Court Rulings

In a slip-and-fall negligence action, the trial court did not err in granting the defendant-grocery store's motion for summary judgment where undisputed evidence showed the grocery store employees' actions in cleaning the area of a spill and warning customers of the spill with a caution sign fulfilled the duty of care the grocery store owed to its business invitees. Judgment affirmed.

APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL – CIV.R. 12(B)(6) – APPELLATE JURISDICTION – FINAL ORDER – EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE: Where plaintiff could not plead her claims any differently to state a claim for relief, the trial court's entry granting defendant's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted was a final, appealable order. Where plaintiff's complaint failed to allege that defendant, the employer of her deceased husband, had deliberately intended to cause injury or death to her husband, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Given the determination that the parties entered into an express contract, the trial court erred by awarding Plaintiff damages based on unjust enrichment. The trial court, however, did not err by denying Defendant's breach of contract, slander of title, and other counterclaims. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Trial court did not err in providing jury instruction requested by appellees, nor did court err in ruling on appellant's request to pursue a claim for retaliation in age discrimination action.

In this wrongful dismissal case, Sonya Brooks ("Brooks") sued her former employer Roane County and county officials Ron Woody and Gloria Wright ("Defendants"). In a March 9, 2017 order, the Circuit Court for Roane County ("the Trial Court") dismissed Brooks' lawsuit against Defendants with prejudice. The Trial Court reserved taxation of costs for a later date. Brooks filed a notice of appeal on January 10, 2018. Defendants argue that Brooks' appeal was filed untimely. Brooks contends that the March 9, 2017 order was not final and appealable because it reserved the issue of costs. We hold that, in keeping with longstanding Tennessee case law, taxation of costs is incidental and not a factor in determining whether a judgment is final. As Brooks' notice of appeal was not filed timely, we are constrained to dismiss her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellate court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the trial court's decision denying appellant's motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as an order denying a motion to dismiss is not a final appealable order. Furthermore, as appellants did not file a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration as contemplated by R.C. 2711.02(B) but, rather, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint due to an arbitration provision, the trial court's determination that appellants waived their right to arbitration was not a final appealable order.

discrimination, disability, employment, admission of evidence, manifest weight, failure to object, plain error, jury instructions

Appeal from decision confirming an arbitrator's award and denying a motion to vacate the award. Trial court did not err in finding the grievance was arbitrable and upholding arbitrator's decision to reduce discipline and reinstate the grievants.

App.R. 3(D) notice of appeal affidavit strike evidence summary judgment trade secret misappropriation breach of contract tortious interference business relationship improper invoice written admission counterclaim deposition testimony admissible untimely Civ.R. 56. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the untimely affidavit attached to the appellants' brief in opposition to summary judgment. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in striking exhibits that were not incorporated in a properly framed affidavit. The trial court erred as a matter of law in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. Defendants did not come forward with admissible evidence suggesting that there is a genuine issue for trial.

Motion to compel arbitration Existence and scope of arbitration agreement Construction of contract language.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant's objections to the magistrate's decision and adopting the magistrate's decision as its own where the record contained some evidence to support the magistrate's determination of appellant's gross income for purposes of child support, the allocation of the child dependency tax exemption, and parenting time. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment where the evidence in support of the motion established as a matter of law that appellant was an independent contractor of appellee, not an employee. Nor did the trial court err by granting summary judgment as to appellant's claim for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and invasion of privacy where the evidence failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to the essential elements of those claims. Finally, the trial court did not err when it determined that the parties' fully integrated written agreement barred appellant's claim of unjust enrichment and that the release executed by appellant barred appellant's claims for fraud. Judgment affirmed.

This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal by the defendant, the Rhode Island Troopers Association, from a judgment granting declaratory and equitable relief in favor of the plaintiff, the State of Rhode Island. The Superior Court declared that the Governmental Tort Liability Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 31 of title 9, vests the Attorney General with the nondelegable, nontransferable legal duty to determine whether the state should provide a defense and indemnification in a civil action brought against a state employee. The Superior Court also permanently enjoined arbitration of issues related to the Attorney General's decision to decline to provide a defense and indemnification for Rhode Island State Trooper James Donnelly-Taylor in a pending federal civil rights action brought against him in his individual capacity. After narrowing the issues on appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the trial justice's decision to permanently enjoin the arbitration proceedings, because the issues raised in this case are not arbitrable within the collective bargaining process. The Supreme Court also held that the Governmental Tort Liability Act vests the Attorney General with the authority to determine whether a state employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment and is therefore entitled to representation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed six of the eight declarations and vacated the two remaining declarations in the judgment of the Superior Court.

tortious interference with a business relationship, at-will employees, privileged conduct, misappropriation of trade secrets, civil conspiracy, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, directed verdict, sufficiency of the evidence, exclusion of evidence, abuse of discretion, duplicative damages, punitive damages, manifest weight of the evidence, Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act, R.C. 1333.63

TRADE SECRETS – MISAPPROPRIATION: A company's client list and financial data are trade secrets where the client list and financial data derive independent value from not being generally known, and where the company has made efforts to maintain their secrecy. The unauthorized sharing of a company's trade secrets with an accountant, even for the purposes of due diligence for an investment in the company, and the disapproved retention of trade secrets, even for the purposes of preparing for litigation, are misappropriations under Ohio's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. A claim for misappropriation of trade secrets does not require proof of damages.

Breach of Contract,Mitigation,Settlement Offer,Accord and Satisfaction. U.S. Welding, Inc. (Welding) sought review of the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming the district court's order awarding it no damages whatsoever for breach of contract with Advanced Circuits, Inc. (Advanced). Notwithstanding its determination following a bench trial that Advanced breached its contract to purchase from Welding all its nitrogen requirements during a one-year term, the district court reasoned that by declining Advanced's request for an estimate of lost profits expected to result from Advanced's breach before the contract term expired, Welding failed to mitigate. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment concerning the failure to mitigate and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that the district court erred by requiring Welding to settle for a projection of anticipated lost profits, rather than its actual loss, as measured by the amount of nitrogen Advanced actually purchased from another vendor over the contract term, because an aggrieved party is not obligated to mitigate damages from a breach by giving up its rights under the contract.

The plaintiff, Prospect CharterCARE, LLC (PCC), appealed from an order of the Superior Court denying its motion to vacate an arbitration award and confirming the award in favor of the defendant, Michael E. Conklin, Jr. On appeal, PCC contended that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by: (1) relying on a "concededly erroneous" factual assumption and thereby manifestly disregarding the applicable law (2) manifestly disregarding the clear and unambiguous contractual language that should have precluded any award in favor of the defendant and (3) ordering PCC to pay the defendant extended severance benefits when the defendant failed to prove that PCC had assumed liability for the employment contracts entered into between the defendant and his previous employer—PCC's predecessor entity. The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator neither manifestly disregarded the law nor manifestly disregarded a contractual provision, because the arbitrator's award drew its essence from the parties' agreement and was sufficiently grounded in the contract to be within the scope of his authority as an arbitrator. Additionally, the Supreme Court concluded that PCC had waived its argument with respect to assumption of liability under the employment contract. For these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed the order and the judgment of the Superior Court.

Core Terms: public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43 R.C. 149.011(A) public office functional equivalent person responsible foundation trade secret. Overview: Requester sought a speaker contract entered into by Tri-C Foundation, a non-profit entity incorporated to solicit and receive contributions for a community college. Respondent argued that the foundation was not the functional equivalent of a public office. The special master recommended that the court find the foundation was both the functional equivalent of a public office, and a "person responsible for public records." The special master further recommended that the court find no part of the contract constituted trade secret, and that the court should grant requester's claim for disclosure.