Court Rulings

Discovery trade secrets evidence hearing in camera cash receipts ledgers burden privilege R.C. 1333.61(A) App.R. 9(C). The trial court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on the record to determine whether the challenged discovery materials were privileged was reversible error.

State Human Resources Act, NCGS 126-1 et seq Title 25, Subchapters I and J of NC Administrative Code ALJ required findings of fact and conclusions of law just cause to terminate back pay for procedural violation.

Political subdivision immunity employee summary judgment R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) public duty duty traditional tort special relation wanton reckless perverse disregard known risk rape investigation known offender. Trial court's decision to grant summary judgment on the basis of immunity for employees of a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) was reversed only as to the investigating detective because, from the evidence in the record, reasonable minds could conclude that she acted in a reckless manner in conducting a rape investigation involving a known offender and acted with a perverse disregard of a known risk. As to the remaining employees, there was no evidence that they acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. Unless the Ohio Supreme Court determines otherwise, traditional tort concepts of "duty" will not be considered under the immunity analysis, which is to be conducted in conformance with the express legislative mandate in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b).

The arbitration agreement between Appellant and Appellees was not procedurally unconscionable. Because both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be established in order to prevent enforcement of an arbitration agreement, Appellant cannot prevail on this claim. However, Appellant is correct that a "loser pays" provision in the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because it is against public policy. This provision requires the losing party to pay the costs, including attorney fees, of the party who substantially prevails in arbitration. Although this provision is against public policy, it can be severed from the arbitration agreement. Thus, the arbitration agreement may still be enforced and the motion for stay would have been appropriately granted. Nonetheless, the trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, rather than granting the motion for a stay pending arbitration. Reversed and Remanded for entry of an order granting Appellees' motion for stay of the proceedings pending arbitration. (Froelich, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Prof.Cond.R. 3.7(a)(3)/disqualification of attorney jury instruction App.R. 9(B)/submission of transcript. It was not error for the trial court to order that appellant's counsel be disqualified where counsel was to be deposed and testify at trial. Appellant failed to provide a complete transcript on appeal and this court presumes regularity in the trial court's proceedings and issuance of its order.

In a consolidated administrative appeal of an employer's liability and contribution rate determination under Ohio unemployment compensation laws, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting an attorney for the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services ("ODJFS") to offer testimony describing exhibits which were supported by affidavits of ODJFS officials. The trial court did not commit reversible error in indicating that the employer failed to dispute factual findings where the trial court ultimately addressed that issue. Judgment affirmed.

Summary judgment statutory immunity R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) exceptions to immunity genuine issue of material fact Section 1983 claim private entity. The trial court properly denied police officer's motion for summary judgment on the state law claims, recognizing that a genuine issue of material fact precluded the application of statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). The timing, location, and circumstances surrounding (1) plaintiff's detention, (2) his handcuffing, and (3) the issuance of the citation raise a genuine issue of material of fact as to whether defendant-police officer was acting in bad faith or outside the scope of his employment. The trial court erroneously denied police officer and defendant-private entity's motion for summary judgment on the federal claims asserted under Section 1983 plaintiff failed to carry his burden in the proceedings below to demonstrate that a constitutional right was violated or that the right was clearly established. Plaintiff also failed to establish that the actions of defendant- private entity are attributable to the state to impose liability under Section 1983.