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 26 rows. Rows per page: 
123
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Digiorno v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2015-00942Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; R.C. 5501.42; tree removal. The court determined that the undisputed evidence showed that the trees at issue shaded a portion of SR 18, which caused premature deterioration of the asphalt roadway. Defendant's determination that the removal was justified because the proximity of the trees to the highway presented a potential hazard to motorists was consistent with the purpose of the easement. As such, reasonable minds could only conclude that the removal of the trees was related to a highway improvement which is consistent with the purposes of the easement and that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.McGrath  4/19/2017 5/5/2017 2017-Ohio-2698
Easley v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00530Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; inmate; assault; battery; negligence. The court concluded that defendant's employees used only the force necessary to control plaintiff. There was nothing to contradict the testimony put forth by defendant that plaintiff disobeyed direct order and that no excessive force was used. Finally, there was no dispute that plaintiff was not otherwise inappropriately touched as alleged in the complaint. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.McGrath  4/13/2017 5/5/2017 2017-Ohio-2700
Cleveland Hearing & Balance Ctr., Inc. v. N.E. Ohio Med. Univ. 2016-00102Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; tortious interference; breach of contract. The court determined that there were stated reasons for terminating a fellowship as it existed, and those reasons in no way showed any tortious interference on the part of defendant. Further, the only reasonable conclusion related to the breach of contract claim was that NEOMED did not breach the implied duty of good faith in the parties' subcontracting agreement. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.McGrath  4/5/2017 5/5/2017 2017-Ohio-2699
Jutte Elec., Ltd. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm. 2014-00318Objection; Civ.R. 53; construction; surety; contract. The court found that the referee accurately applied the law as it pertained to plaintiffs' burden of proof, and the referee's analysis of the effect of an MOU on plaintiffs' claims was an accurate interpretation. Also, the court agreed with the referee that plaintiffs' Article 8 claim was not timely. The court adopted the referee's decision and recommendation as its own, including conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment rendered in favor of defendant.McGrath  4/3/2017 5/5/2017 2017-Ohio-2697
Webber v. Ohio Dept. of Public Safety 2015-00449Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; defamation; innocent construction; immunity. The court found that there was a reasonable innocent construction of defendant's employee's statements and that construction must be adopted. Thus, as a matter of law, the statements at issue were not defamatory and plaintiff's defamation claim failed. Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment failed to present any evidence or legal argument to support a finding that defendant's employees were not entitled to civil immunity, and thus defendant's employees were entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F). Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.McGrath  3/31/2017 5/5/2017 2017-Ohio-2695
Morrison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00653Inmate; negligence; civil conspiracy; trial; bifurcated. The magistrate determined that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had actual or constructive notice that another inmate would attack plaintiff. There was no evidence that the attacker exhibited violent tendencies or assaultive behavior toward plaintiff or any other inmate. Because there was no underlying unlawful act, plaintiff's civil conspiracy claim failed. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Peterson  3/29/2017 5/5/2017 2017-Ohio-2696
Habegger v. Owens Community College 2010-07865 & 2011-09187Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; breach of contract; impairment of earning capacity. The court determined that reasonable minds could conclude only that no plaintiff provided evidence to show any loss of earning capacity or other economic loss. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.McGrath  3/24/2017 5/5/2017 2017-Ohio-2693
Skorvanek v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00845Negligence; objection; Civ.R. 53. The court determined that plaintiff, an inmate, failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negligent in failing to prevent an attack upon plaintiff by another inmate. The court concluded that ODRC did not have actual or constructive notice that the attack upon plaintiff was impending. 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  3/2/2017 5/5/2017 2017-Ohio-2694
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
123