Court Rulings

Mandamus, enforcement of judgment, plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, motion for contempt, appeal. The relators, through a complaint for a writ of mandamus, seek to enforce a monetary judgment. The relators have failed to establish that they possess a clear legal right to the immediate enforcement of a monetary judgment. In addition, the relators possess or possessed an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law through a motion for contempt. Finally, the monetary judgment in question is currently the subject of a pending appeal.

Career State employee After-acquired-evidence doctrine (McKennon rule) Procedural due process requirements.

workers compensation disability and suitability of substitute employment makework

Civ.R. 56 negligence vicarious liability agency relationship independent contractor inmate. Plaintiff, an inmate under the custody and control of the defendant, filed an action asserting that defendant was liable for the actions of CoreCivic America Corporation (CoreCivic) and Diamond Pharmacy Services one or both of which were allegedly negligent in the distribution of Plaintiff's prescription medication at Northeastern Ohio Correctional Center. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, to which Plaintiff did not reply, asserting that Defendant cannot be liable for any alleged negligence of CoreCivic or Diamond Pharmacy Services because they are independent contractors rather than agents of Defendant. After reviewing the Plaintiff's complaint with relevant attachments and the Defendant's motion and attached affidavit, the Court found that there is no dispute that CoreCivic is an independent contractor and not an agent of Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant cannot be held liable for the negligence of independent contractors and the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

This appeal arises from an action for trespass, injunctive relief, and to quiet title pursuant to a theory of common law adverse possession. The multiple parties are adjoining neighbors and/or affiliated businesses. The centerpiece of this litigation concerns the ownership of a strip of railroad property that is 66 feet wide and comprises 2.9 acres. The railroad removed the track and abandoned the property in 1977, after which all that remained was a berm on which the former track lay. After the track was removed, one of the neighboring owners erected a fence along the center of the entire length of the railroad property. Since that time, the neighboring property owners considered the fence to be the new property line and used the 33 feet of the property on their side of the fence as their respective property. However, the neighboring property owners never paid taxes on the abandoned railroad property. In 2015, one of the three defendants acquired the abandoned property by quitclaim deed from the railroad and removed the fence and leveled the berm in order to install a road to serve a residential development planned for an adjacent 42-acre tract. Thereafter, the owners of two separate adjoining properties filed suit against the three affiliated defendants seeking an injunction and to recover damages caused by flood water that had been diverted onto the plaintiffs' property due to the removal of the berm. The plaintiffs also asserted claims for trespass and to quiet title to the 33 feet of the former railroad property that adjoined their property. The defendants filed counterclaims alleging that the temporary injunction halted development of the road and caused them to suffer damages. Following a bench trial, the court ruled that the plaintiffs acquired half of the abandoned railroad property through adverse possession. The court also awarded damages against the defendants for removing the fence the plaintiffs used to contain their cattle and for flood damage that re

Career State employee After-acquired-evidence doctrine (McKennon rule) Procedural due process requirements.

workers compensation disability and suitability of substitute employment makework

The plaintiff in error, A, who was the attorney for the defendant, H, filed a writ of error, challenging the imposition of sanctions and the award of attorney's fees against him by the trial court. In the underlying personal injury action, the defendant in error, K, by and through his mother and next friend, sought to recover damages from H for, inter alia, negligence in connection with personal injuries sustained by K when K, who was riding his bicycle, and a motor vehicle operated by H collided. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that H was operating his vehicle while typing, sending, and/or reading text messages from his cell phone. During the discovery phase, H testified at his deposition that, minutes before the collision, he had sent a text message on a cell phone. H stated that the cell phone was a company work phone and that the account was in the name of his employer, H Co. Subsequently, the law firm represent- ing K filed a motion to compel production of the relevant cell phone records from the date of the collision, which the trial court granted. A did not provide the requested cell phone records, and K's attorney, R, filed motions for sanctions for A's alleged violation of the court's order. In response to R's motions, A claimed that he had fully complied with the court's order to the best of his abilities because A's client, H, did not own the cell phone records requested by R, and that it would have been illegal and unethical for him to provide R with records that H did not own. Prior to the hearing on R's second motion for sanctions, R obtained the relevant cell phone records from an attorney representing H Co., but the court, nevertheless, granted R's second motion for sanctions against A. Thereafter, R filed a request for attorney's fees, which the trial court granted in part. Subsequently, A filed a writ of error in our Supreme Court, which transferred the matter to this court. Held: 1. K could not prevail on his claim that this court lacked subjec