Skip to main content

DeCrane v. Cleveland

OHIOCTCLAugust 29, 2018No. 2018-00356PQ
Mixed ResultCity of Cleveland

Case Details

Judge(s)
Clark
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Special Master recommendation in Ohio Court of Claims regarding public records requests under R.C. 149.43(B) and R.C. 2743.75

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court found the first two public records requests moot and upheld denial of the third request as improperly ambiguous and overly broad. The Special Master recommended that the City of Cleveland properly withheld certain drug-testing contractor correspondence.

Excerpt

Core Terms: public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43(B) moot ambiguous overly broad. Overview: Requester sought records of a division of fire employee, division drug-testing policy, and "all correspondence from the [division's] drug-testing contractor" for a two-month period. The City asserted that it had provided all records responsive to the first two requests, and that the third request was improperly ambiguous and overly broad. The Special Master recommended that the court find the first two requests were moot, and that the third claim was properly denied as both ambiguous and overly broad.

Similar Rulings

Cleveland v. State Emp. Relations Bd.
Ohio Ct. App.Sep 2025

State Employment Relations Board; SERB; abuse of discretion; collective bargaining; R.C. 4117.11(A)(5); R.C. 4117.08; effects; policy change; collective-bargaining agreement; CBA. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the State Employment Relations Board's ("SERB") order and opinion finding that the City of Cleveland committed an unfair labor practice in violation of R.C. 4117.11(A)(5) when it refused to bargain with the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association regarding the effects of a wearable-camera system, because the collective-bargaining agreement between the parties did not expressly and specifically state that the association was giving up the right to bargain the effects of the policy change.

Plaintiff Win
Kenneth Davidson v. Alonso Romo
C.D. Cal.Apr 2025
Defendant Win
Lampkin Sr. v. Silver Line Building Products, LLC
N.D. OhioMar 2025
Defendant Win
Gray Media Grp., Inc. v. Town of Matthews
N.C. Ct. App.Mar 2026

Public Records Act; Public Records Request; In Camera Inspection; Summary Judgment; City Employee Personnel Records; Confidential; N.C.G.S. 160A-168(c)(4); Independent Determination that the Interests of Justice Require; N.C.G.S. 160A-168(c1)(2)

Unresolvable
Brown-Austin
OHIOCTCLNov 2025

Public Records; R.C. 149.43(B)(1); R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v); Adm. Code 5120-9-31(H); A public records request is superseded by a subsequent request that modifies the original request; Grievance records are exempted from the class of public records by R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) and Adm. Code. 5120-9-31(H); Kites are not grievance records within the meaning of Adm. Code. 5120-9-31(H).

Unresolvable

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.