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

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

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:   What is Year Decided?
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 14 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Hurt v. Liberty Twp. 2016-00856-PQPublic Records Act; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43(B); motion to dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6). First, the special master determined that requesters stated allegations, if proven, may entitle them to relief under R.C. 2743.75 for denial of access to public records. Second, the special master concluded that notes created by an investigator were public records pursuant to R.C. 149.43(A), and the Township's failure to provide the notes in response to requesters' public records requests was a violation of R.C. 149.43(B). The special master recommended that defendant's motion to dismiss be denied, and requesters' claim be granted with respect to the investigator's notes.Clark  2/22/2017 3/7/2017 2017-Ohio-825
Eschborn v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2016-00171Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; wrongful termination; gender; R.C. 4112.99. The court determined that plaintiff provided no direct evidence of discrimination, and did not plead in her complaint or otherwise provide evidence that she was replaced by a non-protected individual. Finally, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a similarly-situated person was treated differently than she was. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.Crawford  2/21/2017 3/7/2017 2017-Ohio-824
Accurate Elec. Constr., Inc. v. Ohio State Univ. 2014-00961Breach of construction contract. Plaintiff Accurate raised seven objections to the referee's recommendations in a construction case. The court overruled Accurate's first objections because the referee did not improperly weigh the evidence while evaluating OSU's motion for summary judgment and there was no evidence in the record that OSU waived the Article 8 process. Next, while the court agreed that the referee's verbiage may not have been clear on the point, the court agreed with the referee's finding that Article 8.1.2.1 did not extend Accurate's time to file its claim indefinitely. Third, the court found that the referee did not misapply the notice requirement by finding that the claims arose at some point before plaintiff's first initiation of its Article 8 claim, which occurred four months after the completion of the project. The court overruled plaintiff's fourth objection based on its reasoning overruling the first and second objections. The court overruled the fifth objection because Accurate knew and admitted that it needed to submit a final pay application for payment and did not do so. In light of the fact that Accurate was granted leave to file a memorandum contra in excess of the page limitation and subsequently filed a memorandum contra in excess of the 15-page limit by more than 23 pages, the court found the referee's position that a sur-reply was unnecessary on issues already addressed to be reasonable. Consequently, it overruled Accurate's sixth objection. Lastly, Accurate argued that the referee's recommendation regarding Counts III and IV was a rush to judgment and not based on law. The court disagreed because upon review, the referee's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law. Moreover, the referee allowed the parties to file additional briefs in support of their positions prior to rendering his decision. Consequently, the court overruled Accurate's objections and adopted the referee's decision and recommendation as its own.McGrath  2/15/2017 3/28/2017 2017-Ohio-1132
Burnett v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2012-01937Negligence. Plaintiff was operating a tractor-trailer on U.S. Route 30 in Allen County when a metal skid shoe broke off the bottom of a snowplow truck being operated by a defendant's employee. Plaintiff sustained injuries when his tractor-trailer ran over the metal skid show. The parties stipulated on the issue of liability and the trial pertained to damages only. The magistrate issued a decision recommending judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $21,920.81. Plaintiff raised four objections to the magistrate's decision. First, plaintiff urged the court to reject the magistrate's ruling striking portions of plaintiff's expert's testimony. The court overruled this objection because according to the record, the expert did not clarify, prior to offering testimony, which specific pain he was referring to. Here, plaintiff suffered a herniated disk and associated pain related to the accident and also chronic pain unrelated to the accident due to the nature of his employment as a truck driver. Consequently, the court agreed with the magistrate that plaintiff failed to establish a causal relationship between his chronic back pain and any related psychological issues. The court overruled plaintiff's second and third objections because plaintiff failed to submit a transcript of the damages trial as required by Civ.R. 53, and as such the court accepted the magistrate's factual findings. Lastly, plaintiff argued that applying his $40,000 Bureau of Workers Compensation (BWC) settlement to the February 2010 to October 2010 time period was an error because the settlement stated that the payment for his injury was equal to $6.20 per month. It was plaintiff's contention that the magistrate should have only reduced the award by $49.60. The court noted that plaintiff could have produced this document as evidence at trial, which he did not. Therefore, the court found the magistrate's collateral source deduction proper and overruled plaintiff's fourth objection.McGrath  2/3/2017 3/28/2017 2017-Ohio-1131
Pool v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00587Inmate; excessive force; assault; battery; negligence. The magistrate concluded that plaintiff failed to obey an order from a corrections officer, appeared to be in the process of actively destroying property tying him to a violation of prison rules, and plaintiff pushed the corrections officer, thus the corrections officer was justified and privileged to use force as may have reasonably appeared to be necessary. The degree of force used was not excessive and satisfied the duty of reasonable care. Judgement recommended in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  2/3/2017 3/7/2017 2017-Ohio-823
Short v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00755Negligence. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody and control of defendant, alleged that he was struck and injured by broken glass because of a corrections officer (CO) breaking a window at the Southeastern Correctional Institution. The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability. The magistrate found that the CO had no intent to break the window or injure anyone. Rather, the CO intended to signal to another inmate to stop tapping on the window. Nevertheless, the magistrate found that the CO, in frustration, struck the window with a sudden, unreasonable degree of force, sufficient to shatter the glass and propel it toward plaintiff's face. By doing so, the CO did not exercise reasonable care for plaintiff's safety. As a proximate result of the duty of care being breached, plaintiff was struck and injured by glass in or around his eye on the right side of his face. However, to the extent plaintiff also alleged that defendant was negligent in delaying medical treatment to him, the magistrate found that plaintiff did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant breached a duty of care owed to him regarding his medical care after the accident, much less that he suffered harm proximately caused by any such delay.Van Schoyck  1/31/2017 3/28/2017 2017-Ohio-1127
Mirlisena v. Miami Univ. 2015-00190Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; negligence; sexual assault. The court found that there was no support for a special relationship between the university and plaintiff to create a duty to protect plaintiff, and even if there was a type of special relationship with plaintiff necessary to create a duty to protect, since her attacker's criminal acts were not foreseeable the university could not have violated that duty. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.McGrath  1/30/2017 3/7/2017 2017-Ohio-822
Estrada v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr. 2012-07218Wrongful death; medical malpractice; trial. The magistrate concluded that the diagnosis, care and treatment rendered by defendant's medical professionals leading up to plaintiff's decedent's cardiac arrest complied with the standard of care. The magistrate found defendant's expert testimony more persuasive and supported by medical evidence than plaintiff's expert testimony. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  1/26/2017 3/7/2017 2017-Ohio-821
Dabney v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2016-00257Assault, battery, negligence, products liability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, fraud, failure to protect, sexual trafficking, loss of reputation, defamation, and false imprisonment. Plaintiff alleged assault, battery, negligence, products liability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, fraud, failure to protect, sexual trafficking, loss of reputation, defamation, and false imprisonment against the Greater Cleveland Rail Transit Authority (GCRTA) and its employees. Plaintiff alleged that he was sexually assaulted numerous times, including by GCRTA employees, while he was sleeping in GCRTA stations, buses, and trains. Plaintiff also stated that defendant failed to supervise, monitor, and regulate its political subdivision. Upon review, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff only sought claims against GCRTA and its employees, who were not state employeesMcGrath  1/18/2017 3/28/2017 2017-Ohio-1130
Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-01045Negligence. Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant's custody and control, claimed that he choked on a piece of a plastic bag that was served to him in his evening meal on March 23, 2015 at the Lebanon Correctional Institution (LeCI). The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability. Defendant asserted that Aramark, its independent contractor, was the food service provider at LeCI. The magistrate reviewed the evidence presented to determine if the relationship between the state of Ohio and Aramark was that of principal and agent, or that of employer and independent contractor. The magistrate found that plaintiff did not present the court with the contract between Aramark and DRC, or with evidence regarding who controlled the details of the work, method of compensation, who controlled the hours worked, who supplied the tools, length of employment, and who had the right to terminate an individual at will. Plaintiff merely asserted, without any evidence, that defendant was responsible for the acts of Aramark personnel. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to establish how the actions or inactions of any Aramark or defendant employee resulted in a breach of the duty of care to plaintiff. Accordingly, the magistrate recommended judgment in defendant's favor.Peterson  1/11/2017 3/28/2017 2017-Ohio-1128
12