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 79 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Viola v. N. Royalton 2020-00477PQThe Court denied Requester’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, including a request for a hearing. The Court held that that neither Requester’s motion nor additional material established that Requester had a meritorious claim to present if the Court were to grant the relief that Requester sought. The Court further held that Requester’s motion and additional material did not contain allegations of operative facts that warranted relief under Civ.R. 60(B).Sheeran  8/31/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3239
Anthony v. Columbus City Schools 2021-00069PQOn Respondent’s objections, the Court overruled Respondent’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The Court found that Requester, as an aggrieved person, 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, but Requester was not entitled to recover attorney fees.Sheeran  8/31/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3241
Skaggs v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2019-00650JDMedical malpractice; statute of limitations; Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). Plaintiff, an inmate, filed an action for medical malpractice and unreasonable use of force on May 23, 2019. The magistrate determined that plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim accrued when his prescription medication was changed in 2016 and that his unreasonable use of force claim accrued during a 2016 physical altercation. The magistrate then found that plaintiff’s claims fell outside the one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims and the two-year statute of limitations for unreasonable use of force claims. Consequently, the magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff objected to the magistrate’s decision regarding his medical malpractice claim. The judge found that the magistrate correctly construed plaintiff’s claim as one for medical malpractice because defendant’s acts arose in the course of medical diagnosis, care or treatment. Further, the judge found that plaintiff’s cause of action accrued when defendant’s medical staff altered his medication in 2016. As a result, the judge found no error in the magistrate’s conclusion that plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim was time-barred. The judge overruled plaintiff’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and entered judgment in favor of defendant.Sheeran  8/18/2021 9/13/2021 2021-Ohio-3140
Parks v. McClain 2021-00169PQOn Requester’s objections, the Court overruled Requester’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and rendered judgment on behalf of Respondent. The Court held that, notwithstanding Requester’s claims of error, the Special Master had identified the pertinent issues and reached the correct legal determination based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law, as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint.Sheeran  8/17/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3243
Knapp v. Ohio Dept. of Health 2021-00191PQOn Respondent’s objections, the Court overruled Respondent’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and ordered Respondent to forthwith provide Requester with requested records in accordance with the Special Master's recommendation. 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, but Requester was not entitled to recover attorney fees. Notwithstanding Respondent’s objections, the Court found that the Special Master identified the pertinent issues and reached the correct legal determination based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law, as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint.Sheeran  8/12/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3244
HSH Investigations, L.L.C. v. Stark Cty. Sheriff's Office 2021-00285PQOn Requester’s objections, the Court overruled Requester’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss in accordance with the Special Master’s recommendation. The Court held that, notwithstanding Requester’s objections, the Special Master had identified the pertinent issues and reached the correct legal determination in the Report and Recommendation based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law, as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint.Sheeran  8/3/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3246
Anthony v. Columbus City Schools 2021-00069PQCore Terms: public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; non-existent; data; system; database; reasonable period of time. Overview: Requester sought a specific dataset of elementary school teacher absences and substitute teacher coverage for a three-year period. The special master found that respondent possessed the raw absence and substitute data, but its computer system was incapable of producing the requested dataset using existing programming. The special master concluded that the requested record did not exist for the purpose of a public records request. The special master further found that respondent had failed to timely provide the requester with an explanation for its denial or an opportunity to revise the request.Clark  8/2/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3242
Grier v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2020-00659JDMedical Malpractice; Negligence; Expert Testimony; Civ.R. 56; Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody and control of defendant, brought claim asserting defendant was medically negligent in its failure to adequately address plaintiff’s knee injury upon his transfer to a new facility. The court held that in order to sustain a claim for medical negligence, a party must proffer the testimony of a medical expert to establish the recognized standard of care. The evidence demonstrated that plaintiff failed to provide an expert witness to establish the required elements of his medical negligence claim. Therefore, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.Sheeran  7/30/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3240
Kostelac v. Univ. of Akron 2019-01037JDCiv.R. 56(C), negligence. Plaintiff, a former student of defendant and former member of defendant’s basketball team, filed an action asserting that defendant was liable to him for damages after being assaulted by another member of the basketball team. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for negligence, finding that plaintiff did not present any evidence to show that defendant breached its duty of reasonable care owed to protect plaintiff because the criminal act of the other player was unforeseeable to both plaintiff and defendant.Sheeran  7/28/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3237
Nachowitz v. Miami Univ. 2021-00192JDEmployment discrimination, religious discrimination, statute of limitations, R.C. 4112.02, R.C. 2743.16. Plaintiff alleged that he was denied tenure because of his religion. The court granted summary judgment to defendant because plaintiff filed suit a few months beyond the two-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2743.16. The court held that R.C. 2743.16 trumped the longer, six-year statute of limitations for discrimination claims brought pursuant to R.C. 4112, et seq. Sheeran  7/28/2021 9/17/2021 2021-Ohio-3245
12345678