|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Diller v. Univ. of Toledo College of Med. & Life Sciences
| 2024-00355JD | Civ.R. 56; R.C. 2743.02(F); R.C. 9.86; partial summary judgment; personal immunity; wrongful death. Where defendant submitted an affidavit from the physician and an accompanying affidavit from the Interim Dean of a state medical school both averring that the physician was employed by the state university, the court found that the physician was a state employee. Further, where the physician was consulted, reviewed plaintiff’s presenting symptoms, and ordered a medical procedure at a location included under the university’s professional liability insurance, the court found that he was acting within the scope of his state employment as described in the Dean’s affidavit as providing clinical services commensurate with his level of training. Therefore, the court held that the physician was entitled to personal immunity under R.C. 9.86 and granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. | Sadler | |
10/18/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5475 |
|
Schooley v. Univ. of Toledo College of Med. & Life Sciences
| 2024-00236JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; civil immunity; wrongful death. The Court held that the at-issue doctors were entitled to civil immunity under R.C. 9.86 arising out of their care and treatment of decedent because the evidence presented showed that the doctors were state employees at the time the incident occurred, and their actions were within the scope of their respective employment. As no genuine dispute of material fact existed, defendant was entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
10/18/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5474 |
|
Webb v. Buckeye Schools
| 2023-00700PQ | contempt; public record; R.C. 149.43; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75. Requester moved for hearing for respondent to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to produce records as ordered by the court. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, a magistrate concluded that respondent had produced all responsive records as ordered by the court, and that the civil contempt proceedings were therefore moot. | Van Schoyck | |
10/16/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5314 |
|
Warner v. Shawnee State Univ.
| 2023-00383JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; age discrimination; disability discrimination. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims for age and disability discrimination because plaintiff failed to present evidence upon which the court could reasonably find a genuine issue of material fact that defendant terminated plaintiff because of his age or disability. Specifically, defendant satisfied its burden to set forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff, and plaintiff did not satisfy his burden showing that the explanation for his termination was pretext for unlawful discrimination. As such, the court found that plaintiff cannot prove that defendant was motivated by discriminatory intent when it eliminated the Chief Information Officer ("CIO") position. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
10/15/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5472 |
|
Gantler v. Trumbull Cty. Aud.
| 2024-00596PQ | R.C. 149.43(B)(6); a public office’s duty to “duplicate” a record under R.C. 149.43(B)(6) only requires it to make a copy of the record in the appropriate medium; A “duplicate” means the double of anything, an original repeated, a document the same as another; To duplicate something is to make an exact copy of it. | Marti | |
10/15/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5311 |
|
Thomas v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00089JD | Magistrate’s Decision, Use of Force, Battery, Negligence. Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant’s custody, was suspected of concealing contraband. Plaintiff was instructed to step down from his locker box, refused to do so, and a physical altercation then occurred between plaintiff and defendant’s employee. The Magistrate held that plaintiff failed to prove his claims of battery and/or negligence by a preponderance of the evidence and that the force used by defendant’s employee was reasonable and necessary. Judgment was recommended in favor of defendant. | Van Schoyck | |
10/11/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5471 |
|
Bruno v. Ohio Aud.'s of State
| 2024-00607PQ | Civ. R. 15; Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case; The original pleading, once superseded, cannot be utilized to cure defects in the amended pleading unless the relevant portion is specifically incorporated in the new pleading. | Marti | |
10/3/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5312 |
|
Dehen v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2023-00457JD | Motion for Summary Judgment; Civ.R. 56(B); jurisdiction; Consumer Sales Practices Act; discretionary immunity; promissory estoppel; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; negligence. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant did not give her full consideration of a scholarship because she did not submit standardized test scores. The Court found that it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims based upon a violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act. The Court further found that Plaintiff’s claims challenging Defendant’s policy decision to not award Plaintiff a scholarship were barred by the doctrine of discretionary immunity. The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to present evidence that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding her claims for promissory estoppel, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
10/2/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5473 |
|
Ferrise v. Berea City School Dist.
| 2024-00504PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.011(G); R.C. 149.43(A)(1); R.C. 3313.17; a matter is within a public office’s jurisdiction for purposes of R.C. 149.011(G) if the office has statutory authority to address the matter; R.C. 3313.17 gives a school district’s board of education the power to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to protect the district’s interests in connection with litigation the district is a party to; Materials are records if they shed light on the public office’s financial affairs; Materials impacting a public office’s liabilities and insurance expenses are records; R.C 149.011(G) does not require that the office “create” a document for it to be a record if the document is “under the jurisdiction” of the office; Nothing in the text of R.C. 149.011(G) limits the class or records to materials to which the public office is a party; Courts have required production of records documenting transactions the public office was not a party to if those transactions were related to a governmental function the public office delegated to private entities; Although R.C. 149.43(A)(1) requires that a record be “kept by” a public office for it to be a “public record,” it does not require that the public office maintain actual possession of the record; A record is a public record, even in the possession of a private party, if the private party came to have the record as result of the public office delegating one of its public functions to the private party. | Marti | |
10/1/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5310 |
|
Alford v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00502JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; defamation; independent contractor; qualified privilege; inmate. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s defamation claim because the statements about plaintiff were initially made by an independent contractor, not an agent of ODRC, and the statements were subject to a qualified privilege. | Sadler | |
9/27/2024
|
10/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4949 |
|
Reed v. Cleveland State Univ.
| 2023-00376JD | Motion for Summary Judgment; Civ.R. 56; invitee; open and obvious; attendant circumstances. The court found that where plaintiff chose to walk through a gap between the seats in a darkened concert venue, rather than use the designated, lit aisleway to access a concession stand, the step down to the concourse level was an open and obvious danger of which defendant had no duty to warn plaintiff. A reasonable person under the circumstances would have exercised an increased degree of care in the relative darkness of a concert venue. The evidence failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding attendant circumstances. Therefore, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment in favor of defendant. | Sadler | |
9/20/2024
|
10/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4948 |
|
Lifebridge Tech., L.L.C. v. Wright State Univ.
| 2023-00602JD | Motion for Summary Judgment, Civ.R. 12(H)(3), R.C. 2737, Replevin, Conversion, Unauthorized Use of Property, R.C. 2743.16(A). Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims as the applicable statute of limitations had passed. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
9/18/2024
|
10/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4950 |
|
Myers v. Paint Twp.
| 2024-00426PQ | Public Records; R.C. 2743.75(D)(1), R.C. 2743.75(E)(2), Civ.R. 8(D); A claim pressed through R.C. 2743.75 fails if the requester does not attach relevant correspondence to its complaint and that correspondence is not otherwise in the record; Records produced pursuant to a public records request are “correspondence” within the meaning of R.C. 2743.75(D)(1); A respondent admits facts alleged in a R.C. 2743.75 complaint if it does not deny those facts. | Marti | |
9/17/2024
|
10/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4784 |
|
Morrison v. Office of the Safety-Serv. Dir.
| 2024-00523PQ | Public records, R.C. 149.43(B)(1); Factors considered in evaluating whether a public office unreasonably delayed its response to a public records request. | Marti | |
9/17/2024
|
10/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4786 |
|
Jackson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Job & Family Services
| 2024-00439PQ | Public records; R.C. 149.43(C); R.C. 149.43(B)(3); R.C. 2743.75; Ohio Department of Job and Family Services was not a proper respondent because requester did not demonstrate she made a public records request from that public office. When the public office came into possession of the requested public records from a separate public office and provided the public records to requester during the pendency of the proceedings, the public records violations alleged by requester were rendered moot. Requester did not properly claim that the public office failed to explain its denial of a public records request. The public office properly explained its failure to provide the requested public record when it explained that it found the requested public record at a separate public office and then provided the requested public record to requester. Public policy concerns as to the Ohio Public Records Act are to be addressed by the General Assembly, not the court. | Sadler | |
9/13/2024
|
10/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4785 |
|
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2024-00342PQ, 2024-00387PQ, 2024-00408PQ, 2024-00424PQ, 2024-00444PQ, 2024-00460PQ, 2024-00462PQ | Public Records, Collateral Estoppel. | Marti | |
9/12/2024
|
11/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5299 |
|
Foy v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00713JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; false imprisonment. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of false imprisonment because plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as the essential facts were not in dispute demonstrating that defendant’s confinement of plaintiff was at all times pursuant to facially valid sentencing entries. Additionally, defendant was not required or permitted to second-guess facially valid orders from the judiciary. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
9/11/2024
|
10/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4951 |
|
White v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00620JD | Magistrate’s Decision, Use of Force, Inmate Assault, Negligence, Mail, Retaliation, Inmate Housing. The Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims arising out of interactions at a private prison, the processing of his mail at both a private and state prison, and his claims for retaliation at a state prison, which were constitutional in nature. Plaintiff failed to establish that Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC")’s employees possessed knowledge of an impending assault against him. Judgment was recommended in favor of defendant. | Renick | |
9/6/2024
|
10/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4947 |
|
Siegel v. Univ. of Cincinnati College of Medicine
| 2009-09531JD | Spoliation of evidence; fraud; cognizable event; statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ decedent, Jessica Siegel, died after brain surgery in August 2006. Four months later, plaintiffs received an autopsy report which stated that Jessica’s brain was not examined during the autopsy. Plaintiffs did not file their medical negligence and wrongful death claims regarding the doctor’s conduct until after the applicable statutes of limitations expired. Plaintiffs could not state a claim for spoliation of evidence because they failed to prove that the destruction of evidence (exclusion of the brain from the autopsy) disrupted their underlying claims of medical negligence and wrongful death. Plaintiffs’ fraud claims failed because plaintiffs could not prove justifiable reliance on the doctor’s representation that a complete autopsy would be conducted after plaintiffs had actual knowledge that a complete autopsy was not conducted. Plaintiffs further failed to prove that the lack of an autopsy of the brain prevented them from timely filing a claim for medical negligence or wrongful death. Ultimately, all of plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant. | Shaver | |
9/4/2024
|
10/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4946 |
|
Randlett v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00459JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; inmate; false imprisonment; gross negligence; Adm.Code 5120-2-03.2. Plaintiff claimed false imprisonment due to a miscalculation of earned credit. On a motion for summary judgment, the court found that where defendant provided an affidavit from a Bureau of Sentence Computation (“BOSC”) and Bureau of Records Management employee detailing how plaintiff’s sentence was properly calculated, along with the BOSC legal file for plaintiff, it met its initial burden pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C). Further, plaintiff did not meet his reciprocal burden pursuant to Civ.R. 56(E) with unauthenticated evidence and an unsigned and unnotarized affidavit. Therefore, the court granted the motion and rendered summary judgment in favor of defendant. | Cain | |
8/28/2024
|
9/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4576 |
|
Lutz v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00294JD | Inmate; negligence; reasonable care; duty; notice. Defendant was not liable for negligence after an altercation between plaintiff and another inmate because it did not have notice of the impending attack. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant. | Peterson | |
8/23/2024
|
9/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4575 |
|
Asea v. Univ. of Toledo College of Med.
| 2021-00686JD | Magistrate’s decision; employment discrimination; retaliation; Title VII; R.C. Chapter 4112. Plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case of employment discrimination that employer, on the basis of race or national origin, did not renew plaintiffs’ faculty appointments with employer. Plaintiffs failed to establish that non-renewal of their faculty appointments was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action because plaintiffs filed their grievances alleging discrimination and retaliation after employer informed plaintiffs it was not renewing their faculty appointments due to their failure to obtain grant funding. Magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant. | Peterson | |
8/16/2024
|
9/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4572 |
|
Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2024-00345PQ | On Requester’s objections to a Report and Recommendation, the Court overruled Requester's Objections and adopted the Special Master's Report and Recommendation. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendations, the Court (1) denied a motion to dismiss filed by Respondent, (2) granted the claim for production of records as detailed in the Report and Recommendation, (3) permitted Respondent to redact exempt items from records as provided in the Report and Recommendation, (4) ordered Respondent to release unredacted records as outlined in the Report and Recommendation, and (5) noted that, based on the record, it appeared that Respondent had complied with the Court's order to release unredacted records as outlined in the Report and Recommendation. The Court ordered 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 | |
8/13/2024
|
9/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3379 |
|
Bleise v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2024-00147JD | Motion to Dismiss, Civ.R. 12(B)(1), Civ.R. 12(B)(6), R.C. 4117.10, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Breach of Contract, Inmate Assault, Collective Bargaining. Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims controlled by ODRC’s collective bargaining agreement, of which plaintiff was a party. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted. | Cain | |
8/9/2024
|
9/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4577 |
|
Sims v. Univ. of Toledo
| 2022-00752JD | Summary Judgment, Civ.R. 56(B), Race Discrimination, Retaliation, Pretext. No genuine issue as to any material fact existed regarding plaintiff’s claims for racial discrimination or retaliation. Defendant established plaintiff’s termination was not racially motivated or retaliatory given plaintiff’s extensive disciplinary history. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
8/1/2024
|
9/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4574 |
|
In re Whitacre
| 2024-00281 | Victims of crime. No objections filed. Magistrate's decision adopted. | Sadler | |
8/1/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3274 |
|
Wiant v. Ohio Univ.
| 2021-00362JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; negligence; hazing; university; R.C. 2307.44. In a negligence claim resulting from the death of a university student at an off-campus apartment, a court will not impose a duty beyond university sponsored activities or premises under the university’s possession and control. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs could not establish the foreseeability and breach elements of negligence because the record lacked evidence to reasonably conclude that Defendant knew or should have known that decedent would be hazed. Defendant acted in accordance with its required standard of care under the circumstances when it educated decedent about hazing and made him aware of its policies against hazing. Plaintiffs could not prevail on their claim brought under R.C. 2307.44 because Defendant was actively enforcing its anti-hazing policy at the time Plaintiffs’ cause of action arose. Notwithstanding this finding, the Court also concluded that the record lacked sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that any member of Defendant’s staff knew or reasonably should have known that members of Sigma Pi fraternity were hazing students in Fall 2018. Summary judgment rendered in favor of Defendant. | Sadler | |
8/1/2024
|
9/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4571 |
|
Masters v. Pub. Records Office of Univ. Compliance & Integrity
| 2024-00139PQ | After neither party filed timely written objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, the Court found that there was no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Report and Recommendation. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendations, judgment was entered in favor of Respondent. | Sadler | |
8/1/2024
|
9/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3378 |
|
Hammersmith v. Univ. of Cincinnati
| 2024-00313AD | Premises liability; personal injuries; open and obvious hazard. Judgment for defendant. | Shaver | |
7/19/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3286 |
|
Bavaria v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2022-00495JD | Breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; fraud, rescission; unjust enrichment; civil conspiracy; declaratory judgment. Plaintiff and defendant collaborated to develop a genetically modified mouse model and entered into a licensing agreement for that mouse model. Defendant independently developed a genetically modified mouse model using the parties’ original mouse model, which defendant licensed for use by a third-party laboratory. A hospital obtained defendant’s genetically modified mouse model from the laboratory and used it to develop a gene therapy product. The gene therapy product generated profits for the hospital and licensing fees for defendant. Based on the hospital’s use of the mouse model, plaintiff claimed it was entitled to $49 million in damages from defendant due to defendant’s alleged breach of its contractual and equitable duties. After a bench trial, the court found plaintiff failed to meet its evidentiary burden on its claims and granted judgment in favor of defendant. | Cain | |
7/19/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3217 |
|
In re Whitacre
| 2024-00281 | Victims of crime; statute of limitations. Applicant failed to file his claim within three years of the date of the alleged criminally injurious conduct, as required pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(A)(2). Magistrate recommended that Attorney General’s final decision be affirmed. | Shaver | |
7/16/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3275 |
|
Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2024-00345PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v); R.C. 2930.07; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(dd); Constitutional Right to Privacy; Information that identifies a victim to a crime, victim/witness telephone numbers, personal identifiers, and residential and familial information of a designated public service worker were properly redacted; Public Office did not meet it’s burden regarding email addresses being redacted pursuant to any Constitutional Right to Privacy. | Peterson | |
7/15/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2997 |
|
Pasco v. Youngstown State Univ.
| 2024-00079AD | University student; kickball; personal injuries; negligence; offer of settlement. Judgment for plaintiff. | Shaver | |
7/12/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3283 |
|
Killingsworth v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2022-00562JD | Inmate; use of force; battery; negligence. The magistrate found that where plaintiff, an inmate, lunged at defendant’s staff member and disobeyed direct orders, the use of OC spray was reasonable, and officers were privileged to use such force. Therefore, the magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant. | Renick | |
7/12/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3218 |
|
Neilsen v. Scioto Cty. Pros.
| 2024-00219PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43(A)(1); Personal notes created by public official or employee are not public records subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43. | Cain | |
7/11/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2996 |
|
Jackson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jobs & Family Servs.
| 2024-00439PQ | Public records; R.C. 149.43(B)(1); R.C. Chapter 329; R.C. Chapter 5101; R.C. 2743.75(D)(1), Civ. R. 54(D); County jobs and family services agencies are distinct from the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services; a public records request to a county jobs and family services agency is not a request to the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services; A claim not asserted in the body of a R.C. 2743.75(D()(1) complaint will not be considered; Civ. R. 54(D) gives a court discretion to waive the imposition of costs on an indigent party. | Marti | |
7/11/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2998 |
|
Renfro v. Grace Property Serv., Pines Condo Assn.
| 2024-00559PQ | Upon a Special Master's recommendation, pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) the Court sua sponte dismissed Requester’s Complaint. | Cain | |
7/11/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3001 |
|
Hicks v. Court of Claims
| 2024-00515PQ | Upon a Special Master’s recommendation, the Court determined that the complaint brought under R.C. 2743.75 constituted a case of first impression that involved an issue of substantial public interest. In accordance with R.C. 2743.75(C) the Court dismissed Requester's complaint without prejudice and directed Requester to commence a mandamus action in the court of appeals with appropriate jurisdiction as provided in R.C. 149.43(C)(1). | Cain | |
7/10/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2999 |
|
Renfro v. Grace Property Serv., Pines Condo Assn.
| 2024-00559PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.011(A); A property management firm managing a condominium is not a public office within the meaning of R.C. 149.011(A). | Marti | |
7/10/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3002 |
|
Anderson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2024-00121AD | Inmate; medical transport; injuries; medical claim; negligence; medical malpractice; expert opinion; lack of jurisdiction over constitutional claims. Judgment for defendant. | Shaver | |
7/9/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3285 |
|
Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00100JD | Magistrate’s Decision, Use of Force, Negligence, Inmate. Plaintiff, an inmate in defendant’s custody, was suspected of exchanging contraband. Plaintiff was instructed to report to the porter’s closet for a strip search. A physical altercation then occurred between plaintiff and defendant’s employees. The magistrate held that plaintiff failed to prove his claims of battery and/or negligence by a preponderance of the evidence and that the force used by defendant’s employees was reasonable and necessary. In addition, the magistrate found that defendant’s employees were more credible than plaintiff. Judgment was recommended in favor of defendant. | Peterson | |
7/8/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3219 |
|
Hicks v. Court of Claims
| 2024-00515PQ | Recommendation for dismissal as case constituted a case of first impression that involved an issue of public interest in a case brought under R.C. 2743.75. | Peterson | |
7/3/2024
|
8/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3000 |
|
Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00635JD | Summary Judgment; Civ.R. 56; battery; assault; statute of limitations; inmate. Plaintiff failed to file his assault and battery claim prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s assertion of a negligence claim in the response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment was not proper under Civ.R. 56 and could not be used to evade the applicable statute of limitations for assault and battery. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
7/1/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3220 |
|
Reese v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2024-00386AD | Inmate; property loss; bailment; intentional infliction of emotional distress; admission of liability. Judgment for plaintiff. | Shaver | |
6/28/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3287 |
|
Bugh v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2016-00387JD | Medical negligence; inmate; magistrate; Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, the administrator of a former inmate’s estate, filed a complaint alleging medical negligence related to decedent’s breathing and diaphragmatic medical conditions. The magistrate determined that ODRC medical staff did not breach the standard of care because they continued to coordinate diagnosis and treatment for decedent despite decedent repeatedly refusing the care that was arranged. Further, the magistrate found that the opinions of defendant’s medical experts carried more weight than plaintiff’s experts’ opinions because they had more experience dealing with medical conditions similar to decedent’s. Therefore, the magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant. | Van Schoyck | |
6/26/2024
|
7/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2785 |
|
Donaldson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2023-00371JD | Motion for Summary Judgment; Civ.R. 56; inmate; personal injury; negligence. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact related to defendant having actual or constructive notice of a faulty bedframe that caused plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
6/18/2024
|
7/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2784 |
|
In re Chrisman
| 2023-00658 | Victims of crime. No objections filed. Magistrate's decision adopted. | Sadler | |
6/13/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3272 |
|
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2024-00226PQ, 2024-00248PQ, 2024-00292PQ, 2024-00293PQ | On objections and motions, the Court adopted the Special Master's Report and Recommendation, overruled Requester's Objections, denied Respondent's Motion To Strike contained within Respondent's Response, and denied Requester's Motion For Leave. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendations, with respect to procedural motions before the Special Master, the Court (1) denied Respondent's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions for dismissal, (2) granted in part, and denied in part, Requester's motions to strike, striking late filed evidence and denying the imposition of other sanctions, and (3) denied Respondent's motions to strike as moot. With respect to the Special Master's recommendations as to the merits of consolidated Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2024-00226PQ, 2024-00248PQ, and 2024-00292PQ, the Court found that (1) Requester was not aggrieved by Respondent responding to Requester’s individual requests on a consolidated basis, and (2) Respondent violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) in those instances when it took more than five working days to produce the public records sought. The Court also denied all other relief sought in these cases. With respect to merits of Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00293PQ, the Court ordered Respondent to (1) produce all public records responsive to part 3 of Requester's public records request of January 17, 2024, (2) produce all additional public records responsive to part 4 of that request or to certify that no additional responsive records exist, (3) produce all public records responsive to part 6 of that request, as amended on February 12, 2024, and (4) redact all those records to protect third parties' statutory privacy rights. Additionally, the Court found that Respondent violated R.C. 149.43(B)(1) by unreasonably delaying production of certain records sought. The Court denied all other relief sought in Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00293PQ. 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 actions brought in Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2024-00226PQ, 2024-00248PQ, 2024-00292PQ, and 2024-00293PQ that were incurred by the Requester, excepting attorney fees. Court costs were assessed against Respondent in Ct. of Cl. Nos. 2024-00226PQ, 2024-00248PQ, 2024-00292PQ, and 2024-00293PQ. | Sadler | |
6/7/2024
|
7/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2625 |
|
In re DiPippo
| 2023-00551 | Victims of crime. No objections filed. Magistrate's decision adopted. | Sadler | |
6/6/2024
|
8/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3266 |
|
Hicks v. Clermont Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2024-00345PQ | Disqualification of opposing counsel; Arguments raised for the first time in reply; Disqualification is only granted when denial of that relief would prejudice the moving party; The party seeking disqualification has the burden of proving prejudice; Arguments made for the first time in reply memorandum are not properly before the court. | Marti | |
5/29/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2186 |
|