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 78 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Geter v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00642JDFMLA; Disability Discrimination, 4112.02- Plaintiff, a former corrections officer for defendant, brought claims after defendant terminated him for performance and attendance issues. The court found defendant established legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for plaintiff’s termination and that defendant’s reasons for plaintiff’s termination were not pretextual. The court further found that defendant did not deny or interfere with plaintiff’s FMLA benefits and that plaintiff could not establish a causal connection between the exercise of his FMLA rights and his termination. The court granted defendant summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims.McGrath  9/26/2018 10/12/2018 2018-Ohio-4148
Estate of Snowden v. Wright State Univ. 2010-08446JDSummary judgment; contract; release. The court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact that the release between the parties was executed, that affiliates are included within the release’s ambit, and that Wright State University and Wright State Physicians, Inc. are affiliates and/or affiliated. Plaintiffs released their claims against WSU. Judgment rendered in favor of defendant.McGrath  9/24/2018 10/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4164
Current v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00488JDNegligence- Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant’s custody, brought claims against defendant after being attacked by another inmate or inmate(s) in defendant’s custody. On plaintiff’s objections to a magistrate’s decision that recommended judgment in defendant’s favor, the court agreed with the magistrate’s determination that defendant lacked actual or constructive notice of any danger to plaintiff and found insufficient evidence demonstrating other inmates knew plaintiff acted as an informant. The court agreed with the magistrate’s rulings on certain testimony and exhibits. The court overruled plaintiff’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and granted judgment in defendant’s favor.McGrath  9/12/2018 10/12/2018 2018-Ohio-4147
Acts 17:28 Ministries, Inc. v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2017-00355JDBreach of contract; trial. The magistrate determined that the termination of the contract was in accordance with a specific clause that permitted defendant to terminate the contract if the independent contractor violated the law or otherwise compromised the security and safety of the worksite. Plaintiff’s employee violated prison security rules and had six employees file incident reports against him. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Van Schoyck  9/11/2018 10/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4166
Jackson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2015-00136JDNegligence; trial; bifurcated; liability; independent contractor. The magistrate determined that The K Company was an independent contractor of defendant. Defendant was not liability for any alleged failure of ordinary care of The K Company employees or the inmate workers who assisted The K Company employees in the HVAC project at MCI. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.Shaver  9/7/2018 10/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4165
Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2018-00846JDWrongful Death; Negligence; 12(B)(6); Public Duty Doctrine- The decedent’s estate brought claims against defendant after the decedent’s murder, alleging defendant acted negligently in its supervision and monitoring of decedent’s murderer who was on post release control at the time of decedent’s murder. Applying R.C. 2743.02(A)(3), the court found defendant, in supervising and monitoring the decedent’s murderer, was engaged in the performance of a public duty and further found the estate failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a special relationship. The court, therefore, found defendant was entitled to immunity and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.McGrath  9/4/2018 10/12/2018 2018-Ohio-4149
Demetriades v. Ohio Lottery Comm. 2017-00705JDBreach of Contract, Negligence- After purchasing a winning scratch-off lottery ticket and receiving $500, plaintiff claimed the ticket was actually a $500,000 winner. On summary judgment, defendant presented evidence which established that plaintiff’s ticket was only a $500 winner and that the limited number of $500,000 winning tickets were all claimed. The court found defendant did not commit a breach of contract, that an independent bad faith claim could not be asserted, and that the economic loss rule barred any negligence claim. The court granted summary judgment to defendant.McGrath  8/27/2018 9/7/2018 2018-Ohio-3605
DeCrane v. Cleveland 2018-00358PQpublic record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; moot: ambiguous; overly broad. Overview: Requester sought all records “generated while processing” a previous public records request. Respondent denied the request as ambiguous and overly broad. The special master found that the claim was moot as to the records provided to requester in the city’s response to the previous request, and as to previous request correspondence already in requester’s possession. The special master found that the request was ambiguous and overly broad, and that the city had properly offered the opportunity to discuss revision of the request.Clark  8/27/2018 9/12/2018 2018-Ohio-3651
Dillingham v. Butler Cty. Prosecutor's Office 2018-01034PQpublic record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43(B)(8); inmate; delivery; R.C. 2930. Overview: Requester inmate sought records pertaining to his criminal case, as well as to a criminal investigation he had initiated against an investigating officer. The Prosecutor’s Office argued that Dillingham had not complied with the procedure required in R.C. 149.43(B)(8) for inmates seeking law enforcement investigatory records, and that it had never received Dillingham’s public records request. The Special Master recommended that the court find, 1) the court had no authority over Dillingham’s claim to enforce R.C. Chapter 2930, 2) Dillingham failed to show that he had actually delivered his request, and 3) Dillingham had not shown that he complied with R.C. 149.43(B)(8), and respondent thus had no duty to produce the requested records.Clark  8/22/2018 9/12/2018 2018-Ohio-3654
Anderson v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth. 2018-00593PQpublic record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; timeliness; moot. Overview: Requester and his representatives made 94 public records requests, and claimed that respondent had failed to respond to fourteen of the requests within a reasonable period of time. Respondent presented evidence that it had provided the requested records within 23 business days after the request. The special master found that under the facts and circumstances of the case the records had been timely provided.Clark  8/21/2018 9/12/2018 2018-Ohio-3653
12345678