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?
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 12 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Doe v. Ohio State Univ. 2023-00498PQOn 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. 2019-01146JDCiv.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 2023-00728JDCiv.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
Columbus Police Body Camera v. Columbus Div. of Police 2023-00727PQPublic 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
Wilkes v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2019-00012JDWrongful 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
Cook v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2022-00334JDInmate; 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. 2022-00768JDSummary 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
Leach v. Ohio State Univ. 2022-00305JDCiv.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
Evans v. Etna Twp. 2023-00582PQ, 2023-00583PQ, 2023-00584PQPublic 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
Matis v. Toledo Police Dept. 2023-00600PQAfter neither Requester nor Respondent 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 and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The Court ordered Respondent to produce certain records to Requester in accordance with the Special Master’s recommendations.Sadler  1/9/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-567
Maleky v. Ohio State Univ., Office of Compliment & Integrity 2023-00637PQPublic Records; R.C. 149.43(a)(1)(v); R.C. 149.43(B)(1); 20 U.C.C. § 1232g, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”); records generated in connection with proceedings addressing educator misconduct are not “education records” protected by FERPA, even if they refer to students; If there is sufficient evidence that a public office has failed to produce all responsive public records the office must either produce the remaining responsive records or certify that none exist; Clear and convincing evidence is required if the office provides affidavit testimony or its equivalent that no additional records exist; “Some evidence” is sufficient if the office does not provide affidavit testimony negating the existence of additional responsive records; Some evidence exists if the requester establishes facts that would usually result in the existence of the additional records; Some evidence also exists if other records refer to or otherwise suggest the existence of the additional records.Marti  1/5/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-568
LeRussi v. Calcutta Volunteer Fire Dept. 2023-00434PQPublic Records; R.C. 2743.75(F)(2); Orders entered pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) may be enforced via contempt proceedings.Sheets  1/3/2024 2/15/2024 2024-Ohio-564