| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Schaffer v. Sheets
| 2024-00808PQ, 2024-00828PQ, 2024-00839PQ, 2024-00840PQ, 2024-00841PQ, 2024-00844PQ, 2024-00845PQ, 2024-00846PQ, 2024-00847PQ, 2024-00848PQ, 2024-00849PQ, 2024-00850PQ, 2024-00851PQ, 2024-00852PQ, 2024-00853PQ, 2024-00854PQ, 2024-00855PQ, 2024-00856PQ, 2024-00857PQ, 2024-00858PQ, 2024-00881PQ, 2024-00883PQ, 2024-00889PQ | Public Records; R.C. 2743.75(D)(2); A case may be dismissed pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) if the requester has abused the public records laws; Abuse of the public records law is evidenced by excessive numbers of public records requests and/or enforcement actions; Abuse of the public records laws is evidenced by a requester making multiple records requests or filing multiple enforcement actions in rapid succession; Abuse of the public records laws is evidenced by the requester making duplicative records requests or filing duplicative enforcement actions; Abuse of the public records laws is evidenced by the requester using records requests or enforcement actions to demean the public office or its employees; A case may be dismissed pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) if the court lacks the capacity to grant the relief requested. | Marti | |
3/11/2025
|
3/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1007 |
|
Musgrave v. Yost
| 2023-00670PQ | After court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Requester’s appeal, the Court sua sponte vacated its stay of the case, denied Requester’s motion for an extension of time, denied Requester’s notice seeking dismissal of Respondent’s response to Requester’s objections, and overruled Requester’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation. In accordance with the Special Master’s recommendations, the Court found that Requester’s claim for production of records was moot, found that Requester failed to prove a violation of R.C. 149.43(B)(4), rejected Requester’s delay claim, and rejected Requester’s claims about the administration of concealed carry laws. | Sadler | |
2/20/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-738 |
|
Newman v. Greater Columbus Arts Council
| 2024-00619PQ | On objections, the Court overruled Requester’s partial objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The Court found that the Special Master correctly applied the functional equivalency test set forth in State ex rel. Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 2006-Ohio-4854. In accordance with the Special Master's recommendations, the Court (1) granted Requester’s claim for the production of certain records, (2) ordered Respondent to file a written certification by a specified date that it produced these certain records to Requester, and (3) 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 | |
2/18/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-734 |
|
Dunbar v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
| 2023-00313JD | Magistrate’s Decision, Negligence, Standing Water. Plaintiff failed to prove that defendant negligently designed or constructed the roadway, that defendant had actual or constructive notice of ponding water, or that defendant was willfully blind to the incident location. Judgment was recommended in favor of defendant. | Morris | |
2/14/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1056 |
|
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2024-00876PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43(B)(7)(c)(i) and (iii); R.C. 2743.75(C)(2); Dismissal is only appropriate under R.C. 2743.75(C)(2) if the case both presents an issue of first impression and the issue is of substantial public interest; R.C. 149.43(B)(7)(c)(i) and (iii) explicitly authorize public offices to adopt policies limiting the number of records provided in response to commercially motivated requests. | Marti | |
2/13/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-735 |
|
Bryant v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation
| 2023-00301JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; retaliation; R.C. 4112.02(I); discrimination; adverse employment action; pretext. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for retaliation under R.C. 4112.02(I) because plaintiff could not show that she was subject to an adverse employment action necessary to establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation. Furthermore, even if plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation under R.C. 4112.02(I), there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for plaintiff’s reprimand, suspensions, and termination. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
2/12/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1055 |
|
Letchford v. Ohio Univ.
| 2023-00539JD | Motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; defamation; statute of limitations. Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an issue of material fact as to whether Defendant defamed Plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
2/12/2025
|
3/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1057 |
|
AIY Properties, Inc. v. Cleveland
| 2025-00044PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43(A)(1); Supp. R. 44; Materials that would be court records in the possession of a court, are also public records subject to R.C. 149.43 in the hands of a non-court public office. | Marti | |
2/11/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-737 |
|
Kearns v. Nelsonville Police Dept.
| 2024-00902PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43(A)(17)(a); R.C. 149.45(A)(1); The term “primary” connotes more than quantitative or proportional primacy, it also has a qualitative sense; Common usage establishes that something can be “primary” if it is “basic, fundamental” or “essential” to the subject considered; Something can be “primary,” even if it is not the quantitatively predominate feature of the thing considered, so long as it is essential to that thing; A child can be a “primary” subject of a law enforcement recording for purposes of R.C. 149.43(A)(17)(a) if addressing the child’s needs was an essential part of law enforcement’s response to the situation prompting the recording; Telephone numbers are not among the types of information listed in R.C. 149.45(A)(1)’s definition of personal information. | Marti | |
2/6/2025
|
3/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-736 |
|
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ.
| 2024-00815PQ | On objections, the Court sustained, in part, and denied, in part Respondent’s objections to a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court found that certain other objections were moot. The Court found that Requester had not sustained his burden to provide clear and convincing evidence that records containing the additional data that Requester sought were created or received by Respondent. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), the Court rejected the Report and Recommendation. | Sadler | |
1/31/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-476 |
|
Mohler v. Univ. of Toledo Athletic Dept.
| 2023-00630JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; University of Toledo Athletic Department; athletics; negligent misrepresentation; promissory estoppel; negligence; discretionary immunity. In an action where plaintiff was removed from University of Toledo’s women's soccer team, the court found that defendant was entitled to discretionary immunity for the decision to remove plaintiff from the team. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for negligent misrepresentation because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant supplied false information to plaintiff that the document plaintiff signed was a National Letter of Intent, and therefore, plaintiff failed to satisfy all the elements of the claim. Defendant was also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for promissory estoppel because the court found that plaintiff’s relationship with University of Toledo was contractual in nature, and therefore, the claim failed as a matter of law. Defendant was further entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for negligence as the court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case for the claim since plaintiff pointed to no facts or supportive law that would allow the court to conclude that a duty of care existed to provide a safe team environment free from abuse, harassment, ridicule, embarrassment, and hostility. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
1/31/2025
|
2/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-518 |
|
Jones v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.
| 2023-00266JD | Motion for Summary Judgment, Employment, Age Discrimination, Sex Discrimination. No genuine issues as to any material fact existed regarding plaintiff’s claims for age or sex discrimination. Defendant presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for plaintiff’s termination. Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case by presenting facts which demonstrated that defendant’s reasoning for termination of plaintiff’s employment was pretextual. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
1/29/2025
|
2/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-517 |
|
Cass v. Mercer Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2025-00049PQ | Public Records; R.C. 2743.75(D)(2); a complaint is properly dismissed pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) if the public records request to be enforced is facially overbroad. | Sadler | |
1/24/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-477 |
|
Newman v. Greater Columbus Arts Council
| 2024-00619PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.011(A); R.C. 149.431; While the availability of relief under R.C. 149.431 does not automatically preclude a finding of functional equivalence, its applicability cuts against functional equivalence; A non-profit entity covered by R.C. 149.431 may be required to produce records even if it is not the functional equivalent of a public office; Financial records covered by R.C. 149.431 relate to money or the way money is managed or pertain to monetary receipts and expenditures. | Marti | |
1/23/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-471 |
|
Cass v. Mercer Cty. Sheriff's Office
| 2025-00049PQ | Public Records; R.C. 2743.75(D)(2); a complaint is properly dismissed pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) if the public records request to be enforced is facially overbroad. | Marti | |
1/23/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-478 |
|
Hayden v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2024-00454JD | Motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; false imprisonment. Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an issue of material fact as to whether Defendant falsely imprisoned Plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
1/22/2025
|
2/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-519 |
|
Kearns v. Boardman Twp. Police Dept.
| 2024-00776PQ | Public Records; R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(dd); R.C.149.43(A)(17)(p) and (q); R.C. 149.45(A); R.C. 149.45(A) only exempts information about individuals; Neither 149.43(A)(1)(dd) nor R.C. 149.45(A) exempt license plate numbers from the class of public records; Neither 149.43(A)(1)(dd) nor R.C. 149.45(A) exempt insurance information from the class of public records; Neither 149.43(A)(1)(dd) nor R.C. 149.45(A) exempt vehicle registration information from the class of public records; Neither 149.43(A)(1)(dd) nor R.C. 149.45(A) exempt images of individuals from the class of public records; Neither 149.43(A)(1)(dd) nor R.C. 149.45(A) exempt offender’s residential addresses from the class of public records; R.C.149.43(A)(17)(p) and (q) only exempt images of the interior of residences and private businesses from the class of public records. | Marti | |
1/21/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-475 |
|
Wilson v. Montgomery Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Serv.
| 2024-00675PQ | Public Records; R.C. 2151.421; R.C. Chapter 2743; R.C. 2743.75(D)(2); R.C. 5153.17. | Marti | |
1/15/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-473 |
|
Morrison v. Mt. Vernon, Safety Serv. Dir. Office
| 2023-00226PQ | On Requester’s motion for contempt, and after a show-cause hearing, the Court denied Requester’s motion for contempt. However, the Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Tanner Salyers, in his capacity as Safety Service Director of the City of Mount Vernon, Ohio, and Mr. P. Robert Broeren, Jr., in his capacity as Director of Law, City of Mount Vernon, Ohio, were in indirect civil contempt for failing appear at the show-cause hearing, absent good cause shown. The Court imposed a civil fine with instructions for purging the civil contempt. | Cain | |
1/14/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-470 |
|
Wilson v. Montgomery Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Serv.
| 2024-00675PQ | Public Records; R.C. 2151.421; R.C. Chapter 2743; R.C. 2743.75(D)(2); R.C. 5153.17; A case is properly dismissed pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2) if asserts claims beyond the court’s capacity to resolve; a party can access records otherwise protected by R.C. 2151.421 and R.C. 5153.17 if he shows “good cause” for granting him access; Good cause exists if access would be in the best interests of the children involved or if access is necessary to prevent a denial of due process; The determination of whether good cause exists is usually made by the trial court presiding over the proceedings where the records would be used; The existence of good cause to override the confidentiality provided by R.C. 2151.421 and R.C. 5153.17 is primarily a domestic relations matter; R.C. Chapter 2743 does not give the Court of Claims jurisdiction over domestic relations matters. | Marti | |
1/14/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-474 |
|
Tentacles of Cuyahoga Cty. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Pros. Office
| 2024-00628PQ | R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(b). The court overruled requesters’ objections and adopted the special master’s report and recommendation because mere discussion of records pertaining to probation and parole proceedings or proceedings related to the imposition of community control sanctions does not amount to disclosure. | Sadler | |
1/8/2025
|
2/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-472 |
|
Five Guys Dev., L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
| 2024-00724JD | Motion to Dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); subject matter jurisdiction; R.C. 2743.02; R.C. 2743.16(A); declaratory judgment. Plaintiff brought six claims against Defendant, alleging that Defendant engaged in prohibited conduct with relation to a parcel of Plaintiff’s real property. The Court of Claims did not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims brought under R.C. 163, as the statute specifically confers jurisdiction upon the common pleas court or the probate court to adjudicate alleged violations. Plaintiff’s claims for trespass and nuisance were barred by the relevant statute of limitations, as Plaintiff’s complaint conclusively established that Plaintiff had knowledge of Defendant’s alleged unauthorized conduct more than two years prior to Plaintiff bringing its actions in the Court of Claims. While a specific exception exists that permits the Court of Claims to hear taking actions when the claimant is uncompensated, the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s taking claim as Plaintiff’s complaint established that the matter of appropriation of the real property was pending in another court. Finally, because the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims for money damages, it also did not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s action for declaratory judgment related to those same issues. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted. | Cain | |
1/7/2025
|
2/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-520 |