Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Howard Johnson Co.green2 sentences2026In Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 29 (1993), the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the elements of a spoliation of evidence claim: “(1) pending or probable litigation involving the plaintiff, (2) knowledge on the part of defendant that litigation exists or is probable, (3) willful destruction of evidence by defendant designed to disrupt the plaintiff’s case, (4) disruption of the plaintiff’s case, and (5) damages proximately caused by the defendant’s acts . . . .” Upon review of Buyers’ amended complaint, we find that Buyers alleged the following regarding spoliation of evidence: As 2024No. 17AP-671, 2019-Ohio-3901 , ¶ 99, citing Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 28 , 29 (1993). {¶ 20} According to appellants, the act in question is the Division’s “inability to compel MTBC to comply with” the Division’s subpoena. | 2 | 5 |
Crissinger v. Christ Hosp.green2 sentences2021See App.R. 12. 19 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Spoliation-of-Evidence Claims {¶32} This court has found that a spoliation-of-evidence claim does not arise out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a plaintiff and is therefore not a “medical claim.” Crissinger, 2017-Ohio-9256 , 106 N.E.3d 798, at ¶ 20 . 2021See App.R. 12. 19 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Spoliation-of-Evidence Claims {¶32} This court has found that a spoliation-of-evidence claim does not arise out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a plaintiff and is therefore not a “medical claim.” Crissinger, 2017-Ohio-9256 , 106 N.E.3d 798, at ¶ 20 . | 2 | 2 |
Owens v. Bridgestonegreen2 sentences2025They argue if deed grantees wish to be entitled to seek future deed interpretation by a court (or even to legally protest the taking of the property), they should insert language into any release of claims in order to except such future conduct by the grantors or their successors or assigns from the ban on future actions. {¶36} Appellants cite a case finding a “broadly worded” release clearly and unambiguously included “any and all other claims” between the parties “past, present, or future” because it did not “specifically exclude any type of claim.” Owens v. Bridgestone, 2020-Ohio-5156, ¶ 18 2025However, the Tenth District also observed “a person executing a broadly worded release has a duty to investigate whether there are certain claims he or she wishes to exclude from the scope of the release.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simek v. Orthopedic & Neurological Consultants, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024No. 17AP-671, 2019-Ohio-3901 , ¶ 99, citing Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 28 , 29 (1993). {¶ 20} According to appellants, the act in question is the Division’s “inability to compel MTBC to comply with” the Division’s subpoena. 2024No. 17AP-671, 2019-Ohio-3901, ¶ 99 , citing Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 29 (1993). {¶ 20} According to appellants, the act in question is the Division’s “inability to compel MTBC to comply with” the Division’s subpoena. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Appellants rely on Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 488, 491 , 756 N.E.2d 657 (2001), in which the court determined that plaintiffs were not barred by res judicata from bringing a spoliation of evidence claim where evidence of spoliation was not discovered until after the conclusion of the primary, intentional tort action. 2016Appellants rely on Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 488, 491 , 756 N.E.2d 657 (2001), in which the court determined that plaintiffs were not barred by res judicata from bringing a spoliation of evidence claim where evidence of spoliation was not discovered until after the conclusion of the primary, intentional tort action. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., Inc. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 28 , 29 , 1993-Ohio-0229 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Tomas v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2007No. 15870, 2, citing Tomas v. Nationwide (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 624 , 631 , 607 N.E.2d 944 . 2007No. 15870, 2, citing Tomas v. Nationwide (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 624 , 631 , 607 N.E.2d 944 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
White v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2005White v. Ford Motor Co. (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 384 , 388 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Drawl v. Cornicelli
green
2 sentences2003The following errors are assigned for review: FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR “The trial court failed to rule on plaintiffs motion filed November 21, 2001 for costs, expenses and attorney fees arising from the mistrial, which motion should have been granted.” SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR “By order time stamped ‘10:31 am 16 Dec 02’, served on plaintiff after January 13, 2003, the trial court granted Adena Regional Medical Center’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs amended complaint alleging spoliation of evidence, although plaintiff-appellant had presented credible evidence as to each elemen 2003The following errors are assigned for review: FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR “The trial court failed to rule on plaintiffs motion filed November 21, 2001 for costs, expenses and attorney fees arising from the mistrial, which motion should have been granted.” SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR “By order time stamped ‘10:31 am 16 Dec 02’, served on plaintiff after January 13, 2003, the trial court granted Adena Regional Medical Center’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs amended complaint alleging spoliation of evidence, although plaintiff-appellant had presented credible evidence as to each elemen | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Rogers v. City of Whitehall
green
1 sentence1999National Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 60 , 62 , quoting Rogers v. Whitehall (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 67 , 69 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
National Amusements, Inc. v. City of Springdale
green
1 sentence1999National Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 60 , 62 , quoting Rogers v. Whitehall (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 67 , 69 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Nally v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997In short, we.stated: “In product liability cases where evidence is intentionally or negligently ‘spoiled’ or destroyed by a plaintiff or his expert before the defense has an opportunity to examine that *614 evidence for alleged defects, a court may preclude any and all expert testimony as a sanction for ‘spoliation of evidence.’ ” Id., citing Nally v. Volkswagen of America (1989), 405 Mass. 191 , 539 N.E.2d 1017 . 1997In short, we.stated: “In product liability cases where evidence is intentionally or negligently ‘spoiled’ or destroyed by a plaintiff or his expert before the defense has an opportunity to examine that *614 evidence for alleged defects, a court may preclude any and all expert testimony as a sanction for ‘spoliation of evidence.’ ” Id., citing Nally v. Volkswagen of America (1989), 405 Mass. 191 , 539 N.E.2d 1017 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.