| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Mash v. Marysville Police Div.
| 2025-00896PQ | On Requester’s objections, the Court overruled the objections to a Report and Recommendation and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The Court ordered Respondent to provide certain records, subject to redaction, to Requester. The Court determined that Requester was entitled to recover from Respondent the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that were incurred by Requester, excepting attorney fees. | Sadler | |
1/29/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-497 |
|
Cephas v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2024-00825JD | Inmate Assault, Rape, Negligence, Damages, Stipulation. Defendant stipulated that its employees breached their duty of care towards plaintiff after eight inmates entered plaintiff’s cell, then assaulted and raped plaintiff for approximately 90 minutes before staff intervention. A trial was held on the issue of damages. The magistrate found that the testimony of plaintiff’s treating physician, who also served as defendant’s medical expert, was credible in that plaintiff’s hip injuries were consistent with normal wear and tear, not an acute injury from the attack. The magistrate further found that plaintiff had proven pain and suffering damages from the attack and recommended an award of $175,000.00 in compensatory damages. | Peterson | |
1/28/2026
|
2/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-326 |
|
Seim v. Perry Twp.
| 2025-00722PQ | Respondent unreasonably delayed responses to requester’s public records requests (R.C. 149.43(B)(1)). Requester demonstrated with extrinsic evidence that respondent improperly denied access to responsive public records. | Pierce | |
1/27/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-492 |
|
Newman v. Greater Columbus Arts Council
| 2025-00749PQ | Adopting report and recommendation. A private entity that contracts with a political subdivision is subject to the public records requirements of R.C. 149.431. | Sadler | |
1/21/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-493 |
|
Strahm v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
| 2025-00993PQ | Requester failed to plead or attach a public records request made to one respondent. Dismissal of that respondent recommended for failure to state a claim—requester is not “allegedly aggrieved” by the respondent per R.C. 2743.45(D)(1). | Pierce | |
1/21/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-499 |
|
Dyer v. Great Parks of Hamilton Cty.
| 2025-01029PQ | Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim. Requester did not attach original public records request as required by R.C. 2743.75(D)(1). The terms of requester’s alleged public records request varied throughout the complaint. Complaint therefore failed to plead facts showing that the requester sought an identifiable public record. | Sadler | |
1/16/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-500 |
|
Dyer v. Great Parks of Hamilton Cty.
| 2025-01029PQ | Requester failed to attach a copy of the original public records request as required by R.C. 2743.75(D)(1) and failed to cure the pleading deficiency. Dismissal recommended per R.C. 2743.45(D)(2) for failure to state a claim. | Pierce | |
1/15/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-501 |
|
Gales v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2025-00893PQ | public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75. Requester sought records regarding the authority of respondent to incarcerate her husband in a state correctional institution. Respondent did not substantively respond to the records request. Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that requester did not follow the procedural requirements of R.C. 149.43 when initiating her claim and that requester failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under R.C. 2743.75. The special master found, however, that requester satisfied the procedural requirements and raised a valid public records complaint, and the special master recommended that respondent be ordered to produce all responsive records. | Van Schoyck | |
1/12/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-496 |
|
Mash v. Marysville Police Div.
| 2025-00896PQ | On in camera review, police department correctly applied the confidential law enforcement investigatory record ("CLEIR") uncharged suspect exception (R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(h) and R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a)) to redact records related to the investigation of a missing person. Police department incorrectly withheld a record with incident report information under the CLEIR work product exception. | Pierce | |
1/8/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-498 |
|
Cincinnati Enquirer v. Butler Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2024-00906PQ | On remand from the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, the Court entered judgment in favor of the respondent because the appellate court found that a log of inmate phone calls did not document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the sheriff's office. | Sadler | |
1/2/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-490 |
|
Conforti v. Macedonia Police Dept.
| 2025-00668PQ | Requester is not entitled to public records relief. Requester did not demonstrate that additional responsive records exist or were withheld from release. On in camera review, police department correctly applied the CLEIR uncharged suspect exception (R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(h) and R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a)) to redact video and written records. | Pierce | |
1/2/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-491 |