Court Rulings

Public records—Mandamus to compel Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to provide relator access to commercial hazardous-waste landfill company's complete, unredacted internal, informal record that provides a comprehensive list of the company's current solid and hazardous-waste customers and their specific relation to the company's treatment of waste—Trade secrets—Writ and request for attorney fees denied.

<p>Appeal, No. 193, Jan. T., 1892, by defendants, M. F. Keiter et al., from decree of C. P. Franklin Co., Dec. T., 1889, Ko. 1, on bill in equity, in favor of plaintiffs, H. A. Solilicbter, Presiding Elder of the Cbambersburg District of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ; Theophilus Wagner, Preacher in Charge and Superintendent of the Sunday School; Henry Strealy, Class Leader, and J. F. Fisher, J. N. Sheeley, J. F. Wilt, C. R. Hoover, Simon Burns, E. Bovey and J. Hellane, Trustees of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ at Greencastle, Pa.</p> <p>Bill in equity to restrain defendants from any interference with the services or church property of “ The United Brethren in Christ,” at Greencastle, Pa.</p> <p>The bill alleged that H. A. Schlichter was the presiding elder of the Chambersburg district of the Church of the United BretU ren in Christ, of which district the Greencastle circuit forms a part; that Theophilus Wagner was the preacher in charge of said church at Greencastle, duly and regularly assigned, and the duty appointed superintendent of the Sunday school; that Henry Strealy was the duty and legally elected class leader of said church, and the said J. F. Fisher, J. N. Sheeley, J. F. Wilt, C. R. Hoover, Simon Burns, E. Bovey and J. Hellane the trustees of said church.</p> <p>It then set forth the action of the general conference of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ held in 1885, looking to an amendment of the constitution and a revision of the confession of faith of the church; the action of the general conference of 1889 and of the board of bishops in relation to the amended constitution and revised confession.</p> <p>That after proclamation had been made by a majority of the board of bishops declaring said amended constitution and revised confession of faith to be the constitution and confession of faith of the church, a minority of the bishops and delegates to said conference withdrew therefrom and proceeded to organize another

Torts—Employment law—Invasion of privacy—When an at-will employee consents, without objection, to the collection of the employee's urine sample under the direct-observation method, the at-will employee has no cause of action for invasion of privacy—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and common pleas court's judgment reinstated.

This is a post-divorce child custody action involving two children, who were sixteen and seventeen years of age at the time of the most recent trial. The parties were divorced by order of the Sullivan County Law Court ("divorce court") in July 2001. Concomitant with the divorce decree, the divorce court entered a permanent parenting plan designating the father as the primary residential parent. Although the permanent parenting plan was modified in 2003 and 2007, the divorce court had most recently modified the permanent parenting plan in February 2009 ("2009 PPP") upon the parties' stipulation that a material change in circumstance had occurred. The divorce court maintained the father's designation as the primary residential parent and awarded to the father 268 days of annual residential co-parenting time as compared to Mother's 97 days. At some point following entry of the 2009 PPP, the mother relocated to Texas, and the father and the children relocated to Washington County, Tennessee. Upon the mother's request, the case was transferred to the Washington County Circuit Court ("trial court") in April 2014. On March 20, 2015, the mother filed a motion in the trial court to modify custody and child support, as well as a motion for civil and criminal contempt against the father, alleging various violations of the 2009 PPP. Following a hearing regarding the contempt allegations, the trial court entered an order on June 30, 2015, finding the father in "technical contempt" and directing him to pay an expert witness fee as a sanction. Following participation in mediation, the parties announced an agreement, which the trial court ratified in a permanent parenting plan order entered on June 30, 2015 ("2015 PPP"). The 2015 PPP maintained the father's designation as the primary residential parent and provided the mother with 85 days of residential co-parenting time, a great part of which was to be exercised at her residence in Texas. On October 2, 2015, the mother filed an "e