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 86 rows. Rows per page: 
123456789
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Hershberger v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol 2017-00126-ADBreach of contract-Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, sought recovery for health insurance premium overpayments, retroactive pay, and a ratification bonus. Plaintiff was a member of a collective bargaining unit and was required to pursue administrative remedies. As the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint and granted judgment to defendant.Reed  10/5/2017 10/5/2017 2017-Ohio-8083
Manigault v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00962Assault; invasion of privacy; intrusion upon seclusion- Defendant's employees strip-searched plaintiff when she visited her boyfriend, an inmate, at a state correctional facility. Defendant's employees, based on an ongoing investigation, suspected that plaintiff might attempt to convey drugs to her boyfriend. Plaintiff consented to the search after being informed she could be banned from visitation if she did not consent. Three of defendant's employees conducted the fully-nude strip search in the facility's visitor's bathroom and found no contraband. R.C. 5120.421 authorizes strip searches of visitors at correctional facilities but requires reasonable suspicion. The magistrate determined that the evidence established reasonable suspicion for the search and that the search substantially complied with R.C. 5120.421 and defendant's policies and procedures. Thus, plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim failed. As defendant's employees did not threaten plaintiff or attempt to harm or touch her, plaintiff's assault claim also failed. The employees, who acted in the scope of their employment and not with a malicious purpose, in bad faith or in a wanton or reckless manner, were immune pursuant to R.C. 9.86. The magistrate recommended judgment for defendant and a determination that the employees were immune.Van Schoyck  9/20/2017 10/6/2017 2017-Ohio-8094
Alexander v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2017-00034False imprisonment; wrongful imprisonment - Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant's custody, asserted that the entry sentencing him to nine years in prison was void on its face because the court imposed a sentence unauthorized by law. On summary judgment, the court determined plaintiff' was lawfully confined pursuant to a valid sentencing entry. The court found no indication that plaintiff followed the procedures set forth in R.C. 2305.02 and 2743.48 for wrongful imprisonment cases. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment in defendant's favor.McGrath  9/15/2017 10/6/2017 2017-Ohio-8099
Hilliard City School Dist. v. Columbus Div. of Police 2017-00450-PQCore Terms: public record; R.C. 2743.75; court of claims; R.C. 149.43(A)(2); law enforcement; investigatory work product; photographs; R.C. 149.43(A)(3); medical records. Overview: Requester sought to enforce a public records request for police department's investigatory records of an alleged sexual assault, proffering its belief that the victim's injuries were self-inflicted and therefore the investigation was not criminal in nature. The special master determined that respondent's evidence that it commenced and continued to investigate the incident as a crime established that the records pertained to a law enforcement matter of a criminal nature. R.C. 149.43(A)(2). Review in camera confirmed that all withheld records met the definition of "investigatory work product." R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c). The special master determined that the records created by a sexual assault nurse examiner, held and used by the police department for its investigation, were not maintained by it "in the process of medical treatment," and therefore were not additionally exempt as medical records.Clark  9/12/2017 10/4/2017 2017-Ohio-8052
Baldwin v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. 2016-00156Negligence- Plaintiff sought recovery for injuries and damage to her vehicle after she collided with one of defendant's snow plows. While plaintiff's expert opined that the salt truck was moving into plaintiff's lane at the time of the collision, defendant's expert opined and a state trooper investigator concluded that plaintiff rear-ended the snow plow while both vehicles traveled in the same lane. The trooper cited plaintiff for violating the ACDA statute at the time of the accident. The magistrate concluded that, as there were two lanes for traffic, the salt truck was not blocking or impeding traffic in violation of R.C. 4511.22. The magistrate found defendant's expert more credible and that the salt truck did not suddenly appear in plaintiff's lane and was reasonably discernible. Plaintiff's negligence, in failing to maintain an assured clear distance in violation of R.C. 4511.21, was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The magistrate recommended judgment for defendant.Renick  9/8/2017 10/6/2017 2017-Ohio-8098
Lill v. Ohio State Univ. 2015-00387Breach of contract- Plaintiff, who was denied tenure as a professor, obtained judgment on her breach of contract claim at trial after which she underwent a new tenure review per the court's order. After defendant again denied plaintiff tenure, the court ordered the parties to submit briefs in lieu of a damages trial. The court found that defendant properly terminated plaintiff after conclusion of the court-ordered tenure review process at which time plaintiff's contract with defendant expired. Though defendant breached the contract relative to the first tenure review process, this breach did not entitle plaintiff to any damages as she received all benefits the employment contract afforded her including one year of terminal employment. The court granted judgment to plaintiff but did not award money damages.Crawford  9/8/2017 10/6/2017 2017-Ohio-8095
Young v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00867Negligence- Plaintiff sought recovery for injuries after the tips of his fingers were severed by a miter saw while constructing cabinets in defendant's carpentry shop. After a trial on liability only, the magistrate found the evidence demonstrated that defendant failed to train plaintiff on the miter saw's use and failed to properly supervise plaintiff while working on the miter saw, which both proximately caused plaintiff's injury. Though plaintiff knowingly placed his hand in an unsafe position, plaintiff's failure to use reasonable care did not exceed defendant's negligence. The evidence did not demonstrate that plaintiff intentionally severed his own fingers. The magistrate recommended judgment in favor of plaintiff with a 40 percent reduction in any compensatory damage award based on comparative negligence.Peterson  9/6/2017 10/6/2017 2017-Ohio-8097
O'Brien v. Dept. of Transp. 2015-00785Negligence- Plaintiff sought recovery for injuries he sustained as a passenger in an automobile accident. Plaintiff asserted defendant acted negligently in its selection and placement of signage in advance of the intersection where the accident occurred and that defendant failed to place signage required by the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. After a trial on liability only, the magistrate found defendant breached no duty. The OMUTCD did not require an advance route turn assembly because no turn was necessary to remain on the indicated route. The OMUTCD did not require a route turn assembly because the two roads which intersected were not "other numbered routes." The signage present, though optional, adequately warned motorists of the curve in the roadway. The driver's negligence, in failing to observe the roadway and travel at a reasonable speed, was the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. The magistrate recommended judgment for defendant.Shaver  9/1/2017 10/6/2017 2017-Ohio-8096
Wood Elec., Inc. v. Ohio Facilities Constr. Comm. 2014-00987Costs; prejudgment interest; post-judgment interest. The court determined that plaintiff was entitled to the cost of the trial transcripts and filing fee, but not for deposition transcripts and exhibit copying because plaintiff did not introduce any of the depositions at trial. Plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment and post-judgment interest as of the Court's August 12, 2016 decision. Plaintiff was entitled to judgment of $254,027 plus $2,896.30 in costs, 15,012.72 in prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest calculated in a manner consistent with the decision.Crawford  8/23/2017 9/8/2017 2017-Ohio-7524
Poole v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel 2017-00372-ADThe court determined that defendant was entitled to discretionary immunity for deciding against further investigation or prosecution related to plaintiff's disciplinary complaint. Even if discretionary immunity was not applicable, the state was entitled to immunity for the performance or non-performance of an investigative public duty. Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.Reed  8/22/2017 10/5/2017 2017-Ohio-8079
123456789