|
|
In re Simpson
| 2025-00964VI | Victims of crime; objections to the magistrate’s decision. Objections overruled. Magistrate’s decision adopted. Applicant’s claim denied. | Sadler | |
10/13/2026
|
10/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4167 |
|
Fisher Plaza, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Transp.
| 2024-00871JD & 2025-00792PR | Civ.R. 56, Motion for Summary Judgment, Petition for Removal, R.C. 2743.03(E), Construction, Statute of Limitations, R.C. 2743.16(A). Plaintiff alleged that its property was damaged by defendant Ohio Department of Transportation ("ODOT")’s contractor during a public-improvement project. ODOT argued that plaintiff had failed to timely file its lawsuit pursuant to the two-year statute of limitations found in R.C. 2743.16(A). The court found that plaintiff had until October 13, 2024 to timely file its claim, but plaintiff filed the claim on December 11, 2024. Therefore, court found that plaintiff’s claims against the state were time barred as they were filed after the statute of limitations expired. The court granted ODOT’s motion for summary judgment in Ct. of Cl. Case No. 2024-00871JD, denied ODOT’s motion for summary judgment in Ct. of Cl. Case No. 2025-00792PR as moot and remanded the claim to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. | Sadler | |
9/23/2026
|
10/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4101 |
|
Coleman v. Franklin Cty. Dog Shelter
| 2026-00498PQ | On objections, the court overruled requester’s objections and adopted a special master’s report and recommendation. In accordance with the special master's recommendations, the court dismissed requester’s complaint without prejudice, denied all pending motions as moot, and assessed court costs to requester. | Sadler | |
9/22/2026
|
10/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4300 |
|
Gundling v. Lake Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2026-00516PQ | Special master recommended dismissal because the preliminary complaint was emailed to the public office, a method of service that is not contemplated by R.C. 149.43(C) and Civil Rule 4, et seq. | Pierce | |
9/16/2026
|
10/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4302 |
|
Jones v. Bryan
| 2026-00427PQ | Special master found the public-records request for five years of financial records to be overbroad and unenforceable. The public office failed, however, to offer information about how records are maintained in its response to requester. Special master therefore recommended the court find the public office violated its R.C. 149.43(B)(2) obligation. | Pierce | |
9/9/2026
|
10/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4298 |
|