| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Ryan v. Ashtabula
| 2022-00660PQ, 2022-00665PQ, 2022-00680PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43(B)(1); R.C. 2743.75; A requester may not sue on a public records request withdrawn before the case is filed; a revised public records request supersedes the original request; The Court of Claims’ remedial powers under R.C. 2743.75(F)(3) are limited to ordering the production of records and awarding filing fees/costs. | Marti | |
2/28/2023
|
3/2/2023
| 2023-Ohio-621 |
|
LeRussi v. Calcutta Volunteer Fire Dept.
| 2022-00657PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 2743.75; Statements in unsworn memoranda are not evidence; Neither R.C. 149.43 nor R.C. 2743.75 give the Court of Claims authority to address public office’s alleged violations of contracts or statutes other than R.C. 149.43(B). | Marti | |
2/28/2023
|
3/2/2023
| 2023-Ohio-626 |
|
Whitehead v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00436PQ | On Requester’s objections, the Court overruled Requester’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and, in accordance with the Special Master’s recommendation, the Court denied Requester’s claim for production of additional records. | Sheeran | |
2/22/2023
|
3/2/2023
| 2023-Ohio-625 |
|
Johnson v. Cleveland Police Dept.
| 2023-00031PQ | Public records; R.C. 149.43(B)(8); elements for applicability of R.C. 149.43(B)(8); “forensic” defined; “any” defined. | Marti | |
2/21/2023
|
3/2/2023
| 2023-Ohio-628 |
|
Sell v. Trumbull Cty. Court of Common Pleas
| 2022-00867PQ | Public Records; Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio; R.C. 149.43(B); R.C. 2743.75; Supp. R. 44; R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) authorizes dismissal of case beyond the Court of Claims’ public records jurisdiction; Requests for Court records are beyond the scope of R.C. 149.43(B); Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction under R.C. 2743.75(A) to address complaints for access to court records; Audio recording of a criminal trial is a court record; An audio recording is a “document.” | Marti | |
2/14/2023
|
3/2/2023
| 2023-Ohio-627 |
|
Standifer v. Ohio Dept. of Health
| 2022-00217PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.011(G); 149.43(B)(1); R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 3701.17(B); Media use of Public Records Act; “Data base rule” under R.C. 149.011(G); Redaction does not require the public office to create a new record; R.C. 149.43(B)(1) requires release of record containing both public and exempted information if the exempted information can be redacted; A public office waives defenses not raised in its initial response to a R.C. 2743.75 complaint; Extent of deference to agency’s construction of statute; Import of agency’s change of position on the extent of deference to agency’s construction of a statute. | Clark | |
2/10/2023
|
3/2/2023
| 2023-Ohio-622 |
|
Gorslene v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
| 2016-00708JD | Personal injury, magistrate, Civ.R. 53. The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate’s decision, and, in the absence of objections, adopted the decision and recommendation. Judgment rendered for plaintiff in the amount of $44,803. | Sheeran | |
2/10/2023
|
3/16/2023
| 2023-Ohio-798 |
|
TNSWS, L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2020-00440JD | Breach of Contract; Declaratory Judgment; Unjust Enrichment; Promissory Estoppel; Memorandum of Understanding; Bench Trial. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel claims against defendant in relation to a memorandum of understanding regarding defendant’s data sharing of inmate’s post-release employment information to plaintiff. A bench trial on liability was held before a magistrate. The magistrate found that the parties objectively and mutually assented to the subject matter and terms of the memorandum of understanding and defendant breached the terms. Moreover, plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim was subsumed into its breach of contract claim. Accordingly, the magistrate subsequently held that plaintiff’s equitable unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel claims were moot because plaintiff is entitled to a legal remedy under the breach of contract claim. Therefore, the magistrate recommended judgment on liability in favor of plaintiff on its breach of contract claim. | Shaver | |
2/10/2023
|
3/16/2023
| 2023-Ohio-800 |
|
The Markup v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
| 2022-00279PQ | Public Records; Infrastructure records; Security records; Trade Secrets; R.C. 149.011(G); R.C. 149.43: R.C. 149.433(A); R.C. 1333.16; Media use of Public Records Act; Out of state resident is “person” who may request public records; Software specially designed to support specific functions of a public office is a “record” because it document’s office’s decisions; “critical” defined for purposes of R.C. 149.433; “configuration” defined for purposes of R.C. 149.433; absence of evidence from holder of purported trade secret undermines trade secret claim. | Clark | |
2/7/2023
|
3/2/2023
| 2023-Ohio-623 |
|
Starling v. Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities
| 2019-00747JD | Damages Determination, Negligence, Wrongful Death, Survivorship. On remand from the Tenth District Court of Appeals, court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on her wrongful death and survivorship claims regarding her adult son with developmental disabilities who died in defendant’s custody. Accordingly, this court determined the plaintiff was entitled to $400,000 for her wrongful death claim and $25,000 for her survivorship claim. | Crawford | |
2/3/2023
|
3/16/2023
| 2023-Ohio-799 |
|
Innovative Architectural Planners, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv.
| 2021-00354JD | Motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(E); statute of limitations; R.C. 2743.16(A); R.C. 125; R.C. 153; tortious interference; civil conspiracy; breach of contract; quantum meruit. Plaintiff brought this action against defendants, DAS and OFCC, based on a contract between the parties. Plaintiff claimed tortious interference, civil conspiracy, breach of contract and quantum meruit against defendants because they “pulled” projects from plaintiff. The court found that a senior vice president of plaintiff testified that the projects were pulled in 2016, and that plaintiff did not present any evidence that the wrongful conduct occurred continuously after 2016. Because plaintiff filed this complaint in 2021, the court held that all of plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations found in R.C. 2743.16(A). The court further found that defendant was entitled to summary judgment even if the claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. The court determined that plaintiff’s claims for tortious interference would be denied because the agencies were acting with privilege under R.C. 125 and 153. The court concluded that the claim for civil conspiracy failed because the state is a single entity that cannot conspire with itself. The court stated that it had previously dismissed the claims for breach of contract. Finally the court determined that plaintiff could not prove a reasonable value for the benefit DAS received and thus, defendant would be entitled to summary judgment on the claim of quantum meruit. Therefore, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment for all claims. | Crawford | |
2/3/2023
|
3/16/2023
| 2023-Ohio-801 |
|
Morrison v. Starr
| 2022-00481PQ | After neither party timely objected to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, the Court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation and the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendations and findings, the Court denied Respondent's motion to dismiss, found that Requester's claim for production of records was moot, and found that Respondent failed to produce requested public records within a reasonable period of time. Because Respondent denied Requester access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B), 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. | Sheeran | |
1/31/2023
|
2/14/2023
| 2023-Ohio-425 |
|
Whitehead v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00436PQ | Public Record; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 5120.21; Admin. Code. 5120:9-49; Public records request made after the filing of an R.C. 2743.75 complaint will not be not considered in connection with that complaint; R.C. 149.43 does not require public office to respond to questions seeking narrative answers; Res judicata bars claims based on requests for public records litigated in a prior case; Public office must clearly assert the non-existence of responsive records; Requester must provide clear and convincing evidence of the existence of responsive records after public office has properly asserted that no responsive records exist; The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has discretion to release records covered by R.C. 5120.21(F). | Clark | |
1/24/2023
|
2/14/2023
| 2023-Ohio-424 |
|
Cook v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2021-00405JD | Summary Judgment, False Imprisonment, Loss of Consortium, Civ.R. 56, Sentencing Order, Facially Valid. Defendant established that it had imprisoned plaintiff pursuant to a facially valid sentencing order and the court found that the remaining consortium claims were derivative. There was nothing on the face of the trial court’s original sentencing orders which indicated that they were invalid and only through the application of case law would their invalidity become apparent. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact and defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sheeran | |
1/20/2023
|
2/2/2023
| 2023-Ohio-320 |
|
Ault v. Galion
| 2022-00547PQ | After neither party timely objected to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, the Court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation and the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with the Report and Recommendation, the Court found that the requested documents were not records of the Galion City Council or any member thereof and were therefore not subject to the Ohio Public Records Act. | Sheeran | |
1/10/2023
|
2/14/2023
| 2023-Ohio-426 |