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 17 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Zavinski v. Dept. of Transp. 2013-00452JDWrongful death; damages; R.C. 2743.02; collateral benefit; objections. The court concluded that if a collateral benefit does not compensate for a loss that is included in the damage award, then such a collateral benefit should not be deducted from a recovery against the state pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(D). The court determined that the magistrate erred in determining that the sums of $125,000 for the interest in plaintiff's decedent's law firm, and $33,475.28 for the fees earned by plaintiff's decedent before he died, constituted other collateral recovery and should be applied to reduce the award against ODOT. Plaintiff was awarded $354,286 in damages.McGrath  3/27/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1503
Lill v. Ohio State Univ. 2015-00387JDSanctions; R.C. 2323.51, Civ. R. 11- Plaintiff filed a post-trial motion for sanctions based on defendant's conduct in discovery, defendant's conduct during motion practice before the court, and alleged violations of Ohio's Mediation Privilege Statute. The court found defendant's motion to strike lacked a legal or factual basis. The court found defendant's position that counsel represented all of its employees and that plaintiff could only contact employees through counsel was not frivolous. It was not improper for defendant to direct plaintiff to publicly available documents in response to requests for the same. Improper statements in post-trial briefs, if any, did not amount to sanctionable conduct under R.C. 2323.51 and any inappropriate discussion of settlement negotiations was harmless. The court awarded $4,177.31 in fees and expenses as sanctions but found willfulness, under Civ. R. 11, lacking.Crawford  3/23/2018 4/20/2018 2018-Ohio-1559
Current v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00488JDNegligence; bifurcated; trial; inmate. The magistrate determined that defendant did not have sufficient notice to be liable for plaintiff's injuries from the March 25, 2011 attack, and plaintiff's contention that he told ODRC employees that his presence at LCI posed a danger to him was belied by other evidence and lacked credibility. Further, while prison officials knew of plaintiff's work as an informant, that knowledge alone did not equate to notice of an impending attack on plaintiff, and they were sensitive to keeping plaintiff safe. The magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  3/20/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1500
O'Brien v. Dept. of Transp. 2015-00785JDNegligence; objections- Plaintiff, who was injured as a passenger in an automobile collision, sued ODOT for negligence based on its alleged failure to place required and/or adequate signage at the accident location. After trial, the magistrate recommended judgment for ODOT. The court found ODOT did not fail to comply with mandatory provisions of the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices related to sign placement. ODOT had no duty relative to non-mandatory provisions of the OMUTCD. The magistrate did not err in her handling and consideration of the testimony of plaintiff's human factors expert and properly excluded evidence of subsequent remedial measures and the road's reputation. The magistrate acted properly in failing to conduct a site visit. The driver's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident and plaintiff's injuries. The court overruled plaintiff's objections, found the magistrate properly determined the facts and appropriately applied the law, and granted judgment to ODOT.McGrath  3/6/2018 4/20/2018 2018-Ohio-1558
Gannett GP Media, Inc. v. Chillicothe Police Dept. 2017-00886-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; 149.43(A)(2); confidential; law enforcement; investigatory; incident report; redaction; explanation. Overview: Requester sought a copy of the initial incident report for a specific criminal investigation. The police department provided four pages of a twelve-page Master Incident Report prior to the filing of the complaint, and one additional page during mediation. The special master found that the five released pages, plus an additional page, met the definition of an "initial incident report" that initiated but was not part of the investigation. The special master found that the remainder of the report was properly withheld under the confidential law enforcement investigatory records exception, including specific investigatory work product. The special master found that the police department was not required to provide requester with a privilege log or other itemized description of the investigatory work product withheld.Clark  2/15/2018 4/20/2018 2018-Ohio-1552
Johnson v. Dept. of Youth Servs. 2017-00054JDSummary judgment; Civ.R. 56; employment discrimination; retaliation; R.C. 4112.02. As plaintiff could not show that a similarly situated, non-protected person was treated more favorably, she did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Additionally, the court determined that no reasonable finder of fact could conclude that plaintiff established a prima facie case of retaliation. Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of a causal connection between her participation in an interview with an investigator and her termination. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  2/13/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1499 v. Cincinnati 2017-00878PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; moot. Overview: Requester sought records showing facts, details, cause, discussions, observations, or conclusions regarding the death of a named person. The special master found that the city had provided the only responsive record in its possession prior to the filing of the complaint and that requester did not show by clear and convincing evident that the city possessed additional records. The special master recommended that the court deny the request for production as moot.Clark  2/12/2018 4/20/2018 2018-Ohio-1553
Frank v. Upper Arlington Schools 2017-00841-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; ambiguous; overly broad; search; nonexistent; moot. Overview: Requester sought records of all investigations conducted by the school, all correspondence involving him between two city employees and the school, any testimony taken under oath, and notes taken during a meeting. The special master found that the request for all investigations was improperly overly broad and ambiguous. The special master found that respondent showed that records responsive to the other requests either did not exist, or had been provided to requester by respondent. The special master recommended the court find that the request for production be denied.Clark  2/12/2018 4/20/2018 2018-Ohio-1554
Patton v. Univ. of Akron 2017-00820PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; overly broad; email. Overview: Requester sought copies of all email to, from, and among six faculty members for a five-month period. The special master recommended the court find that the request was overly broad, and thereby an improper request that was properly denied by the university.Clark  2/6/2018 4/20/2018 2018-Ohio-1555
Sandine v. Argyle 2017-00891-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.011(G); R.C. 149.43; R.C. 149.45; R.C. 3125.50; R.C. 5101.13; non-record; personnel. Overview: Requester sought records showing any employee subject to a judgment or garnishment or notice including child support arrearage. Respondent denied the request as 1) overly broad and ambiguous, and 2) asking for documents that did not meet the definition of a "public record." The special master found that the request was overly broad, ambiguous, and improperly requested a search for information rather than specific records. The special master further found that while judgments and notices of private adjudicatory matters are records in the hands of the court that issues them, they do not document a public employee's performance of the public office's duties, and therefore fail to meet the definition of "records." R.C. 149.011(G). The special master recommended that the court find the requester was not denied records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B).Clark  1/26/2018 4/20/2018 2018-Ohio-1537