Case law

Miller v. Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission

86 Ohio Misc. 2d 97 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jun 20, 1997

The fourth issue is whether Robert Rabe, William Casto, and Karen Whalen are entitled to personal immunity pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F) and 9.86. … Even if the court had found the communications to be defamatory, they would be protected by qualified privilege. According to McKenna v.

Sutton v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2026 Ohio 1182 · Ohio Court of Claims · Mar 25, 2026

“Evidence that establishes, at best, the publisher ‘should have known’ of the alleged falsity of the statement is insufficient to establish actual malice.” Id., quoting Varanese v. Gall, 35 Ohio St.3d 78, 82 (1988). … Accordingly, reasonable minds can only conclude that defendant is immune from liability on plaintiff’s claim of negligence pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(a). {¶32} Additionally, regardless of defendant’s immunity under

West-Kimmons v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr.

2013 Ohio 5931 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jul 18, 2013

Although plaintiff states in her brief that she is alleging disparate impact discrimination, the allegations clearly support a disparate treatment claim. {¶ 13} To establish a Title VII employment discrimination claim … Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of race discrimination by establishing that plaintiff: 1) was a member of a protected class; 2) suffered an adverse employment action; 3) was qualified

Waters v. Ohio State Univ.

2016 Ohio 5260 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jul 19, 2016

Qualified Privilege {¶28} After a plaintiff’s prima facie case for defamation is established, a defendant may invoke a defense of a qualified privilege, if available. Hahn v. … a qualified privilege.

Harvey v. Univ. of Cincinnati

2009 Ohio 7029 · Ohio Court of Claims · Nov 24, 2009

Naber’s position as an assistant professor at UC clearly qualifies as state employment.1 Thus, the issue before the court is whether Dr. … Naber was acting on behalf of the state at the time when the alleged negligence occurred and because the evidence establishes that Dr.

Alsup v. Univ. of Cincinnati

2012 Ohio 6325 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jul 31, 2012

Once a qualified privilege is shown, falsity and actual malice must be demonstrated with convincing clarity in order to recover. Burkes, at 373. … Thus, the court concluded that the doctor’s conduct was not manifestly outside the scope of his employment and that he was entitled to immunity. {¶ 20} The evidence establishes that Dean Lindell did not use the term

Al-Jahmi v. Ohio Athletic Comm.

2020 Ohio 3487 · Ohio Court of Claims · May 13, 2020

Plaintiff must establish recklessness. The court now turns to the motions for summary judgment. … The Court reasoned that, in its previous decisions, it had established that discretionary immunity applies to the decision “whether” to improve a highway as well as the decision as to “what type of improvement to make.”

Estate of Morgan v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

2010 Ohio 1531 · Ohio Court of Claims · Mar 22, 2010

Additionally, the records establish a traffic count of up to 1,900 vehicles per day on this stretch of SR 41. … The doctrine of discretionary immunity “has been applied to immunize the state from liability for discretionary decisions such as whether or not to install a traffic signal at an intersection, [and] what type of traffic signal

Johnson v. Catawba State Park

2010 Ohio 1951 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jan 8, 2010

. {¶ 4} Since this incident occurred at Catawba State Park, defendant qualifies as the owner of the “premises” under R.C. 1533.18, et seq. {¶ 5} “Premises” and “recreational user” are defined in R.C. 1533.18 … Plaintiff is clearly a recreational user, having paid no fee to enter the premises. Owing no duty to plaintiff, defendant clearly has no liability under a negligence theory. See Shockey v.

Tepker v. Hueston Woods State Park

2010 Ohio 5453 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jul 20, 2010

.  {¶ 3} Since this incident occurred at Hueston Woods State Park, defendant qualifies as the owner of the “premises” under R.C. 1533.18 et seq. {¶ 4} “Premises” and “recreational user” are defined in R.C. 1533.18 … Plaintiff is clearly a recreational user, having paid no fee to enter the premises. Owing no duty to plaintiff, defendant clearly has no liability under a negligence theory. See Shockey v.

Breidenbach v. Wright State Univ. Boonshoft School of Medicine

2012 Ohio 6330 · Ohio Court of Claims · Sep 10, 2012

JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶ 1} On August 22, 2012, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Michael Herbenick, M.D., is entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F) and 9.86. … Herbenick’s position as an assistant professor at WSU clearly qualifies as state employment. Thus, the issue before the court is whether Dr.

Estate of Morgan v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

2010 Ohio 1532 · Ohio Court of Claims · Mar 22, 2010

Additionally, the records establish a traffic count of up to 1,900 vehicles per day on this stretch of SR 41. … The doctrine of discretionary immunity “has been applied to immunize the state from liability for discretionary decisions such as whether or not to install a traffic signal at an intersection, [and] what type of traffic signal

Smalley v. Ohio Department of Transportation, District 1

142 Ohio Misc. 2d 27 · Ohio Court of Claims · Mar 15, 2007

Defendant produced evidence establishing that the actual loss plaintiff suffered when his two acres of crops failed was $512.94. … Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 10 , 548 N.E.2d 233 , in promoting the immunity defense.

Graham v. Like Milton State Park

2011 Ohio 3535 · Ohio Court of Claims · Apr 5, 2011

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 4} Since this incident occurred at Lake Milton State Park, defendant qualifies as the owner of the "premises" under R.C. 1533.18, et seq. {¶ 5} "Premises" and "recreational user" are defined … Plaintiff is clearly a recreational user, having paid no fee to enter the premises. Owing no duty to plaintiff, defendant clearly has no liability under a negligence theory. Loudermilk v.

Johnson v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing

2009 Ohio 7100 · Ohio Court of Claims · Dec 17, 2009

In short, the court finds that a qualified privilege attaches to the statements at issue. {¶ 34} Once established, a qualified privilege may be defeated only if a claimant proves with convincing clarity that a publisher … Thus, plaintiff has failed to establish malice.

Mohler v. Univ. of Toledo Athletic Dept.

2025 Ohio 518 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jan 31, 2025

“It is important to note that discretionary immunity is not absolute. … Plaintiff signed a Qualified Letter of Commitment.

Adamov v. State

46 Ohio Misc. 1 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jun 26, 1975

. _ ■ _ It is established that Carl Dwayne Harris was committed to O. Y. … That the waiver does not extend to political subdivisions is clearly stated in E. C. 2743.01(A)..

Lips v. Univ. of Cincinnati College of Medicine

2010 Ohio 3479 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jul 9, 2010

Lips subsequently conducted extensive research about the various treatment options available to him and the physicians who were qualified to perform such treatments. … Plaintiff concedes in her post-hearing brief that immunity should be granted for any negligence that occurred during the surgery and post-operative care. Indeed, the testimony at the hearing establishes that Dr.

Evans v. Supreme Court of Ohio

119 Ohio Misc. 2d 34 · Ohio Court of Claims · Jun 10, 2002

A determination of judicial immunity does not mandate a separate hearing, such as may be required in cases involving civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F) and 9.86; {¶ 3} 2. … Although the letter does not qualify as an affidavit or any type of evidence listed in Civ.R. 56(C), the parties have stipulated that it may be considered in ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment.

Saha v. Ohio State Univ.

2010 Ohio 5906 · Ohio Court of Claims · Nov 9, 2010

Upon review, the court finds that OSU does not have a clearly defined policy governing a re-review and that the testimony confirmed that a re-review rarely happens. … Plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of race discrimination either by direct evidence or by the indirect method established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.