims of crime; R.C. 2743.60(D). Attorney General failed to prove that applicant unreasonably failed to present a timely claim to his insurance company; thus, his medical bills were not covered by a collateral source. Magistrate recommended claim be reversed and remanded for economic loss calculations. | Shaver | |
4/17/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3271 |
|
Tucker v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
| 2023-00745AD | Pothole; negligence; collateral source; proof of damages. Judgment for plaintiff. | Shaver | |
4/10/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3280 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Shank v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00687AD | Inmate; lost property; negligence; emotional distress; damages; credibility of witnesses; reasonable certainty; market value; depreciation. Judgment for plaintiff. | Shaver | |
3/15/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3279 |
|
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 |
|
In re Azbill
| 2023-00293 | Victims of crime. No objections filed. Magistrate's decision adopted. Claim remanded for economic loss calculations. | Sadler | |
3/8/2024
|
8/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3248 |
|