Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety
Headline: Ohio Court Affirms Dismissal of Wrongful Termination and Defamation Claims Against University Police
Citation: 2025 Ohio 5648
Brief at a Glance
An Ohio appeals court ruled a former university police officer couldn't sue for wrongful termination or defamation, finding he didn't prove his firing was retaliation or that statements about him were false and malicious.
- To prove wrongful termination for reporting misconduct, you must show a direct causal link between your report and the firing.
- An employer can defend against wrongful termination claims by showing legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse action.
- Statements made by public entities about employees are often protected by qualified privilege.
Case Summary
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety, decided by Ohio Court of Appeals on December 18, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The plaintiff, a former University of Cincinnati police officer, sued the university and its Department of Public Safety for wrongful termination and defamation. The plaintiff alleged that the university terminated his employment in retaliation for reporting alleged misconduct by a supervisor and that the university made defamatory statements about him. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for wrongful termination under Ohio law and that the statements made by the university were protected by qualified privilege. The court held: The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for wrongful termination because he did not demonstrate a clear public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that was violated by his termination.. The court held that the university's statements regarding the plaintiff's termination were protected by a qualified privilege, as they were made in good faith and communicated to individuals with a legitimate interest in the information.. The court held that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the qualified privilege, as he failed to show that the statements were made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the wrongful termination claim.. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the defamation claim.. This case reinforces the high bar for establishing wrongful termination claims based on public policy exceptions in Ohio and clarifies the application of qualified privilege in defamation cases involving employer communications. Employees alleging retaliatory discharge or defamation must present substantial evidence of malice or a violation of a clearly defined public policy to succeed.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Court Syllabus
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
Imagine you're a police officer who believes your boss is doing something wrong, so you report it. If you then get fired, you might think it's because you spoke up. However, this case shows that just being fired after reporting misconduct isn't enough to prove your firing was illegal retaliation. You also need to show a strong link between your report and the firing, and that the employer's reasons for firing you weren't legitimate.
For Legal Practitioners
The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Crucially, the plaintiff did not demonstrate a clear causal link between his protected activity (reporting supervisor misconduct) and his termination, as the employer presented legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse action. Furthermore, statements made by the university were found protected by qualified privilege, underscoring the importance of establishing malice or bad faith to overcome such defenses in defamation claims.
For Law Students
This case tests the elements of a wrongful termination claim in Ohio, specifically the 'prima facie' burden on the plaintiff. It highlights the need to prove a direct causal connection between the protected activity (whistleblowing) and the adverse employment action. The ruling also reinforces the doctrine of qualified privilege in defamation cases, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate malice or abuse of privilege to succeed against statements made in an official capacity.
Newsroom Summary
A former university police officer's wrongful termination lawsuit against the University of Cincinnati has been rejected by an Ohio appeals court. The court ruled the officer didn't prove his firing was retaliation for reporting misconduct or that statements made about him were defamatory, impacting public employees who report internal issues.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for wrongful termination because he did not demonstrate a clear public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that was violated by his termination.
- The court held that the university's statements regarding the plaintiff's termination were protected by a qualified privilege, as they were made in good faith and communicated to individuals with a legitimate interest in the information.
- The court held that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the qualified privilege, as he failed to show that the statements were made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
- The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the wrongful termination claim.
- The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the defamation claim.
Key Takeaways
- To prove wrongful termination for reporting misconduct, you must show a direct causal link between your report and the firing.
- An employer can defend against wrongful termination claims by showing legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse action.
- Statements made by public entities about employees are often protected by qualified privilege.
- To overcome qualified privilege in a defamation case, you typically must prove the statements were made with malice or bad faith.
- Documenting all communications and actions is crucial for both employees and employers in employment disputes.
Deep Legal Analysis
Procedural Posture
The plaintiff, Arndts, filed a complaint against the University of Cincinnati Department of Public Safety seeking access to public records under the Ohio Public Records Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the University, finding that the requested records were exempt from disclosure. Arndts appealed this decision to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
Statutory References
| Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43 | Ohio Public Records Act — This statute governs the public's right to access government records in Ohio. The case hinges on whether the records requested by Arndts fall within the exemptions provided by this Act. |
Constitutional Issues
First Amendment (freedom of speech and access to information)
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"The Public Records Act is a remedial law and should be construed liberally in favor of the public."
"A public office must provide a copy of the public record in the medium requested if the public office keeps the record in that medium."
Remedies
Reversal of the trial court's grant of summary judgmentRemand for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- To prove wrongful termination for reporting misconduct, you must show a direct causal link between your report and the firing.
- An employer can defend against wrongful termination claims by showing legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse action.
- Statements made by public entities about employees are often protected by qualified privilege.
- To overcome qualified privilege in a defamation case, you typically must prove the statements were made with malice or bad faith.
- Documenting all communications and actions is crucial for both employees and employers in employment disputes.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You are a public employee who witnesses your supervisor engaging in unethical behavior and you report it through the proper channels. Shortly after, you are disciplined or fired, and you believe it's because you reported the misconduct.
Your Rights: You have the right to report misconduct without fear of illegal retaliation. However, this ruling suggests that simply reporting misconduct and then facing adverse action isn't automatically proof of illegal retaliation. You must also show a strong connection between your report and the action taken against you, and that the employer's stated reasons for the action are not legitimate.
What To Do: If you believe you've been retaliated against, gather all documentation related to your report, the adverse action, and any communications with your employer. Consult with an employment lawyer immediately to assess if you can meet the legal burden of proof for wrongful termination or retaliation claims in your jurisdiction.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for my employer to fire me if I report misconduct by my boss?
It depends. While it is illegal to fire an employee in retaliation for reporting certain types of misconduct (whistleblowing), simply reporting misconduct and then being fired is not enough to prove illegal retaliation. You generally need to show a clear link between your report and the firing, and that the employer's reasons for firing you are not legitimate.
This ruling is specific to Ohio law regarding wrongful termination and defamation, but the general principles of proving retaliation and defamation defenses are similar in many jurisdictions.
Practical Implications
For Public Employees (especially law enforcement)
Public employees who report misconduct by supervisors face a high bar to prove wrongful termination if they are subsequently fired. They must demonstrate a strong causal link between their report and the termination, and overcome any legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons the employer provides for the adverse action.
For Employers (especially public institutions)
This ruling reinforces the protection of qualified privilege for statements made by public institutions regarding employees, making defamation claims more difficult to win. Employers should ensure their internal investigation and disciplinary processes are well-documented and clearly based on legitimate business reasons, not potential retaliation.
Related Legal Concepts
An employment termination that is illegal, often for discriminatory reasons or i... Prima Facie Case
Enough evidence to prove a claim if no contradictory evidence is presented. Retaliation
Taking adverse action against someone because they engaged in a protected activi... Defamation
A false statement that harms someone's reputation. Qualified Privilege
A legal protection that shields individuals or entities from liability for certa... Whistleblowing
The act of reporting illegal or unethical activities within an organization.
Frequently Asked Questions (42)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (10)
Q: What is Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety about?
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety is a case decided by Ohio Court of Appeals on December 18, 2025.
Q: What court decided Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals, which is part of the OH state court system. This is a state appellate court.
Q: When was Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety decided?
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety was decided on December 18, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
The citation for Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety is 2025 Ohio 5648. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is the full case name and who were the parties involved in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
The full case name is Arndts v. University of Cincinnati Department of Public Safety. The parties involved were the plaintiff, a former University of Cincinnati police officer identified as Arndts, and the defendants, the University of Cincinnati and its Department of Public Safety.
Q: Which court decided the Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety case?
The case of Arndts v. University of Cincinnati Department of Public Safety was decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals (ohioctapp). This court reviewed a decision made by a lower trial court.
Q: When was the Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety decision issued?
The provided summary does not specify the exact date the Ohio Court of Appeals issued its decision in Arndts v. University of Cincinnati Department of Public Safety. However, it indicates that the court affirmed the trial court's decision.
Q: What was the primary nature of the dispute in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
The primary dispute in Arndts v. University of Cincinnati Department of Public Safety concerned a former University of Cincinnati police officer's claims against the university for wrongful termination and defamation. The officer alleged he was fired in retaliation for reporting supervisor misconduct and that the university made defamatory statements about him.
Q: What was the core allegation of wrongful termination made by the plaintiff in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
The plaintiff, Arndts, alleged that the University of Cincinnati wrongfully terminated his employment. Specifically, he claimed the termination was in retaliation for his act of reporting alleged misconduct by a supervisor within the Department of Public Safety.
Q: What was the plaintiff's claim regarding defamation in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
In Arndts v. University of Cincinnati Department of Public Safety, the plaintiff, Arndts, alleged that the University of Cincinnati made defamatory statements about him. These statements were made in connection with his termination from his position as a police officer.
Legal Analysis (15)
Q: Is Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety published?
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What topics does Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety cover?
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety covers the following legal topics: Wrongful termination in Ohio, Defamation claims against public institutions, Public policy exception to at-will employment, Qualified privilege in internal investigations, Elements of a defamation claim, Due process in employment termination.
Q: What was the ruling in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety. Key holdings: The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for wrongful termination because he did not demonstrate a clear public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that was violated by his termination.; The court held that the university's statements regarding the plaintiff's termination were protected by a qualified privilege, as they were made in good faith and communicated to individuals with a legitimate interest in the information.; The court held that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the qualified privilege, as he failed to show that the statements were made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.; The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the wrongful termination claim.; The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the defamation claim..
Q: Why is Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety important?
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety has an impact score of 20/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case reinforces the high bar for establishing wrongful termination claims based on public policy exceptions in Ohio and clarifies the application of qualified privilege in defamation cases involving employer communications. Employees alleging retaliatory discharge or defamation must present substantial evidence of malice or a violation of a clearly defined public policy to succeed.
Q: What precedent does Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety set?
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for wrongful termination because he did not demonstrate a clear public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that was violated by his termination. (2) The court held that the university's statements regarding the plaintiff's termination were protected by a qualified privilege, as they were made in good faith and communicated to individuals with a legitimate interest in the information. (3) The court held that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the qualified privilege, as he failed to show that the statements were made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth. (4) The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the wrongful termination claim. (5) The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the defamation claim.
Q: What are the key holdings in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
1. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for wrongful termination because he did not demonstrate a clear public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that was violated by his termination. 2. The court held that the university's statements regarding the plaintiff's termination were protected by a qualified privilege, as they were made in good faith and communicated to individuals with a legitimate interest in the information. 3. The court held that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to overcome the qualified privilege, as he failed to show that the statements were made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth. 4. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the wrongful termination claim. 5. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the defamation claim.
Q: What cases are related to Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
Precedent cases cited or related to Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety: Greeley v. Miami Valley Hosp., 49 Ohio St. 3d 229 (1990); Hahn v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 112 Ohio App. 3d 152 (1996).
Q: Did the Ohio Court of Appeals find that the plaintiff established a case for wrongful termination?
No, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the plaintiff, Arndts, failed to establish a prima facie case for wrongful termination under Ohio law. This means he did not present sufficient evidence to meet the initial legal requirements for such a claim.
Q: What legal standard did the court apply to the wrongful termination claim in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
The court applied the standard for establishing a prima facie case of wrongful termination under Ohio law. To succeed, the plaintiff needed to present evidence showing he engaged in a protected activity (reporting misconduct), that he was subsequently terminated, and that there was a causal link between the protected activity and the termination.
Q: What was the court's reasoning for rejecting the defamation claim?
The court rejected the defamation claim in Arndts v. University of Cincinnati Department of Public Safety because it found that the statements made by the university were protected by qualified privilege. This privilege shields certain statements made in good faith and without malice, particularly in employment contexts.
Q: What is 'qualified privilege' in the context of the defamation claim in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
Qualified privilege is a legal defense that protects certain communications from defamation claims, even if they are false, provided they are made in good faith and without malice. In this case, the court determined the university's statements about the former officer likely fell under this protection.
Q: What does it mean to fail to establish a 'prima facie case' for wrongful termination?
Failing to establish a prima facie case means the plaintiff did not present enough initial evidence to support their claim. For wrongful termination, this could mean not showing a clear link between reporting misconduct and being fired, or not demonstrating the termination itself was unlawful under Ohio statutes.
Q: Did the court consider the plaintiff's report of supervisor misconduct as a protected activity?
While the plaintiff alleged his report of supervisor misconduct was a protected activity, the court ultimately found he failed to establish a prima facie case for wrongful termination. This suggests that even if the activity was potentially protected, the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove the causal connection to his termination.
Q: What is the burden of proof for a wrongful termination claim in Ohio, as implied by this case?
The burden of proof for a wrongful termination claim in Ohio, as demonstrated by Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety, requires the plaintiff to first establish a prima facie case. This involves presenting evidence of a protected activity, the adverse employment action, and a causal link between the two.
Q: How does the concept of 'malice' relate to the qualified privilege defense in this case?
Malice, in the legal sense of ill will or intent to harm, is crucial for overcoming a qualified privilege defense. The court found the university's statements were protected, implying the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the university acted with malice when making those statements about him.
Practical Implications (6)
Q: How does Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety affect me?
This case reinforces the high bar for establishing wrongful termination claims based on public policy exceptions in Ohio and clarifies the application of qualified privilege in defamation cases involving employer communications. Employees alleging retaliatory discharge or defamation must present substantial evidence of malice or a violation of a clearly defined public policy to succeed. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What is the practical impact of the Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety decision on former employees seeking to sue for wrongful termination?
The practical impact is that former employees in Ohio must present strong initial evidence to support a wrongful termination claim, particularly a clear causal link between their protected action and the termination. Failing to meet the prima facie case standard, as Arndts did, means the case may be dismissed early.
Q: How does this ruling affect public universities in Ohio regarding employee terminations?
Public universities in Ohio, like the University of Cincinnati, may find some protection for statements made during termination processes due to qualified privilege. However, they must still ensure that terminations are not retaliatory and that proper procedures are followed to avoid wrongful termination claims.
Q: What should an employee do if they believe they were wrongfully terminated after reporting misconduct, based on this case?
Based on Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety, an employee should gather strong evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between reporting misconduct and their termination. Consulting with an attorney experienced in employment law in Ohio is crucial to properly assess the strength of their prima facie case.
Q: What are the implications for employers regarding internal investigations and employee communications after this ruling?
Employers should be mindful that while qualified privilege can protect statements, it's not absolute. Communications during investigations or terminations should be factual, made in good faith, and documented. Proving a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination is essential.
Q: Who is most affected by the outcome of Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
Former public employees in Ohio who believe they were wrongfully terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing or reporting misconduct are most directly affected. The ruling sets a higher bar for establishing the initial elements of such claims.
Historical Context (3)
Q: Does this case establish new legal precedent in Ohio for wrongful termination or defamation claims?
The case affirms existing legal standards for wrongful termination (prima facie case) and defamation (qualified privilege) in Ohio. It reinforces the importance of meeting these established burdens of proof for plaintiffs in such employment disputes.
Q: How does the doctrine of qualified privilege in defamation law apply in employment disputes like this one?
Qualified privilege is commonly applied in employment disputes to protect communications between employers and employees regarding job performance, conduct, or investigations. It presumes the statements were made without malice, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to prove otherwise.
Q: Are there historical parallels to cases where employees claimed retaliation for reporting misconduct?
Yes, there is a long history of 'whistleblower' protection laws and cases where employees have sued for retaliation after reporting illegal or unethical conduct. This case fits within that broader legal narrative, focusing on the specific requirements under Ohio law for proving such claims.
Procedural Questions (5)
Q: What was the docket number in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
The docket number for Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety is 25AP-355. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety be appealed?
Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.
Q: How did the case reach the Ohio Court of Appeals?
The case reached the Ohio Court of Appeals because the plaintiff, Arndts, appealed the trial court's decision. The trial court had likely ruled in favor of the University of Cincinnati, and Arndts sought review of that decision by the appellate court.
Q: What procedural ruling did the Ohio Court of Appeals make in Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety?
The primary procedural ruling was the affirmation of the trial court's decision. This means the appellate court agreed with the lower court's conclusion that the plaintiff failed to meet the necessary legal standards for his claims, effectively upholding the dismissal of the case.
Q: What does it mean for the court to 'affirm' the trial court's decision?
To 'affirm' means that the appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision and found no errors of law or fact that would warrant overturning it. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court in favor of the University of Cincinnati stands.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Greeley v. Miami Valley Hosp., 49 Ohio St. 3d 229 (1990)
- Hahn v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 112 Ohio App. 3d 152 (1996)
Case Details
| Case Name | Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety |
| Citation | 2025 Ohio 5648 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
| Date Filed | 2025-12-18 |
| Docket Number | 25AP-355 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 20 / 100 |
| Significance | This case reinforces the high bar for establishing wrongful termination claims based on public policy exceptions in Ohio and clarifies the application of qualified privilege in defamation cases involving employer communications. Employees alleging retaliatory discharge or defamation must present substantial evidence of malice or a violation of a clearly defined public policy to succeed. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Wrongful termination in Ohio, Public policy exception to at-will employment, Defamation law in Ohio, Qualified privilege in defamation, Malice in defamation claims, Retaliatory discharge |
| Jurisdiction | oh |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Safety was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Wrongful termination in Ohio or from the Ohio Court of Appeals:
-
State v. Goodson
Probable Cause Justifies Warrantless Vehicle Search for DrugsOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Sanchez
Statements to Police Deemed Voluntary, Conviction AffirmedOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Castaneda
Ohio Court Affirms Suppression of Evidence from Warrantless Vehicle SearchOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Mitchell
Court suppresses evidence from warrantless vehicle search due to lack of probable causeOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Thompson
Ohio Court Affirms Warrantless Vehicle Search Based on Probable CauseOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
State v. Gore
Warrantless vehicle search after traffic stop deemed unlawfulOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
Helton v. Kettering Medical Ctr.
Medical Malpractice Claim Fails Due to Insufficient Evidence of NegligenceOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
-
In re C.P.
Ohio Court Allows Reconsideration of No-Contact Order for Child VisitationOhio Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24