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 70 rows. Rows per page: 
1234567
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
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
Haney v. Cleveland 2017-00720PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; moot; promptly; ambiguous; overly broad; revise. Overview: Requester requested public records and filed this action having received no records after 30 days. Haney received the records responsive to six of the eight requests during mediation, and elected to voluntarily dismiss the other two. The special master recommended the court find that all Haney’s requests had been rendered moot or voluntarily dismissed, but that the City had failed to promptly provide personnel records, and further failed to provide Haney the information and opportunity to revise requests pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(2). 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  8/21/2018 9/12/2018 2018-Ohio-3648
Williams v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00125JDNegligence, Wrongful Death- An inmate, in defendant’s custody who initiated a fight, died after being stabbed by the inmate with whom he fought. In overruling plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, which recommended judgment in favor of defendant, the court found defendant lacked notice of threats or danger to the decedent. The court also found no error in the magistrate’s determination that the decedent’s contributory negligence in initiating the fight outweighed any potential negligence on the part of defendant. The court adopted the magistrate’s decision and granted judgment to defendant.McGrath  8/15/2018 9/7/2018 2018-Ohio-3604
Oakley v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr. 2017-00845JDFLSA, Class Certification- Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of an FLSA class pursuant to 29 USC 216(b) based on a clock-in and clock-out rounding policy. The magistrate found that potential plaintiffs were identified and submitted affidavits. However, the magistrate found evidence of a widespread discriminatory practice lacking because defendant did not uniformly enforce the clock-in and clock-out rounding policy and, therefore, that plaintiffs could not prove a violation as to all plaintiffs. Thus, the magistrate recommended denial of conditional class certification.Shaver  8/8/2018 9/7/2018 2018-Ohio-3606
DeCrane v. Cleveland 2018-00355PQpublic record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; R.C. 149.011(G); moot; non-record; non-existent; personal. Overview: Requester sought all written correspondence between a government attorney and a union attorney, and work or personal itemized call logs, and work or personal voicemails. Respondent asserted that it had provided all written work correspondence and phone logs kept by the city, denied any duty to search the employee’s personal devices or accounts, and stated that no responsive voicemails existed. The special master found that the claim was moot as to official records of the office. The special master found that requester provided no evidence that the official copy of any requested record had been kept on a city employee’s personal device, and failed to show that the city’s search and retrieval process violated R.C. 149.43(B). The special master found that requester provided no evidence that the city required, received, or kept employee personal telephone records to document the activities of the office, and thus failed to show that personal call detail documents were “records” of the office.Clark  8/7/2018 9/12/2018 2018-Ohio-3650
Hinners v. Huron 2018-00549PQpublic record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; attorney-client; non-responsive. Overview: Requester sought 21 e-mail chains. Respondent asserted that portions of the emails constituted attorney-client privileged material, and that some emails included within the chains were not responsive to the request for emails between two persons that “includes messages in which either of the above are copied to the correspondence.” The special master found that emails attached through a forwarding or reply command were included by the sender as part of the email chain and, under the facts and circumstances of this case, were responsive to the terms of the request. The special master found that none of the emails contained language expressly requesting or delivering legal advice on an identified legal issue, and recommended the court grant requester’s claim for production.Clark  8/6/2018 9/12/2018 2018-Ohio-3652
Haney v. Cleveland 2017-00720PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; moot; promptly; ambiguous; overly broad; revise. Overview: Requester requested various public records, including personnel files, and filed this action having received no records after 30 days. Haney received the records responsive to six of the eight requests during mediation, and elected to voluntarily dismiss the other two. The special master recommended the court find that all Haney’s requests had been rendered moot or voluntarily dismissed, but that the City had failed to promptly provide personnel records, and further failed to provide Haney information and opportunity to revise requests pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(2).Clark  8/2/2018 9/12/2018 2018-Ohio-3649
1234567