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 43 rows. Rows per page: 
12345
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Poole v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr. 2016-00733JDAssault and Battery- Plaintiffs, a mother and daughter, sought recovery for injuries allegedly resulting from a physical altercation with hospital security guards which occurred after the mother sought treatment at Defendant’s emergency room. The magistrate found plaintiffs’ testimony regarding the incident and their claimed injuries lacked credibility and that hospital security staff used reasonable and non-excessive force after plaintiffs initiated the altercation and refused to leave the emergency room. As such, hospital security staff were privileged in using reasonable force to control the situation. The magistrate recommended judgment for Defendant.Renick  5/30/2018 6/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2277
Turner v. Univ. of Cincinnati 2016-00769JDSummary judgment; Civ.R. 56. The court found that the driver of the car in an accident was not an employee of defendant and there was not a principal-agent relationship between defendant and the driver. Further, the court determined that judicial restraint cautioned against issuing a premature ruling on a potential declaratory judgment claim relative to defendant’s automobile liability coverage agreement. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.McGrath  5/30/2018 6/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2287
Harris v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00883JDNegligence- Plaintiff, an inmate in Defendant’s custody, fell and sustained broken ribs while pushing a rack filled with pans of food after the rack got caught on a recessed floor drain. The magistrate, after finding the 2-inch rule did not apply, found that Defendant nonetheless lacked notice regarding the floor drain’s condition and recommended judgment for Defendant.Van Schoyck  5/23/2018 6/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2276
Fraley v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00709JDInmate; negligence; premises liability; bifurcated; liability. The magistrate determined that plaintiff failed to establish how or why the handrail broke, how or why plaintiff ended up on the landing of the stairwell, that the handrail was defective, that defendant had notice, actual or constructive, of the defective handrail, and that the alleged defect proximately caused plaintiff’s fall. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Peterson  5/18/2018 6/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2288
Sheil v. Horton 2017-00772PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 149.011(A); R.C. 117.01(D); public office; public institution; functional equivalent; person responsible; foundation; trade secret. Overview: Requester sought a speaker contract entered into by the Cuyahoga Community College Foundation, a non-profit entity incorporated to solicit and receive contributions for the Cuyahoga Community College. Respondent argued that the foundation was not the functional equivalent of a public office. The special master found that upon balancing the four Oriana House factors considered in evaluating functional equivalence (with or without two additional pertinent factors), the evidence weighed in favor of the foundation’s status as a “public institution” within the definition of “public office.” R.C. 149.011(G). The special master recommended that the court find the foundation was both the functional equivalent of a public office and, separately, a “person responsible for public records.” The special master further recommended that the court find no part of the contract constituted trade secret, and grant requester’s claim for disclosure. Outcome: Respondent objected to all three recommendations. The court sustained respondent’s objection to the special master’s finding that the college had created the foundation, and held that since not all four Oriana House factors were proven, the foundation was not the functional equivalent of a public office. The court also sustained the objection that there was not clear and convincing evidence the college had access to foundation records for the purpose of monitoring its performance, and held that the foundation therefore was not a “person responsible for public records.” The court overruled the remaining objections, determined that the special master’s report should not be adopted, and rendered judgment in favor of respondent. McGrath  5/16/2018 6/18/2018 2018-Ohio-2355
Naymik v. Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 2017-00919PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; trade secret. Overview: Requester sought data, statistics and maps prepared by regional planning organization for inclusion in a bid to host a second national headquarters for Amazon, Inc. Respondent argued that the records were trade secret in their entirety. The special master recommended the court find that no part of the records constituted trade secret. Outcome: Respondent filed a response to the special master’s report and recommendation, representing that it had chosen to disclose the requested records in order to bring the dispute to a close. The court determined that there was no longer a controversy before the court and dismissed the action with costs assessed against respondent.McGrath  5/15/2018 6/18/2018 2018-Ohio-2356
Neff v. Knapp 2017-00876PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. person responsible; moot; ambiguous; overly broad; personal email; R.C. 4701.19; audit. Overview: Requester sought copies of individual trustee’s personal email or correspondence 1) of her record requests to the township, 2) with a firm auditing the township, and 3) regarding a legal question. The special master found that the fiscal officer responsible for official records kept by the township improperly forwarded the requests to the trustee for response. The special master recommended that the court find that production of the official copies kept by the township rendered the first request moot, that the official copies responsive to the second request were not excepted by R.C. 4701.19(B) and must be produced, and that the third request was properly denied as ambiguous and overly broad.Clark  5/2/2018 6/18/2018 2018-Ohio-2357
Johnson v. Cleveland Police Dept. 2018-00569PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; sui juris; inmate; R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Overview: Inmate sought investigatory records from his criminal prosecution. Respondent argued that as a police department it was not sui juris in this court. The special master recommended that the court find that R.C. 2743.75 and R.C. 149.43 make every public office sui juris for enforcement of violation of R.C. 149.43(B). The special master further recommended that the court find requester had not provided respondent with the judicial finding required from inmates under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) and that respondent had properly denied his public records request for criminal investigatory records.Clark  4/30/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1715
Naymik v. Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 2017-00919PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; trade secret. Overview: Requester sought data, statistics and maps prepared by regional planning organization for inclusion in a bid to host a second national headquarters for Amazon, Inc. Respondent argued that the records were trade secret in their entirety. The special master recommended the court find that no part of the records were trade secret.Clark  4/27/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1718
Williams v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00125JDInmate; trial; wrongful death; survivorship; bifurcated. The magistrate determined that defendant did not have sufficient notice, actual or constructive, to be liable for the fatal injuries that plaintiff's decedent sustained. Further, there was no credible evidence that the inmate that stabbed plaintiff's decedent ever threatened to harm plaintiff's decedent. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  4/27/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1721
12345