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 11 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
McNatt v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 2018-01256PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; moot; filing fee; damages. Overview: Requester sought records related to a job position within respondent agency. Respondent initially denied records pertaining to interview questions and responses, but provided the records during litigation. Requester sought recovery of his filing fee, lost wages, parking fees, mileage, and statutory damages. The special master found that the only claim in the complaint was moot and requester had not established eligibility for recovery of his filing fee, costs associated with the action, or other award. Neither party filed objections. Outcome: The court found no error of law or other defect on the face of the special master’s decision and adopted the report and recommendation as its own.McGrath  1/31/2019 2/12/2019 2019-Ohio-475
Bell v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2017-00414JDNegligence; personal injury; liability; magistrate; Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, an inmate in custody of defendant, claimed that defendant was negligent in failing to replace the deteriorated rubber tip of plaintiff’s walking cane. Plaintiff fell when the cane slipped on a concrete floor. The case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability. The magistrate found defendant liable for plaintiff’s injury. The deteriorated condition of plaintiff’s cane presented an unreasonable risk of harm. Defendant was aware of this harm because: (1) plaintiff’s cane made an audible clicking noise when used on a concrete floor; (2) plaintiff went to the infirmary to ask for a replacement tip but was denied due to his failure to follow the procedure for scheduling an appointment; and (3) plaintiff filed a grievance about the condition of his cane. The magistrate rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety by failing to properly schedule an infirmary appointment. Plaintiff exercised reasonable care by filing a grievance after the infirmary staff refused to replace the cane tip.Renick  1/29/2019 2/13/2019 2019-Ohio-507
Peake v. The Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr. 2017-00547JDNegligence; personal injury; duty; res judicata; issue preclusion; summary judgment; Civ.R. 56. Plaintiff brought this negligence action against defendant after she slipped and fell on a puddle of water on a walkway between defendant’s hospital and a parking garage. In a connected action against the owner of the parking garage, the court of common pleas found that the water was an open and obvious danger, and therefore there was no duty to warn plaintiff of the condition. Following the conclusion of the connected action, defendant moved for summary judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. The court granted summary judgment for defendant. The doctrine of res judicata prevented the defendant from litigating the issue of duty in this case. A court of competent jurisdiction considered the same factual circumstances and found that no duty to plaintiff existed. In absence of a legal duty, plaintiff could not sustain a negligence claim against defendant.McGrath  1/28/2019 2/13/2019 2019-Ohio-508
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosec. Atty. 2018-00793PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 149.433; infrastructure; security; video; format; investigatory; undercover. Overview: Requester sought a copy of security camera video of a shooting incident outside the Jefferson County Courthouse. Respondent asserted that the entire recording was both a security record and an infrastructure record, and that release of portions of the video would endanger the life or safety of law enforcement personnel and witnesses. The special master found that none of the video content met the definition of an infrastructure or security record, and that respondent failed to show that release of any portion of the video could endanger the life or safety of any law enforcement personnel or witness. The special master further found that the video must be exported, at requester’s choice, in any video format available in the agency’s software. The special master further found that respondent may redact photographs of any peace officers who hold a position or have an assignment that may include undercover or plain clothes positions or assignments.Clark  1/28/2019 2/12/2019 2019-Ohio-473
Dissell v. Cleveland 2017-00855PQPublic records. On respondent’s objections to a special master’s report and recommendation, the court sustained respondent’s second objection wherein the respondent claimed the special master improperly ordered respondent to compile a summary of medical records that were privileged. The court did not enter a ruling on respondent’s first, third, and fourth objections. The court modified the report and recommendation, and adopted, as modified, the report and recommendation.McGrath  1/23/2019 2/12/2019 2019-Ohio-471
White v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2018-00762PQPublic records. On respondent’s objections to a special master’s report and recommendation, the court determined that the special master applied an incorrect standard of proof relative to a claim of attorney-client privilege. The court did not adopt the special master’s recommendation for partial production of certain documents because, based on the court’s review of the disputed documents, the court concluded that the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege. The court determined that, as a matter of equity, the circumstances of the case warranted the assessment of court costs against the requester. The court modified and adopted the special master’s report and recommendation.McGrath  1/10/2019 2/12/2019 2019-Ohio-472
Martin v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00307JDNegligence; personal injury; notice; discretion; immunity; Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of defendant, claimed that defendant was negligent in failing to prevent his assault by another inmate. The magistrate found plaintiff failed to establish negligence. The evidence showed that plaintiff was the initial aggressor in the fight with the other inmate and plaintiff failed to credibly establish that defendant had actual or constructive notice of a pending assault. The magistrate further found that defendant could not be found liable on the basis that it failed to assign a corrections officer to the room where the incident occurred. The allocation and location of corrections staff is an executive function that involves a high degree of discretion, and defendant is generally immune from tort liability for such decisions.Peterson  1/10/2019 2/13/2019 2019-Ohio-505
Harris v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00883JDNegligence; personal injury; notice; reasonable care; relevance; subsequent remedial measures; Evid. R. 407; magistrate; objection; Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of defendant, claimed that defendant was negligent in failing to repair or warn of a defective drain in the kitchen floor of the correctional institution. Plaintiff fell when a wheel of the food rack he was pushing caught on the drain. Following a trial, the magistrate found that plaintiff failed to establish liability. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. The court partially sustained plaintiff’s objection that the magistrate erred in disallowing some testimony about work orders concerning repair of the drain, because such testimony concerned subsequent remedial measures. The court determined that such testimony was admissible to establish a defect in the drain. However, the court noted that the magistrate later admitted the work orders into evidence for this purpose. Overruling plaintiff’s remaining objections, the court found that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant had constructive notice of the drain defect or that defendant failed to follow established inspection protocols that would have led to discovery of the defect prior to plaintiff’s fall. The court adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation. McGrath  1/10/2019 2/13/2019 2019-Ohio-506
Mohr v. Colerain Twp. 2018-01032PQPublic records. On review of a special master’s report and recommendation, the court found an error of law was evident on the face of the report and recommendation because the special master applied a clear-and-convincing standard of proof in determining that a respondent failed to prove certain exceptions. Since the special master concluded that the requester’s requests were for either non-records, or for records that did not exist, the court adopted the report and recommendation, excepting the special master’s application of a clear-and-convincing standard of proof. The court modified the report and recommendation, and adopted, as modified, the report and recommendation.McGrath  1/9/2019 2/12/2019 2019-Ohio-474
McNatt v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 2018-01256PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; moot; filing fee; damages. Overview: Requester sought records related to a job position within respondent agency. Respondent initially denied records pertaining to interview questions and responses, but provided the records during litigation. Requester sought recovery of his filing fee, lost wages, parking fees, mileage, and statutory damages. The special master found that the only claim in the complaint was moot and requester had not established eligibility for recovery of his filing fee, costs associated with the action, or other award.Clark  1/8/2019 2/12/2019 2019-Ohio-476
12