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 52 rows. Rows per page: 
123456
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Schuman v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 2017-00362-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(o); R.C. 3121.894; new hires directory. Overview: Requester sought to enforce a public records request for information maintained by respondent. The special master recommended a finding that the requested records were excepted from disclosure by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(o) and R.C. 3121.894, and that respondent therefore did not violate division (B) of R.C. 149.43 when it denied the request. No objections were filed by either party. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. The complaint was ordered dismissed for failure to state a claim.McGrath  6/28/2017 7/10/2017 2017-Ohio-5769
Estrada v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr. 2012-07218Wrongful Death- Plaintiff alleged that defendant's agents violated the standard of care in rendering post-operative treatment following the decedent's hysterectomy. At trial, the Magistrate found Defendant's expert's opinion more credible, that evidence did not support Plaintiff's expert's theory of causation, and ultimately that Defendant's medical staff complied with the standard of care. Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate's decision. The Court affirmed the Magistrate's finding that defendant did not deviate from the standard of care when it did not place a nasogastric (NG) tube and, therefore, overruled Plaintiff's first objection. The Court also affirmed the Magistrate's findings regarding the weight and credibility attributable to Defendant's expert's opinion and, therefore, overruled Plaintiff's second objection. The Court denied Plaintiff's request that the Court take additional expert testimony evidence.McGrath  6/21/2017 7/10/2017 2017-Ohio-5780
Ray v. Dept. of Health 2015-01051Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; disability discrimination; R.C. 4112.02; reasonable accommodation; ADA. Court determined that plaintiff did not bring forth sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably reject defendant's explanation for her termination, her behavior in the workplace, and infer that defendant intentionally discriminated against her because of her disability of depression and ADHD. Also, defendant was not required to engage in the interactive process with plaintiff for a reasonable accommodation. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  6/21/2017 7/24/2017 2017-Ohio-6960
Appenzeller v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00444Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; inmate; wrongful imprisonment. Court determined that defendant was legally justified to confine plaintiff at all relevant times, and there was no evidence presented by plaintiff to indicate that the court documents in ODRC's employee's affidavit were invalid. Finally, the court found that plaintiff failed to follow the proper procedures to bring a wrongful imprisonment claim in the Court of Claims. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  6/21/2017 7/24/2017 2017-Ohio-6961
Foulk v. Upper Arlington 2017-00132-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; attorney; client; privilege; waive; open meeting; moot; timeliness; minutes. Overview: Requester sought to enforce a public records request for audio recording of a public meeting held by respondent. The special master determined that discussions between a public body and its legal counsel during an open session of a public meeting conducted under R.C. 121.22 are not made "in confidence," even if no member of the public is physically present. Attorney-client privilege therefore never attached to the recording of such discussions (or was waived). Respondent provided the withheld records after the filing of the complaint, rendering the claim for production moot. The special master determined that the 88-day delay in production violated the timeliness requirement of R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and recommended that requester was entitled to recover from respondent the amount of his filing fee and any other costs associated with the action. The special master further recommended that requester's allegation that the City had failed to create complete minutes of the meeting be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No objections were filed by either party. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment rendered in favor of requester.McGrath  6/19/2017 7/10/2017 2017-Ohio-5767
Alt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Probation Dept. 2017-00175-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; standing; surrogate; request; deliver; improper; rules of superintendence; court records. Overview: The special master recommended a finding that requester failed to show that she or her surrogate actually delivered the alleged public records request to respondent, and that the request for "complete audit/breakdown of funds collected" was an improper request to create a new record. The special master further found that to the extent the request sought court records from cases commenced after July 1, 2017, it was not subject to enforcement under R.C. 149.43(C) and R.C. 2743.75. No objections were filed by either party. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment rendered in favor of respondent.McGrath  6/7/2017 7/10/2017 2017-Ohio-5768
Meminger v. Ohio State Univ. 2016-00808Wrongful Termination- Plaintiff, formerly an emergency room secretary for Defendant, alleged Defendant terminated her in retaliation for her conduct in confronting one of Defendant's physicians. Defendant terminated plaintiff's employment after plaintiff discussed a workplace violence incident reported on the news and after charging plaintiff with engaging in inappropriate, threatening, and retaliatory behavior toward staff members. Plaintiff, claiming to be an at-will employee, alleged a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. On summary judgment, the Court found that that plaintiff was a member of a collective bargaining unit at the time of her termination. Plaintiff's position was classified, she was a member of a union, and union dues were deducted from her final paycheck. The Court, therefore, found plaintiff was not an employee at-will and could not assert a wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim as a matter of law and granted summary judgment to Defendant.McGrath  6/7/2017 7/10/2017 2017-Ohio-5781
Stabler v. Ohio Univ. 2015-00880Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; FLSA; overtime. Court found that defendant did not "severely restrict" the time that plaintiff was on paid administrative leave, and plaintiff could not prove that he spent more than 40 hours per week doing compensable work predominately for the benefit of defendant. The only reasonable conclusion was that defendant did not violate the FLSA. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  6/6/2017 7/24/2017 2017-Ohio-6959
Schuman v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 2017-00362-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(O); R.C. 3121.894; new hires directory. Overview: Requester sought to enforce a public records request for information contained in the new hires directory maintained by respondent. The special master determined that the requested records were excepted from disclosure by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(o) and R.C. 3121.894, and that respondent therefore did not violate division (B) of R.C. 149.43 when it denied the public records request. The special master recommended that the requester's claim be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Civ.R. 12(B)(6).Clark  6/6/2017 7/10/2017 2017-Ohio-5770
Gannett GP Media, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety 2017-00051-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; ambiguous; overly broad; revise; constitutional; privacy; security; abatement; recede; objection; additional; evidence; strike. Procedural Posture: Requester objected to special master's determination that its request for all correspondence among respondent's employees regarding a deployment was ambiguous and overly broad. Respondent objected to special master's determination that trooper names were not exempted by security records and Fourteenth Amendment privacy exceptions once they returned from deployment. Overview: Requester newspaper sought: 1) all communications of the State Highway Patrol regarding the deployment of Ohio troopers to assist another state via an agreement under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, R.C. 5502.40, 2) the names of the troopers deployed, and, 3) the assistance agreement. The parties accepted the special master's determination that the bulk of the information in the agreement form was public. The court found that requester's request for "any and all communication" to or from any employee of the Highway Patrol "regarding the deployment of these officers" was insufficiently specific to identify particular records, and that respondent had sufficiently met its obligation to provide requester with the opportunity and information to revise this request. Noting respondent's admission that there was no evidence of violent threats or online harassment since returning from employment, the court found that the names of the troopers were no longer exempt under the Fourteenth Amendment right of privacy or statutory security records exception that applied during their deployment. Outcome: The court granted requester's motion to strike additional evidence submitted by respondent. The court overruled the objections of both requester and respondent, and adopted the special master's report and recommendation as its own.McGrath  5/30/2017 6/13/2017 2017-Ohio-4248
123456