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 102 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Speros v. Secy. of State 2017-00389-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; election; database; moot; drafts; format; create new record; reasonably identify; organize; policy. Overview: Requester sought Ohio voting results in machine-readable format from eight congressional elections, in a single, comprehensive file. The special master found that requester had reasonably identified the records sought. Respondent eventually provided all existing responsive data in a separate machine-readable spreadsheet file for each election, but testified that none of its database software was programmed to produce a single, comprehensive file. The special master recommended the court find that the request for the underlying data was moot, and that the demand for respondent to aggregate all responsive data into a single file was an improper request to create a new record. The special master found that the court cannot impose optional record-management policies or practices that are not required by law. Clark  10/27/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8453
Yu v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr. 2015-00001Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; lack of informed consent; negligence. The court found that Dr. Emlich was not an employee of OSUMC, and that pursuant to R.C. 2317.54, plaintiff could not prevail on a claim of lack of informed consent against OSUMC as a matter of law. Further, plaintiff provided no evidence from which to infer that OSUMC breached any duty to plaintiff with respect to telephonic interpreter services provided to plaintiff. Defendant OSUMC's motion for summary judgment was granted.McGrath  10/27/2017 11/27/2017 2017-Ohio-8697
Tingler v. Ottawa Cty. Prosecutor's Office 2017-00248-PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43(B)(8); inmate; law enforcement; investigatory records; incarceration; subsequent to request. Overview: Requester sought criminal law enforcement investigatory records maintained by respondent. Requester was on probation pursuant to criminal conviction at the time of the request, but violated probation and was incarcerated by the time the special master rendered determination. The special master recommended a finding that the requested records were excepted from disclosure by R.C. 149.43(B)(8), as the exception is one that may be based on the facts and circumstances at the time of the determination.Clark  10/20/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8451
Johnson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2014-00768Inmate; negligence; bifurcated; damages. The magistrate found that the greater weight of the evidence supported the finding that plaintiff's headaches and associated pain and suffering persisted up to a few months after he fell out of an upper bunk. Plaintiff was awarded damages in the amount of $8,500, and after applying the 25 percent diminishment for contributory fault determined at the liability trial, plaintiff was entitled to an award of $6,375.Van Schoyck  10/19/2017 11/27/2017 2017-Ohio-8696
Washington v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr. 2017-00029False imprisonment- Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant's custody, alleged his term of imprisonment had expired. The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review any alleged errors in plaintiff's sentencing entry. Defendant's evidence established that, at all relevant times, it confined plaintiff pursuant to a facially valid sentencing entry. The court granted summary judgment to defendant.McGrath  10/17/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8467
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, and promptly filed a notice of compliance with the order. 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 to the extent that it was moot, and in all other respects for failure to state a claim.McGrath  10/17/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8452
Schadhauser v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00349, 2016-00423, 2016-00657Negligence- Plaintiffs, inmates at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution ("CCI"), asserted they contracted histoplasmosis and suffered permanent and progressive injuries after being exposed to pigeon droppings at CCI. Plaintiffs failed to identify any expert witnesses or provide expert reports. On summary judgment, plaintiffs relied on their own affidavits and asserted statements from treating physicians and medical records establish they were diagnosed with histoplasmosis caused by exposure to pigeon droppings. The statements of treating physicians contained in the affidavits were hearsay and were insufficient to prove proximate cause. Lacking expert testimony, plaintiffs could not meet their burden of proof and the court granted summary judgment to defendant.McGrath  10/11/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8465
Washington v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00555Conversion, negligence- Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant's custody, asserted a corrections officer damaged his headphones during a cell search in retaliation for complaints plaintiff made about the officer. Though there was no dispute that plaintiff's headphones were damaged, plaintiff presented no evidence regarding who broke the headphones or even who searched his cell. Plaintiff did not present evidence that defendant destroyed his property less than 30 days after it was confiscated in violation of O.A.C. 5120-9-55(C)(1)(c). The magistrate recommended judgment for defendant.Peterson  10/9/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8466
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. Procedural Posture: Requester objected to special master's determination that the law enforcement investigatory work product exception applied, because the special master failed to find that a crime had been committed. Requester claimed the special master also erred by finding determination of respondent's assertion of victim's constitutional right of privacy unnecessary. Overview: Requester sought 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 the records did pertain to a law enforcement matter of a criminal nature, that had not concluded. 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 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 exempt as medical records. 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. Respondent's motion to dismiss granted.McGrath  10/6/2017 11/7/2017 2017-Ohio-8454
Banks v. Bur. of Workers' Comp. 2016-00922Judgment on the pleadings; Civ.R. 12(C); negligence; public duty. The court determined that plaintiff's complaint lacked adequate underlying factual allegations of promises or actions by BWC to demonstrate that it assumed affirmative duties beyond those that it owed to the public, and that plaintiff's decedent had some form of direct contact between himself and BWC. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted and plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.McGrath  10/6/2017 11/27/2017 2017-Ohio-8698
12345678910...>>