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 216 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Fox v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. 17AP-745Trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment where the evidence in support of the motion established as a matter of law that appellant was an independent contractor of appellee, not an employee. Nor did the trial court err by granting summary judgment as to appellant's claim for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and invasion of privacy where the evidence failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to the essential elements of those claims. Finally, the trial court did not err when it determined that the parties' fully integrated written agreement barred appellant's claim of unjust enrichment and that the release executed by appellant barred appellant's claims for fraud. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 7/17/2018 7/17/2018 2018-Ohio-2830
Moore v. Mt. Carmel Health Sys. 17AP-754Appellant's request for service of the complaint, by operation of law, was a dismissal and refiling of the complaint and was a failure otherwise than on the merits. The trial court, therefore, erred in failing to apply the savings statute. Based on this error, the trial court also erred in dismissing the vicarious liability claims against Appellees (a medical practice and hospital). In light of these errors, whether the trial court erred in its conclusion about a physician's status as an employee of the medical practice is moot. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.WelbaumFranklin 7/17/2018 7/17/2018 2018-Ohio-2831
R.T. v. Knobeloch 16AP-809Defendant physician in a medical malpractice and lack of informed consent case requested this court to certify with a case from the Eighth and Fourth Districts Court of Appeals. In the first case there was no conflict with the Eighth Dist. regarding application of Evid.R. 601(D) because one expert met the requirements of the rule and the other expert's testimony was limited to nonstandard of care opinions. In the second case there was expert testimony to support lack of informed consent claim.TyackFranklin 7/12/2018 7/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2734
State ex rel. Bravo Brio v. Indus. Comm. 17AP-189The Industrial Commission of Ohio acted within its discretion in determining that an intervening injury did not break the causal connection between claimant's work-related injury and the allowed condition. The Commission did not need to expliclity address relator's argument that nonallowed conditions caused the claimant's disability or explicitly find new and changed circumstances. The record contained sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between the allowed conditions and the proposed medical treatment, and that the allowed conditions were independently disabling.KlattFranklin 7/12/2018 7/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2735
Bay Emm Vay Store, Inc. v. BMW Fin. Serv. NA, L.L.C. 17AP-786Judgment affirmed. The trial court's ruling denying appellant’s petition under Civ.R. 34(D) was a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1). Because appellant knew the identities of the potential defendants of future litigation, the trial court properly the petition because appellant did not seek discovery to "ascertain the identity of a potential adverse party," as required by Civ.R. 34(D)(3)(1).HortonFranklin 7/12/2018 7/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2736
Thevenin v. White Castle Mgt. Co. 17AP-255Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of employer on a former employee's claim that he was terminated, in violation of R.C. 4123.90, in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim and complaint where the former employee failed to prove the employer's articulated reasons for terminating him were a mere pretext for the adverse action. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 7/10/2018 7/10/2018 2018-Ohio-2694
Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn. 17AP-767A decision of the State Board of Education is a "quasi-judicial" adjudication that is appealable to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 119.12, based on interpretation of the word "final" in R.C. 3314.08(K)(2)(d). Judgment reversed and remanded.BrunnerFranklin 7/10/2018 7/10/2018 2018-Ohio-2695
Claris, Ltd. v. Hotel Dev. Servs., L.L.C. 16AP-685 & 16AP-727The trial court erred in denying defendant's motions for directed verdict because plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence that a breach of the parties' contract proximately caused plaintiff's damages.KlattFranklin 6/29/2018 6/29/2018 2018-Ohio-2602
Greenawalt v. Freed 17AP-62Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellants' claim for legal malpractice based on application of the statute of limitations.BrownFranklin 6/29/2018 6/29/2018 2018-Ohio-2603
Young v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 17AP-272Court of Claims erred in granting summary judgment in favor of ODRC on appellant's claim for false imprisonment.BrownFranklin 6/29/2018 6/29/2018 2018-Ohio-2604