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 51 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Ware v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2017-00545JDInmate; negligence; damages. The magistrate determined that plaintiff was struck in the left calf by a pepper ball and he suffered bruising, tenderness, swelling, and pain. Plaintiff’s injuries were temporary in nature and resolved over the course of several weeks. Further, plaintiff failed to establish the proximate cause of any long-term injuries that he claimed to have experienced. The magistrate recommended plaintiff recover damages in the amount of $2,000, plus the $25 filing fee.Peterson  8/8/2018 8/8/2018 2018-Ohio-3152
Reid v. Ohio Depart. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00602JDNegligence- Another inmate assaulted plaintiff, an inmate in defendant’s custody, with a glass shank fashioned from a broken window. After trial, the magistrate found that defendant lacked notice of an impending attack on plaintiff. Plaintiff also failed to establish any policy on defendant’s part mandating the replacement of cell window glass and, therefore, plaintiff could not recover for the unreasonable and/or untimely implementation of such a policy, if any. The magistrate recommended judgment for defendant.Peterson  8/7/2018 8/7/2018 2018-Ohio-3124
Vickers v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2017-00654JDNegligence- Other inmates attacked plaintiff’s decedent, an inmate in defendant’s custody, with baseball bats resulting in his death. On summary judgment, the court found the discretionary immunity doctrine, under which defendant is generally immune from tort liability for policy and procedure decisions, applied to defendant’s adoption of policies and procedures relative to the security and management of inmate recreation. The attacking inmates and decedent were properly classified at the same security level and defendant’s employees acted in accordance with institutional policies and procedures. Defendant could not be liable for negligent hiring, training or supervision because its employees did not act tortuously. The court granted judgment to defendant.McGrath  8/7/2018 8/7/2018 2018-Ohio-3125
Darr v. Huber Heights 2018-00084PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; email; overly broad; moot. Overview: Requester sought all email to and from each of twelve public employees for a fourteen-month period. Respondent denied the request, but also provided thousands of responsive emails to requester. The special master recommended that the court find that the request had been properly denied as overly broad, and had also been rendered moot.Clark  6/27/2018 7/24/2018 2018-Ohio-2911
Reinel v. Butler Cty. Aud. 2018-00441PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; request for information. Overview: Requester sought the method of calculation of property tax and for the public office to identify where he had made an alleged statement. The special master found that both requests were for information or answers to questions, rather than requests for specific existing records. The special master recommended that the court deny the claim for relief.Clark  6/25/2018 7/24/2018 2018-Ohio-2914
Parrish v. Glendale 2018-00191PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43(B)(1); moot; promptly. Overview: On January 20, 2018, Requester sought 1) a 2015 file for village sewer and water issues, and 2) records of the village budget for 2015 as related to sewer, water, and other utilities. The special master found that respondent had provided records responsive to the first request in an earlier response and again on March 2, 2018, and provided the additional records identified in the second request on March 2, 2018. The special master recommended that the court find that both requests were moot, but the delay of six weeks in producing budget records in response to the second request violated respondent’s duty to produce those records promptly. Respondent objected to the finding that it had failed to provide all records promptly, and to the recommendation that its motion to dismiss be denied and the case determined on the merits. Outcome: The court overruled the objection regarding denial of the motion to dismiss. The court found that under the facts and circumstances of the case the special master’s conclusion that respondent failed to promptly prepare and make records available for inspection pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1) should not be adopted. The court adopted the report of the special master, as modified, and rendered judgment in favor of respondent.McGrath  6/20/2018 7/24/2018 2018-Ohio-2913
Neff v. Knapp 2017-00876PQCore Terms: public record; court of claims; R.C. 2743.75; R.C. 149.43; moot. Overview: Requester sought copies of an individual trustee’s personal email or correspondence 1) of her records requests to the township, 2) with a firm auditing the township, and 3) regarding a legal question. The special master found that the fiscal officer responsible for official records kept by the township improperly forwarded these requests to the trustee for response. The special master recommended that the court find that production of the official copies kept by the township rendered the first request moot, that the official copies responsive to the second request were not excepted by R.C. 4701.19(B) and must be produced, and that the third request was properly denied as ambiguous and overly broad. Both parties filed objections. Outcome: Based on respondent’s assertion that it had provided township records generally related to the first request, the court overruled requester’s objection that she had not received responsive records. Because those records had been provided promptly, the court upheld respondent’s objection to the finding that the township had caused delay in production of records by also forwarding the request to the individual trustee for response. The court adopted the report of the special master, as modified, and rendered judgment in favor of requester.McGrath  6/6/2018 7/24/2018 2018-Ohio-2910
Poole v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr. 2016-00733JDAssault and Battery- Plaintiffs, a mother and daughter, sought recovery for injuries allegedly resulting from a physical altercation with hospital security guards which occurred after the mother sought treatment at Defendant’s emergency room. The magistrate found plaintiffs’ testimony regarding the incident and their claimed injuries lacked credibility and that hospital security staff used reasonable and non-excessive force after plaintiffs initiated the altercation and refused to leave the emergency room. As such, hospital security staff were privileged in using reasonable force to control the situation. The magistrate recommended judgment for Defendant.Renick  5/30/2018 6/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2277
Turner v. Univ. of Cincinnati 2016-00769JDSummary judgment; Civ.R. 56. The court found that the driver of the car in an accident was not an employee of defendant and there was not a principal-agent relationship between defendant and the driver. Further, the court determined that judicial restraint cautioned against issuing a premature ruling on a potential declaratory judgment claim relative to defendant’s automobile liability coverage agreement. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.McGrath  5/30/2018 6/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2287
Harris v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 2016-00883JDNegligence- Plaintiff, an inmate in Defendant’s custody, fell and sustained broken ribs while pushing a rack filled with pans of food after the rack got caught on a recessed floor drain. The magistrate, after finding the 2-inch rule did not apply, found that Defendant nonetheless lacked notice regarding the floor drain’s condition and recommended judgment for Defendant.Van Schoyck  5/23/2018 6/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2276