Walker v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trs., 2010 Ohio 373 (10th Dist. Ct. of App.)

Ms. Walker filed an action under R.C. 149.351 asking that Ohio State University be fined for wrongfully destroying completed questionnaires that were collected as part of a University professor’s research study. On appeal, the 10th District affirmed the trial court’s decision that the questionnaires were “intellectual property records” as defined in R.C. 149.43(A)(5), and thus were excepted from the disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act. Because Ms. Walker never had a legal right to the records, she was not “aggrieved” by their destruction, and therefore was not eligible to bring a civil forfeiture action under R.C. 149.351. 

The Ohio Supreme Court declined Ms. Walker’s appeal of the 10th District Court of Appeals’ decision.

State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators' Labor Council v. City of Cleveland, 2010 Ohio 2108 (8th Dist. Ct. of App.)

The Court of Appeals found a violation of R.C. 149.43(B)((1) and awarded attorney fees to the requester, because the amount of time taken to fulfill the records request was not “reasonable,” especially because the public office did not communicate with the requester about the status of the request in the interim. The Court also found that although the public office’s denial of a portion of the request as overly broad/ambiguous was justified, the denial should have been made earlier. 

State ex rel. Striker v. Smith, 2010 Ohio 457 (5th Dist. Ct. of App.)

In the circumstances of this case, 13 business days was a “reasonable” period of time for a clerk of courts to provide responsive records to a records request for certain court documents. However, because the public records policy poster required by R.C. 149.43(E)(2) was posted only on the city’s mail bulletin board, and not in the office of the clerk of courts, the court ordered the clerk to immediately post the public records policy poster in the office of the clerk of courts. 

Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Villanueva, 2010 Ohio 444 (8th Dist. Ct. of App.)

The Court of Appeals found that newly enacted Rules of Superintendence (Sup. R. 45 through 47) controlled the legal rights and duties of the parties, not R.C. 149.43, and dismissed the requester’s mandamus action against respondent common pleas court judge.

State ex rel. Bardwell v. City of Lyndhurst, 2010 Ohio 525 (8th Dist. Ct. of App.)

A requester hand delivered a written records request to an official of the respondent public office. However, after being asked his motive and name, to which he did not answer, he voluntarily left and took the public records request with him. Later, when he filed a mandamus claim based upon his initial request, the court found that the request was withdrawn and therefore his mandamus action based on that request should be dismissed. 

State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga County Jury Comm'r, 2010 Ohio 120 (Ohio S.C.)

An inmate requester was not entitled to his requested records because he did not comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8), which requires a prior finding by the sentencing judge or the judge’s successor that the requested information is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim.