Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was Ohio Rev. Code 9.86, which provides immunity to state employees unless the employee acts manifestly outside the scope of employment, with malicious purpose, or in bad faith. Michael McNew visited the Ohio State University Medical Center (Center) complaining of a painful hemorrhoid, nausea, diarrhea, and fatigue. McNew consulted with Dr. Syed Husain, a faculty member who was also employed by the school's nonprofit medical-practice corporation, but neither a medical student nor a resident was present during the treatment. Four days after McNew was discharged, he died from an undiagnosed cerebral hemorrhage caused by thromboytopenia. Plaintiffs brought this action against the Center in the court of claims. Plaintiffs also filed a civil action against Husain in the common pleas court, which the court stayed pending a determination by the court of claims regarding Husain's immunity from suit. The court of claims concluded that Husain was immune from suit under section 9.86. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in treating McNew, Husain served the interests of the Center and acted within the scope of employment. Therefore, Husain was entitled to personal immunity pursuant to section 9.86. View "Ries v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

A manufacturer or alcoholic beverages (InBev) sold all of its rights relating to a particular brand of alcoholic beverage to a successor manufacturer (Labatt Operating). Under the Ohio Alcoholic Beverages Franchise Act, when there is a transfer of ownership, the successor manufacturer may terminate any distributor's franchise without just cause by giving the distributor notice of termination within ninety days of the acquisition and compensating the terminated franchisee. Appellant in this case was the exclusive distributor of Labatt brand products in a ten-county area of Ohio under a franchise agreement with InBev. After the sale, Labatt Operating notified Appellant that it intended to terminate Appellant's franchise to distribute Labatt brand products and that it intended to compensate Appellant. Appellant sued. The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellant and ordered Labatt Operating to continue to distribute its Labatt products through Appellant. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Labatt's termination of Appellant's franchise met the statutory requirements of the Act, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in granting summary judgment to Appellant. View "Esber Beverage Co. v. Labatt USA Operating Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant injured his knee while working and was awarded temporary total disability (TTD) compensation. Several years later, Appellant retired. The next year, Appellant underwent knee surgery and again filed for TTD compensation. A staff hearing officer denied benefits on the grounds that Appellant was ineligible because he had voluntarily retired and abandoned the workforce. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus, which the court of appeals denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in relying on the evidence that Appellant had voluntarily retired from the workforce and was no longer eligible for TTD compensation. View "State ex rel. Hoffman v. Rexam Beverage Can Co." on Justia Law

Wife was granted a domestic-violence civil protection order (CPO) against Husband. The trial court later dismissed the case and dissolved the CPO. Thereafter, Husband filed an application to expunge and seal the record of the CPO proceedings. The trial court denied the application. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court lacked statutory authority to expunge the CPO records. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in accordance with Pepper Pike v. Doe, a trial court has the inherent authority to grant an application to expunge and seal a record pertaining to a dissolved CPO in an adult proceeding when unusual and exceptional circumstances exist. View "Schussheim v. Schussheim" on Justia Law

After sustaining injuries while sledding in the City of Circleville's park, Jeremy Pauley and his mother filed a civil action against the City, alleging that the City acted negligently, recklessly, and wantonly in dumping debris in the park, which resulted in a physical defect that caused Jeremy's injuries. The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City was immune from suit under Ohio Rev. Code 1533.181, the recreational user immunity statute. Plaintiffs appealed, contending that section 1533.181 does not apply when a property owner makes the property more dangerous "without promoting or preserving recreational activities." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Jeremy was a recreational user as defined in the statute, the City was not liable for his injuries. View "Pauley v. Circleville" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Morrow and Sherri Becker had two children. Morrow was ordered to pay $2,198 in child support per month. Morrow later moved to modify his child support payment. A magistrate determined that Morrow would owe $2,085 in child support per month but concluded that since the difference between that amount and the amount Morrow was currently paying was less than ten percent, Morrow's child support obligation would not be reduced. Morrow appealed, challenging the trial court's decision to include certain employer-paid benefits, such as a company car and cell phone, in Morrow's gross income to calculated his child support obligation. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in including the employer-paid benefits in Morrow's gross income when determining whether to modify Morrow's child support obligations. View "Morrow v. Becker" on Justia Law

East Bank Condominiums II, LLC began construction of a condominium complex in 2006. By the time the county auditor assessed the value of the condominium units in 2008, twenty-one units remained unsold and unfinished. The auditor determined the aggregate true value of the twenty-one units was $8,139,300. East Bank challenged the valuation. The county board of revision established the 2008 valuation in accordance with the property owner's evidence and concluded that the total fair market value of the twenty-one units was $3,100,000. The board of tax appeals (BTA) reversed the board of revision's adjustments and reinstated the auditor's valuation of the twenty-one units. The Supreme Court reversed and adopted the valuation of $3,100,000, holding that the BTA did not properly utilize the auditor's valuation of the twenty-one units when the only evidence in the record negated the auditor's determination. View "Dublin City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Edward Verhovec filed a public-records mandamus action against the City of Marietta after the City failed to respond to Edward's public-records request. After the City provided Edward with the requested records, the trial court dismissed Edward's action. Meanwhile, Dorothy Verhovec also filed a public-records action to compel the City to release requested records. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City after the City provided her with the records. The City sought sanctions against both Edward and Dorothy for frivolous conduct. Before the trial court ruled on the motions, Dorothy and Edward petitioned for a writ of prohibition in the court of appeals. The court of appeals dismissed the prohibition actions. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, holding that because the Verhovecs each had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to challenge any erroneous ruling in the trial court, the court of appeals was correct to dismiss both actions for a writ of prohibition. View "State ex rel. Verhovec v. Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case were 100 current or former residents or owners of homes on State Road in Parma who sought damages caused by the continual flow of gasoline from a gas station's infrastructure into a sanitary sewer main located on State Road. Plaintiffs named as defendants various private and public entities, including Cuyahoga County. The County filed a motion seeking judgment on the pleadings on the theory that Plaintiffs' causes of action had not been filed within the two-year statute of limitations applicable to political subdivisions pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2744.04. The trial court denied the motion. The County appealed. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court's denial of the County's motion was not a final, appealable order over which the appellate court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the denial of a public subdivision's dispositive motion asserting a statute-of-limitations defense pursuant to section 2744.04 is not a final, appealable order. View "Riscatti v. Prime Props. Ltd. P'ship" on Justia Law

Relator sought a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Mahoning County Board of Elections from placing the name of Demaine Kitchen, an independent candidate for mayor of Youngstown, on the November 5, 2013 general election ballot, contending that Kitchen was actually a Democrat and that his profession of independence was not made in good faith. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relator failed to satisfy his burden of proof, and therefore, the Board did not abuse its discretion by placing Kitchen's name on the ballot. In addition, the Court denied Relator's motion to strike the Board's answer on the grounds of improper service, as Relator failed to demonstrate any harm from the improper service. View "State ex rel. Monroe v. Mahoning County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law