civil conspiracy claim in Ohio

2024(Citations omitted). {¶19} “A civil conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maintained absent an underlying tort that is actionable without the conspiracy.” Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 , 2009-Ohio-2665 , 915 N.E.2d 696, ¶40 (10th Dist.2009). {¶20} Appellant appears to argue that Appellees conspired to commit a fraud upon him by making allegedly false representations to Appellant’s mother, Nancy Lower.

2024(Citations omitted). {¶19} “A civil conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maintained absent an underlying tort that is actionable without the conspiracy.” Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 , 2009-Ohio-2665 , 915 N.E.2d 696, ¶40 (10th Dist.2009). {¶20} Appellant appears to argue that Appellees conspired to commit a fraud upon him by making allegedly false representations to Appellant’s mother, Nancy Lower.

2024Co., 83 Ohio St.3d 464, 475 (1998). “ ‘A civil conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maintained absent an underlying tort that is actionable without the conspiracy.’ ” Id. at ¶ 21, quoting Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 , 2009-Ohio-2665 , ¶ 40 (10th Dist.); Walter v. ADT Security Sys., Inc., 10th Dist.

2024Co., 83 Ohio St. 3d 464, 475 , 1998- Ohio-294, 700 N.E.2d 859 . “ ‘A civil conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maintained absent an underlying tort that is actionable without the conspiracy.’ ” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger C L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 , 2009-Ohio-2665 , 915 N.E.2d 696, ¶ 40 (10th Dist.). {¶74} Colley alleges that two torts underlie her conspiracy claim: murder and misuse of police power.

2021“An underlying unlawful act or tort is required before a party can prevail on a civil conspiracy claim.” Rachlow at *3 , citing Gosden v. Louis, 116 Ohio App.3d 195, 219 , 687 N.E.2d 481 (9th Dist.1996). {¶ 44} “In a conspiracy, the acts of coconspirators are attributable to each other.” Williams at 476, citing Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5 Ed.1984) 323, Section 46 (“All those who, in pursuance of a common plan or design to commit a tortious act, actively take part in it, or further it by cooperation or request, or who lend aid or encouragement to the wrongdoer, or ratify and adopt the wrongdoe

2021“An underlying unlawful act or tort is required before a party can prevail on a civil conspiracy claim.” Rachlow at *3 , citing Gosden v. Louis, 116 Ohio App.3d 195, 219 , 687 N.E.2d 481 (9th Dist.1996). {¶ 44} “In a conspiracy, the acts of coconspirators are attributable to each other.” Williams at 476, citing Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5 Ed.1984) 323, Section 46 (“All those who, in pursuance of a common plan or design to commit a tortious act, actively take part in it, or further it by cooperation or request, or who lend aid or encouragement to the wrongdoer, or ratify and adopt the wrongdoe

2025Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in making its determination on this claim where the evidence of conversion established the necessary predicate act for conspiracy. {¶67} “‘Conspiracy has been defined as a malicious combination of two or more persons to injure another in person or property, in a way not competent for one alone, resulting in actual damages.’” S&T Bank, Inc. v. Advance Merchant Servs., LLC, 2024-Ohio-4757, ¶ 58 (1st Dist.), quoting Lefort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 126 (1987). {¶68} “A civil conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maint

2014Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415, 419 , 650 N.E.2d 863 (1995), quoting LeFort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 126 , 512 N.E.2d 640 (1987). {¶24} In order to prevail on a civil conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of an underlying unlawful act.

2020Conspiracy Claim “To establish a civil conspiracy claim, the plaintiff must prove: ‘(1) a malicious combination of two or more persons, (2) causing injury to another person or property, and (3) the existence of an unlawful act independent from the conspiracy itself.’” Bentkowski v. Trafis, 2015-Ohio-5139 , 56 N.E.3d 230 , ¶ 50 (8th Dist.), quoting Kelley v. Buckley, 193 Ohio App.3d 11 , 2011-Ohio-1362 , 950 N.E.2d 997, ¶ 70 (8th Dist.), citing Williams v. Aetna Fin.

2020Conspiracy Claim “To establish a civil conspiracy claim, the plaintiff must prove: ‘(1) a malicious combination of two or more persons, (2) causing injury to another person or property, and (3) the existence of an unlawful act independent from the conspiracy itself.’” Bentkowski v. Trafis, 2015-Ohio-5139 , 56 N.E.3d 230 , ¶ 50 (8th Dist.), quoting Kelley v. Buckley, 193 Ohio App.3d 11 , 2011-Ohio-1362 , 950 N.E.2d 997, ¶ 70 (8th Dist.), citing Williams v. Aetna Fin.

2023Improvement Dist., 145 Ohio App.3d 155, 165 , 762 N.E.2d 388 (6th Dist.2001), citing Williams v. Aetna Fin.

2019Improvement Dist., 145 Ohio App.3d 155, 165 (6th Dist.2001). {¶31} Mr. Hall moved for summary judgment on the civil conspiracy claim on two separate bases.

2026“A civil-conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maintained absent an underlying tort that is actionable without the conspiracy.” Id. {¶61} “In a conspiracy, the acts of coconspirators are attributable to each other.” Meehan, at ¶ 47, citing Williams v. Aetna Fin.

2025Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in making its determination on this claim where the evidence of conversion established the necessary predicate act for conspiracy. {¶67} “‘Conspiracy has been defined as a malicious combination of two or more persons to injure another in person or property, in a way not competent for one alone, resulting in actual damages.’” S&T Bank, Inc. v. Advance Merchant Servs., LLC, 2024-Ohio-4757, ¶ 58 (1st Dist.), quoting Lefort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 126 (1987). {¶68} “A civil conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maint

2024They demonstrate that an “[e]xpress agreement is not necessary, and all that is required is that there should be common design or understanding, even though it be a tacit one.” (Citation omitted.) Pumphrey, 102 Ohio App. at 177-178 (9th Dist.).

2007Id. {¶ 20} The element of a "malicious combination to injure" does not necessarily require a plaintiff "to prove an express agreement among the parties, or that the parties met at any time and entered into any explicit or formal agreement, either written or oral." Pumphrey v. Quillen (1955), 102 Ohio App. 173 , 177-178 , 141 N.E.2d 675 , affirmed (1956), 165 Ohio St. 343 , 135 N.E.2d 328 .

2024A civil conspiracy claim “‘“is derivative and cannot be maintained absent an underlying tort that is actionable without the conspiracy.”’” O’Brien v. Ashley, 2021-Ohio-4064, ¶ 17 (10th Dist.), quoting Adams v. Margarum, 2017-Ohio-2741, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), quoting Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., LPA, 2009-Ohio-2665 , ¶ 40 (10th Dist.). {¶58} The Court finds that the evidence presented at trial establishes that, by a preponderance of the evidence, mice used in Dr. Kaspar’s research when Dr. Kaspar was affiliated with Nationwide Children’s Hospital were obtained from The Jackson Laboratory—not

2021No. 16AP-515, 2017-Ohio-2741, ¶ 21 , quoting Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., LPA, 183 Ohio App.3d 40, 60 , 2009-Ohio-2665 , ¶ 40 (10th Dist.).

2024Hocking No. 11CA31, 2013- Ohio-597, ¶ 14, quoting Cook v. Kudlacz, 2012-Ohio-2999 , 974 N.E.2d 706 , ¶ 90 Scioto App. No. 22CA3997 22 (7th Dist.), quoting State ex rel.

2013“The elements of a civil conspiracy claim are: ‘(1) a malicious combination, (2) involving two or more persons, (3) causing injury to person or property, and (4) the existence of an unlawful act independent from the conspiracy itself.’” Cook v. Kudlacz, 974 N.E.2d 706 , 2012-Ohio-2999, ¶ 90 (7th Dist.), quoting State ex rel.

2015See also Orbit Electronics, Inc. v. Helm Instrument Co., Inc., 167 Ohio App.3d 301 , 2006-Ohio-2317, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.); Gosden v. Louis, 116 Ohio App.3d 195, 220 (9th Dist.1996). {¶ 48} Count 3 of the complaint, identified as "Intentional Tort—Collusion/Bid Rigging," alleges that Smith-Hoke and Croley maliciously combined their tortious conduct as set forth in the complaint in order to deprive appellant of his opportunity to purchase Ricera.

2015See also Orbit Electronics, Inc. v. Helm Instrument Co., Inc., 167 Ohio App.3d 301 , 2006-Ohio-2317, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.); Gosden v. Louis, 116 Ohio App.3d 195, 220 (9th Dist.1996). {¶ 48} Count 3 of the complaint, identified as "Intentional Tort—Collusion/Bid Rigging," alleges that Smith-Hoke and Croley maliciously combined their tortious conduct as set forth in the complaint in order to deprive appellant of his opportunity to purchase Ricera.

2007See Gosden v. Louis (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 195 , 219-220 , 687 N.E.2d 481 , 496-497." Dickerson Internationale, Inc. v. Klockner (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 371 , 380 , 743 N.E.2d 984 . {¶ 83} Since there is no other viable claim in Appellants' complaint, the civil conspiracy count was also properly dismissed.

2007See Gosden v. Louis (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 195 , 219-220 , 687 N.E.2d 481 , 496-497." Dickerson Internationale, Inc. v. Klockner (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 371 , 380 , 743 N.E.2d 984 . {¶ 83} Since there is no other viable claim in Appellants' complaint, the civil conspiracy count was also properly dismissed.

2025(Emphasis added.) {¶19} In construing App.R. 16(A)(7), this Court has consistency held that “[w]here an appellant fails to develop an argument in support of his assignment of error, this Court will not create one for him” and that “‘if an argument exists that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this [C]ourt’s duty to root it out.’” State v. Franks, 2017-Ohio-7045, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.), quoting Cardone v. Cardone, 1998 WL 224934 , *8 (9th Dist.

2025See Figgie v. Figgie, 2025-Ohio-451, ¶ 39 (8th Dist.), citing Arnoff v. PAJ Ents., L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-1759, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.) (A civil- conspiracy claim is derivative in nature, meaning it cannot be maintained without the existence of an underlying tort that would be actionable in the absence of conspiracy allegations.).

2025See Figgie v. Figgie, 2025-Ohio-451, ¶ 39 (8th Dist.), citing Arnoff v. PAJ Ents., L.L.C., 2022-Ohio-1759, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.) (A civil- conspiracy claim is derivative in nature, meaning it cannot be maintained without the existence of an underlying tort that would be actionable in the absence of conspiracy allegations.).

2025Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in making its determination on this claim where the evidence of conversion established the necessary predicate act for conspiracy. {¶67} “‘Conspiracy has been defined as a malicious combination of two or more persons to injure another in person or property, in a way not competent for one alone, resulting in actual damages.’” S&T Bank, Inc. v. Advance Merchant Servs., LLC, 2024-Ohio-4757, ¶ 58 (1st Dist.), quoting Lefort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 126 (1987). {¶68} “A civil conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maint

2025Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in making its determination on this claim where the evidence of conversion established the necessary predicate act for conspiracy. {¶67} “‘Conspiracy has been defined as a malicious combination of two or more persons to injure another in person or property, in a way not competent for one alone, resulting in actual damages.’” S&T Bank, Inc. v. Advance Merchant Servs., LLC, 2024-Ohio-4757, ¶ 58 (1st Dist.), quoting Lefort v. Century 21-Maitland Realty Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 121, 126 (1987). {¶68} “A civil conspiracy claim is derivative and cannot be maint

2025See generally S&T Bank, 2024-Ohio-4757, at ¶ 69 (1st Dist.), quoting Meehan v. Mardis, 2019-Ohio-4075, ¶ 47 (1st Dist.) (“All those who, in pursuance of a common plan or design commit a tortious act, actively take part in it, or further it by cooperation or request, or who lend aid or encouragement to the wrongdoer, or ratify and adopt the wrongdoer’s act done for their benefit, are equally liable.”).

2024A civil conspiracy claim “‘“is derivative and cannot be maintained absent an underlying tort that is actionable without the conspiracy.”’” O’Brien v. Ashley, 2021-Ohio-4064, ¶ 17 (10th Dist.), quoting Adams v. Margarum, 2017-Ohio-2741, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), quoting Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., LPA, 2009-Ohio-2665 , ¶ 40 (10th Dist.). {¶58} The Court finds that the evidence presented at trial establishes that, by a preponderance of the evidence, mice used in Dr. Kaspar’s research when Dr. Kaspar was affiliated with Nationwide Children’s Hospital were obtained from The Jackson Laboratory—not

2024No. 06AP-115, 2007-Ohio-3324, ¶ 36 (“[a] civil action for civil conspiracy requires a viable claim distinct from the conspiracy in order for the conspiracy claim to survive”).

2022See Macken, 2007-Ohio-4106, at ¶ 24 .