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 58 rows. Rows per page: 
123456
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
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
Payne v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00953Negligence- Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant's custody, fell from a truck while loading it after a corrections officer drove the truck away. After a damages trial, the magistrate found the evidence did not substantiate plaintiff's claim of significant damages. Plaintiff failed to present expert testimony and relayed mostly subjective symptoms which were consistent with pre-existing degenerative disc disease. The magistrate found that plaintiff suffered a significant soft tissue injury from which, evidence indicated, plaintiff substantially recovered. Evidence also indicated that plaintiff exaggerated his symptoms over the long term. Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to lost wages or medical expenses. The magistrate recommended an award of damages for past pain and suffering.Van Schoyck  7/17/2017 8/9/2017 2017-Ohio-7155
Colaianni Constr., Inc. v. Ohio School Facilities Comm. 2017-00063Breach of contract; declaratory judgment; motion to dismiss; summary judgment; motion to strike- The court found exhibits were not "mediation communications" under R.C. 2710.01 and denied defendant's motion to strike. Plaintiff sought unpaid balance of construction contract and declaration that its work conformed to the contract and/or that it was not responsible for any additional work. The Court initially determined that it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The Court determined that an issue of fact existed regarding the accrual of plaintiff's claims and, therefore, when the statute of limitations began to run. The Court further determined that plaintiff did not unreasonably delay in bringing its claims and that the doctrine of laches did not bar plaintiff's claims. The Court also held that plaintiff's claim seeking a declaration of the parties' rights under the contract asserted a proper declaratory judgment claim while any claim seeking a determination of proximate cause did not. Finally, the Court found that plaintiff did not fail to join necessary parties and ultimately denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.Crawford  7/7/2017 8/9/2017 2017-Ohio-7156
Schuman v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 2017-00362-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(o); R.C. 3121.894; new hires directory. Overview: Requester sought to enforce a public records request for information maintained by respondent. The special master recommended a finding that the requested records were excepted from disclosure by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(o) and R.C. 3121.894, and that respondent therefore did not violate division (B) of R.C. 149.43 when it denied the request. No objections were filed by either party. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. The complaint was ordered dismissed for failure to state a claim.McGrath  6/28/2017 7/10/2017 2017-Ohio-5769
Estrada v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr. 2012-07218Wrongful Death- Plaintiff alleged that defendant's agents violated the standard of care in rendering post-operative treatment following the decedent's hysterectomy. At trial, the Magistrate found Defendant's expert's opinion more credible, that evidence did not support Plaintiff's expert's theory of causation, and ultimately that Defendant's medical staff complied with the standard of care. Plaintiff objected to the Magistrate's decision. The Court affirmed the Magistrate's finding that defendant did not deviate from the standard of care when it did not place a nasogastric (NG) tube and, therefore, overruled Plaintiff's first objection. The Court also affirmed the Magistrate's findings regarding the weight and credibility attributable to Defendant's expert's opinion and, therefore, overruled Plaintiff's second objection. The Court denied Plaintiff's request that the Court take additional expert testimony evidence.McGrath  6/21/2017 7/10/2017 2017-Ohio-5780
Anderson v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr. 2016-00761Medical malpractice; lack of informed consent; loss of consortium; summary judgment- Plaintiffs alleged two surgeons breached the standard of care in performing a complex spinal fusion surgery and failed to obtain plaintiff-patient's informed consent. Plaintiffs failed to file an affidavit of merit and failed to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court found that defendant's affidavits established that the surgeons acted in accordance with the standard of care and obtained plaintiff- patient's informed consent while plaintiffs failed to produce expert testimony. The court, therefore, granted summary judgment to defendant on all claims.McGrath  6/21/2017 8/9/2017 2017-Ohio-7146
Ray v. Dept. of Health 2015-01051Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; disability discrimination; R.C. 4112.02; reasonable accommodation; ADA. Court determined that plaintiff did not bring forth sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably reject defendant's explanation for her termination, her behavior in the workplace, and infer that defendant intentionally discriminated against her because of her disability of depression and ADHD. Also, defendant was not required to engage in the interactive process with plaintiff for a reasonable accommodation. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  6/21/2017 7/24/2017 2017-Ohio-6960
Appenzeller v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00444Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; inmate; wrongful imprisonment. Court determined that defendant was legally justified to confine plaintiff at all relevant times, and there was no evidence presented by plaintiff to indicate that the court documents in ODRC's employee's affidavit were invalid. Finally, the court found that plaintiff failed to follow the proper procedures to bring a wrongful imprisonment claim in the Court of Claims. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  6/21/2017 7/24/2017 2017-Ohio-6961
Foulk v. Upper Arlington 2017-00132-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; attorney; client; privilege; waive; open meeting; moot; timeliness; minutes. Overview: Requester sought to enforce a public records request for audio recording of a public meeting held by respondent. The special master determined that discussions between a public body and its legal counsel during an open session of a public meeting conducted under R.C. 121.22 are not made "in confidence," even if no member of the public is physically present. Attorney-client privilege therefore never attached to the recording of such discussions (or was waived). Respondent provided the withheld records after the filing of the complaint, rendering the claim for production moot. The special master determined that the 88-day delay in production violated the timeliness requirement of R.C. 149.43(B)(1) and recommended that requester was entitled to recover from respondent the amount of his filing fee and any other costs associated with the action. The special master further recommended that requester's allegation that the City had failed to create complete minutes of the meeting be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No objections were filed by either party. Outcome: The court determined that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the special master's decision. The court adopted the special master's decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment rendered in favor of requester.McGrath  6/19/2017 7/10/2017 2017-Ohio-5767
123456