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 44 rows. Rows per page: 
12345
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Axelrod v. Dept. of Commerce 2018-01458PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 1707.12; ambiguous; overly broad; embedded. Overview: Requesters sought examination files and communications related to their clients. The special master found that the requests were ambiguous and overly broad, with the exception of a portion of a request seeking particular investigatory files. The special master found that the responsive files were prohibited from release in their entirety by R.C. 1707.12(B), precluding the need to analyze other claimed exceptions. Neither party filed objections. Outcome: The court found no error of law or other defect on the face of the special master’s decision and adopted the report and recommendation as its own.McGrath  4/25/2019 5/10/2019 2019-Ohio-1820
Kirk v. Coshocton Cty. Sheriff's Office 2019-00383PQpublic record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 2743.75(E)(3)(c); R.C. 2743.75(D)(2); Civ.R. 8(A); Civ.R. 10(B); Civ.R. 41(B)(1); notice pleading. Overview: Requester filed a complaint that did not identify any specific public records request for which access had been denied in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). Requester instead attached 72 pages of correspondence and other documents containing 53 records requests, 38 criminal discovery requests, and various accusations, photographs, maps, and other material irrelevant to public records requests. Requester did not comply with the special master’s order to file an amended complaint setting forth his claim in an orderly manner pursuant to the rules of civil procedure. The special master recommended the court dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, failure to comply with a court order, and pursuant to the court’s authority to dismiss under R.C. 2743.75(D)(2).Clark  4/18/2019 5/10/2019 2019-Ohio-1825
Parks v. Pickaway Cty. Bd. of Commrs. 2018-01479PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; moot; non-existent; metadata. Overview: Requester sought board meeting minutes, and asserted the purported minutes provided to him were either not authentic and/or were created after he made his requests. The special master found that the metadata and other evidence before the court did not disprove that respondent had provided the requested minutes. The special master recommended the court dismiss the action as moot. Requester filed objections. Outcome: The court found no error of law or other defect on the face of the special master’s decision and adopted the report and recommendation as its own.McGrath  4/9/2019 5/10/2019 2019-Ohio-1823
Schutte v. Gorman Heritage Found. 2018-01029PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 149.431; functional equivalence; waiver. Overview: Requester sought financial reports from respondent, a non-profit entity providing services to and on the property of a village. Requester alleged that respondent is the functional equivalent of a public office, or alternatively is required to provide certain financial information as public record pursuant to R.C. 149.431. The special master reviewed the Oriana House factors required or permitted to be analyzed and found that requester had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was the functional equivalent of a public office. The special master further found that as a non-profit corporation providing services to a political subdivision under contract respondent is required by R.C. 149.431(A) to disclose specific records of moneys expended in relation to those services. Requester filed objections. Outcome: The court found that requester’s allegation of additional funds received by respondent, and his disagreement with the weight given by the special master to each Oriana House factor, were insufficient to disturb the conclusion that respondent was not the functional equivalent of a public office. The court further concluded that the special master did not err in determining that requester had waived the assertion of quasi-agency by not raising it in his complaint. McGrath  4/8/2019 5/10/2019 2019-Ohio-1818
Axelrod v. Dept. of Commerce 2018-01458PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 1707.12; ambiguous; overly broad; embedded. Overview: Requesters sought examination files and communications related to their clients. The special master found that the requests were ambiguous and overly broad, with the exception of a portion of a request seeking particular investigatory files. The special master found that the responsive files were prohibited from release in their entirety by R.C. 1707.12(B), precluding the need to analyze other claimed exceptions.Clark  4/2/2019 5/10/2019 2019-Ohio-1821
Brown v. Cleveland 2018-01426PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 149.011(G). Overview: Requester sought the sign-in sheet from a meeting called by a city councilperson to discuss proposed secondary street signage with the residents of the street and obtain their vote. Respondent disclosed the names on the sign-in sheet but redacted residential addresses, asserting they did not meet the definition of “records.” The special master found that the addresses had been used by the councilperson to document the status of persons attending as “residents of” the street, and to support his representation to the proponent that the residents of the street had voted against the proposal. The special master found that under the facts and circumstances of this case the residential street addresses of attendees were “records” of the city and must be disclosed.Clark  3/28/2019 5/10/2019 2019-Ohio-1819
Skiles v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2018-01163ADThe court determined that plaintiff failed to evidence defendant was responsible for the alleged loss of his property, aside from two items that defendant admitted were lost, stolen, or confiscated. Defendant admitted plaintiff’s boots were confiscated as evidence of a criminal act and plaintiff’s television was not returned to him when he was released from security control. The court held that when an inmate signs a record stating defendant packed up all of his property and the inmate does not contest the fact of this receipt, he has failed to show defendant was liable for the alleged property loss. The court noted plaintiff’s June 30, 2017 property record did not identify any of the property at issue and that plaintiff signed the record indicating all property was accounted for. Finally, the court stated it has no jurisdiction to overturn the Rules Infraction Board’s decision here regarding the disposal of contraband property. Judgment in favor of plaintiff, with respect to his television and boots, for $301.95.Borchert  3/27/2019 5/17/2019 2019-Ohio-1911
Davis v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2018-00043JDNegligence; failure to control animals; slip-and-fall; inmate; reasonable care; magistrate; Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff brought two negligence claims based on two instances in which plaintiff fell while an inmate at defendant correctional facility. On September 22, 2017, plaintiff was injured in the yard of the correctional facility when two dogs lunged at him and caused him to fall. Defendant admitted that defendant breached a duty owed to plaintiff regarding the incident. As a result, the magistrate recommended judgment in favor of plaintiff on this claim. On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff, inmate, slipped and fell on a walkway on the grounds of the correctional center while walking to the infirmary. At the time, plaintiff had mobility issues and was using a rollator walker. Snow had fallen the previous day. There was conflicting testimony as to whether the snow had been adequately cleared from the walkway. The magistrate found the testimony of defendant’s witnesses more credible. The state has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent prisoners in its custody from being injured by dangerous conditions about which the state knows or should know. The court found that defendant’s maintenance staff took reasonable steps to protect plaintiff both by removing snow and ice and by properly treating the walkways with salt. The magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant on the slip-and-fall claim.Renick  3/25/2019 5/8/2019 2019-Ohio-1756
Schutte v. Gorman Heritage Farm Found. 2018-01029PQpublic record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 149.431; functional equivalence. Overview: Requester sought financial reports from respondent, a non-profit entity providing services to and on the property of a village. Requester alleged that respondent is the functional equivalent of a public office, or alternatively is required to provide certain financial information as public record pursuant to R.C. 149.431. The special master reviewed the Oriana House factors required or permitted to be analyzed and found that requester had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was the functional equivalent of a public office. The special master further found that as a non-profit corporation providing services to a political subdivision under contract respondent is required by R.C. 149.431(A) to disclose specific records of moneys expended in relation to those services.Clark  3/15/2019 4/30/2019 2019-Ohio-1611
Neff v. Orange Twp. Trustee Knapp 2018-01124PQpublic record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; ambiguous; overly broad; email. Overview: Requester sought email between respondent and employees of a named company on specific dates and times. The special master found that the request as clarified prior to litigation reasonably identified the records sought. The special master further found that requester did not provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome respondent’s attestation that if such emails had existed, they would have been deleted in accordance with the office records retention schedule and were no longer in her possession. Requester filed objections. Outcome: The court found no error of law or other defect on the face of the special master’s decision and adopted the report and recommendation as its own.McGrath  3/13/2019 4/30/2019 2019-Ohio-1612
12345