Skip to main content

State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ.

OhioAugust 9, 2000No. 1999-0394Cited 27 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Mandamus petition for writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of public records

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Mandamus petition seeking disclosure of Ohio State University records concerning acquisition of Park Medical Center was granted in part and denied in part, with the court balancing public records access against trade secret protections.

Excerpt

Public records—Trade secrets—Mandamus sought to compel Ohio State University to make available for inspection all records concerning or relating to university's acquisition of Park Medical Center, a private Columbus hospital—Writ granted in part and denied in part.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Someone requested access to Ohio State University's records related to its purchase of Park Medical Center, a private hospital in Columbus. The university refused to release all the documents, claiming some contained confidential business information (trade secrets). The person seeking the records went to court, asking a judge to force the university to hand over all the documents under Ohio's public records law. **What the Court Decided:** The court issued a mixed ruling. It ordered Ohio State University to release some of the requested records but allowed the university to keep other documents confidential. The judge had to balance two competing interests: the public's right to see government records versus protecting legitimate business secrets that could harm the university if disclosed. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case shows that public employees have some right to access their employer's records, but it's not unlimited. While government agencies like state universities must generally make their records public, they can still protect truly confidential business information. Workers seeking information about their public employer's operations may get partial access, but shouldn't expect to see everything, especially sensitive financial or strategic documents.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Abdullah
OHIOCTCLDec 2025

Civ.R. 56, hostile work environment, constructive discharge. Plaintiff failed to produce a genuine issue as to any material fact that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race or national origin, or that he was constructively discharged. The alleged hostile actions and commentary made by other employees were not racially based and did not materially disrupt plaintiff's work. As plaintiff's experiences amounted to no more than ordinary tribulations of the workplace, plaintiff's hostile work environment claims failed. For the same reasons, plaintiff failed to sustain his constructive discharge claim. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant pursuant to Civ.R. 56.

Defendant Win
Leach
Ohio Ct. App.Dec 2024

The Court of Claims did not err in granting Ohio State University's ("OSU") motion for summary judgment on the employment discrimination claim or in dismissing the breach of contract claim based on a collective bargaining agreement for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Defendant Win
Khatri
Unknown CourtJan 2024

Summary Judgment, Qualified Immunity, Civ.R. 56(C), 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), Civil Conspiracy, Wrongful Termination. Defendant established that tolling statues did not apply to Plaintiff's claims for civil conspiracy and wrongful termination in violation of public policy as the state of Ohio has consented to be sued in only one forum – the Court of Claims. Additionally, the Court held that the savings statute did not apply to Plaintiff's third attempt at filing the same claims. The remainder of Plaintiff's claims for conversion, intellectual theft, unjust enrichment, and lost opportunities were held to be untimely filed. Plaintiff's initial cause of action originated more than four years prior to the filing of this case. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Defendant Win
State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
OhioMay 2026
Defendant Win
State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
OhioNov 2024

Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.