Case law

Ditmyer v. Board of County Commissioners of Lucas County

64 Ohio St. 2d 146 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1980

By this constitutional provision, sovereign immunity is a part of the substantive law of Ohio, and, therefore, abrogation of any such immunity must emanate primarily from the General Assembly. See Schaffer v. … Clearly, snow removal, which does not mend, remedy, *149 restore, or renovate roads, is not encompassed within the usual definition of repair.

NBC-USA Hous., Inc. — Five v. Levin

125 Ohio St. 3d 394 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 12, 2010

Zaino (2001), 91 *400 Ohio St.3d 564, 568 , 747 N.E.2d 814 (no exemption available where federal law recognized no immunity); Vought Industries, Inc. v. … Tracy (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 261, 266 , 648 N.E.2d 1364 (because the General Assembly “has the power to grant a tax exemption and has chosen not to clearly express an exemption for corporations reorganizing under Chapter 11

State Ex Rel. Motor Carrier Service, Inc. v. Rankin

135 Ohio St. 3d 395 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2013

MCS also complains that R.C. 149.43 and 4501.34 and the DPPA, “when read together, mandate disclosure of the unredacted records to MCS.” {¶ 29} Contrary to MCS’s position, the Public Records Act is not immune from … Finally, the arguments made there by the BMV are not at odds with the arguments made here. {¶ 34} The issue in Roth was whether the DPS director and the BMV registrar had qualified immunity under the federal DPPA for

Schenkolewski v. Cleveland Metroparks System

67 Ohio St. 2d 31 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1981

Clearly it engages in some activities which promote the state’s sovereign interests. Willoughby Hills v. … Since that survey, two of those nine states have altered or abrogated the doctrine. 8 Thus, our holding today that the defense of governmental immunity is not available to a board of commissioners of a park district established

Theobald v. University of Cincinnati

111 Ohio St. 3d 541 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2006

This arrangement allows universities to attract and compensate highly qualified clinical instructors while the practice groups or corporations, in turn, financially contribute to maintain the medical departments within the … to immunity.

Hill v. Urbana

79 Ohio St. 3d 130 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1997

A political subdivision clearly engages in a proprietary function in the establishment, maintenance, and operation of a municipal water supply system, and therefore can be liable for acts of negligence in the performance … Clearly, we are not compelled to resolve whether Urbana’s actions fall within a statutory exception to immunity in order to decide whether R.C.

Aldrich v. City of Youngstown

106 Ohio St. (N.S.) 342 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1922

This self-evident, . self-executing declaration of right, remedy and justice is in no wise qualified by the phrase “laws may be passed” or “when provided by law.” … immunity, and the citizen’s representatives or sur-f vivors be utterly without any remedy. Surely the fathers who wrote that declaration in the bill of rights never so contemplated.

Cater v. City of Cleveland

83 Ohio St. 3d 24 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1998

Thus, once immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions to immunity in subsection (B) apply. Former R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) through (5). … By structuring the Act in the manner that it did, the General Assembly clearly did not intend to immunize political subdivisions for all negligent actions that arise out of a governmental function.

Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police Department

70 Ohio St. 3d 351 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1994

The General Assembly has clearly established the policy of the law to be that political subdivisions cannot afford the costs of defending tort suits when incidents occur at these facilities. … Even when this court abrogated the doctrine of sovereign immunity of political subdivisions for acts of negligence, our holding applied only in the absence of a statute providing immunity. Haverlack v.

Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc.

69 Ohio St. 2d 608 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1982

(Emphasis added.) 6 Clearly, neither the relevant constitutional language nor the pertinent statutory language expressly extend the grant of immunity to actions alleging intentional tortious conduct by employers against their … C. 4123.95, established a rule of construction which is clearly of assistance in determining the scope of employer immunity.

McClain v. State

172 Ohio St. 3d 213 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 29, 2022

Thus, “[o]nly the sovereign’s own consent could qualify the absolute character of that immunity.” Id. {¶ 21} The Ohio Constitution is in line with this historical understanding of sovereignty. … By referring to “the right,” it presupposes “a right then known and established” at “the time of the framing” of the Ohio Constitution, Rutherford v.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Webb

54 Ohio St. 3d 61 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1990

Any claim filed after such immunity is established is ineffective against the party so protected. * * *” Thiel, supra, at 113, 23 OBR at 271, 491 N.E. 2d at 1125. … The subsections (B), (F) and (G) clearly apply to such policies and not to statutory immunities.

Doe v. Greenville City Schools

171 Ohio St. 3d 763 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 28, 2022

Because the trial court did not fully consider this issue, which, if established, would dissolve immunity, we must remand to the trial court for further proceedings. … Because the trial court did not fully consider this issue, which, if established, would dissolve immunity, we must remand to the trial court for further proceedings.” 121 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-1250, 905 N.E.2d 606, ¶

Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc. (Slip Opinion)

146 Ohio St. 3d 281 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2016

As Messer did with respect to the Casino Project, the general contractor of a qualifying construction project may seek to self-insure the project and provide workers’ compensation coverage for its own employees as well as … It is with this language that the General Assembly established the legal fiction that the self-insuring employer is the employer of all covered employees, including employees of enrolled subcontractors, for purposes of workers

Muenchenbach v. Preble County

91 Ohio St. 3d 141 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2001

The term “general” is very clearly used not to modify the term “employed,” but to modify “highway transportation.” … Chapter 4511, it is modified or qualified by the phrase “being used in constructing” or “while being used in * * * construction.” See R.C. 4511.64 and 4511.69.

Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (Slip Opinion)

167 Ohio St. 3d 390 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2021

Civil law—Civ.R. 12(C)—R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b)—Immunity for employees of political subdivision—When complaint invokes exception to government employee’s immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b), notice pleading … See Anderson, 134 Ohio St.3d 380, 2012-Ohio-5711, 983 N.E.2d 266, at ¶ 34. {¶ 15} Consequently, while Bradley’s complaint could perhaps have been more clearly written, we conclude that it did all that was required

Shearer v. Shearer

18 Ohio St. 3d 94 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1985

If the doctrine of parental immunity as posited were a good and useful rule of law, we could reasonably presume that the experience of the law would empirically establish the wisdom of that doctrine. … it was stated in rejecting the hoary legal concept of husband-wife testimonial privilege: “* * * When such a rule is the product of a conceptualism long ago discarded, is universally criticized by scholars, and has been qualified

Williamson v. Pavlovich

45 Ohio St. 3d 179 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1989

The court has *182 identified certain obstructions or impediments that are clearly nuisances under R.C. 723.01. Specifically, in Hunter v. … Chapter 2744, which now establishes the parameters of municipal tort liability. R.C. 2744.01 et seq. was enacted on November 20, 1985 in response to the abrogation of common-law municipal immunity. Leg. Serv.

LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin

114 Ohio St. 3d 323 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2007

. {¶ 15} In Scholler, 10 Ohio St.3d 98 , 10 OBR 426, 462 N.E.2d 158 , this court recognized that attorneys have a qualified immunity from liability to third parties for acts or omissions concerning the representation of a … For that reason, the legal work done by defendants regarding that transfer does not implicate the fiduciary duties discussed in either Arpadi or Crosby , the privity exception of Simon is clearly inapplicable, and LeRoy and

State v. Joseph

73 Ohio St. 3d 450 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1995

that the grant of immunity had not been disclosed to the defense. … The mitigating factors of R.C. 2929.04(B)(1), (2), (3), and (6) were not established.