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 66 rows. Rows per page: 
1234567
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Wood Elec., Inc. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm. 2014-00987Costs; prejudgment interest; post-judgment interest. The court determined that plaintiff was entitled to the cost of the trial transcripts and filing fee, but not for deposition transcripts and exhibit copying because plaintiff did not introduce any of the depositions at trial. Plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment and post-judgment interest as of the Court's August 12, 2016 decision. Plaintiff was entitled to judgment of $254,027 plus $2,896.30 in costs, 15,012.72 in prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest calculated in a manner consistent with the decision.Crawford  8/23/2017 9/8/2017 2017-Ohio-7524
Thomas v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health 2015-00487Objection; Civ.R. 53. The court determined that plaintiff's objections were untimely filed and did not comport with the requirements contained in Civ.R. 5 because they did not contain a completed proof of service. Even if the objections were timely filed, they did not comport with the requirements contained in Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii) that calls for an objection to be specific and identify with particularity all grounds for the objection. The court adopted the magistrate's decision and recommendation as its own, including conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment rendered in favor of defendant.McGrath  8/16/2017 9/8/2017 2017-Ohio-7525
Roberson v. Ohio Dept. of Dev. Disabilities 2016-00372Promissory Estoppel; Disability Discrimination- Plaintiff, who was bi-polar, asserted her termination during probationary period was pretext for discrimination based on her disability. Plaintiff also sought recovery based on alleged promise that she would not have to serve a probationary period. However, as plaintiff's employment was subject to a written union contract, any promises of defendant's agents could not support promissory estoppel claim. Plaintiff arguably stated prima facie claim of discrimination but employer offered evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for plaintiff's termination. As plaintiff produced no evidence that the proffered reasons for her termination were pretextual, defendant was also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's disability discrimination claim.McGrath  8/16/2017 9/11/2017 2017-Ohio-7541
Lemay v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr. 2016-00860Defamation; Privilege; Wrongful Discharge- Plaintiff, a nurse, sued for defamation and wrongful discharge after defendant terminated her employment following the accidental disposal of a kidney intended for transplant. The court initially found some exhibits were not properly authenticated. As a collective bargaining agreement governed plaintiff's employment, the court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim. Plaintiff could not prove falsity of hearing officer's statements or report, or falsity of information provided to newspaper. All statements reasonably related to disciplinary hearing were entitled to absolute privilege and statements made to Toledo Blade were entitled to qualified privilege. Court found no evidence of actual malice or special damages. Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.Crawford  8/4/2017 9/11/2017 2017-Ohio-7542
State v. Big Sky Drilling, Inc. 2016-00603-PRSummary judgment; Civ.R. 56; statute of limitations. The court determined that Big Sky's claims were filed outside the statute of limitations. Further, there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Attorney General's Office instituted the enforcement action against Big Sky solely in a representative capacity and was not amenable to suit. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  7/31/2017 9/8/2017 2017-Ohio-7511
Turner v. Lyndhurst 2017-00379-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; information; create new records; overly broad; ambiguous. Overview: Requester sought to enforce a records request for documents that would answer her questions about how city funds were spent. The special master determined that the city promptly provided responsive expense reports, and had not violated R.C. 149.43(B) when it denied an ambiguous and overly broad portion of the request for "any public document regarding" a large budget segment. The city was ordered to produce a small number of documents that had been adequately specified.Clark  7/25/2017 8/7/2017 2017-Ohio-7129
Kerns v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2015-00261Trespass; R.C. 901.51, taking, injunction; TRO - Plaintiffs asserted various claims after trees were removed from plaintiffs' property. The magistrate found that defendant committed a trespass when it directed the removal of one and one-half trees outside of its right of way but did not act recklessly and, therefore, did not violate R.C. 901.51. The magistrate further found that the removal of trees did not substantially deprive plaintiffs of the rights of ownership and, therefore, did not constitute an unconstitutional taking. The evidence established that defendant did not direct the removal of other trees for which plaintiffs sought recovery. Any delay in obtaining permits did not result in compensable harm. Though defendant presented expert testimony that plaintiff's property suffered no diminution in value, the magistrate recommended damages for restoration costs and the value of the lost use of plaintiff's property.Shaver  7/25/2017 8/9/2017 2017-Ohio-7154
Patton v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00166Inmate; assault; excessive force. The magistrate determined that under a theory of assault, battery, or negligence, plaintiff was not entitled to relief regarding his claim that a corrections office used excessive force against him. The use of OC spray by a corrections office was justified and privileged under the circumstances. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  7/20/2017 9/8/2017 2017-Ohio-7509
Culbreth v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00374Inmate; excessive force; bifurcated. The magistrate determined that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a claim for unnecessary or excessive use of force. While some force may have been justified given plaintiff's threatening behavior and belligerent attitude, it did not appear that either corrections officer used any unnecessary force. Also, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant intended to cause any emotional distress. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Peterson  7/19/2017 9/8/2017 2017-Ohio-7510
George v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr. 2016-00116Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; statute of limitations; savings statute. The court determined that plaintiff did not file his original complaint against defendant in common pleas court until November 19, 2015, well past the one-year statute of limitations. Consequently, plaintiff could not take advantage of the savings statute, and plaintiff's medical claims were untimely. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  7/19/2017 9/8/2017 2017-Ohio-7508
1234567