8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Wallace v. State Medical Boardgreen2 sentences2023Instead, “[t]he holder of the confidentiality privilege is the one who must waive it before the contents of the Medical Board’s investigative files relating to that person may be divulged.” Id. at 435. 2023See Wallace at 435-36 (noting the privilege of confidentiality in the Medical Board’s investigative files extends to “physicians who are under investigation,” and “the Medical Board cannot unilaterally waive others’ privileges to confidentiality”). | 1 | 1 |
O'Donnell Constr. Co. v. Stewart, Unpublished Decision (4-13-2006)green1 sentence2006Any and all communications made during the March 8, 2004 mediation are not subject to disclosure." 2006-Ohio-1838 at ¶ 21. | 1 | 1 |
Crye v. Smolakgreen2 sentences2004See Crye, 110 Ohio App.3d at 512 , 674 N.E.2d 779 , citing Thomas, 61 Ohio App.2d at 81 , 11 O.O.3d 26 , 399 N.E.2d 567 ; 17 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1980) 528, Contracts, Section 94, supra. {¶ 73} Additionally, by expressly eliminating a consumer’s right to proceed through a class action or as a private attorney general in arbitration, the arbitration clause directly hinders the consumer protection purposes of the CSPA. 2004See Crye, 110 Ohio App.3d at 512 , 674 N.E.2d 779 , citing Thomas, 61 Ohio App.2d at 81 , 11 O.O.3d 26 , 399 N.E.2d 567 ; 17 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1980) 528, Contracts, Section 94, supra. {¶ 73} Additionally, by expressly eliminating a consumer’s right to proceed through a class action or as a private attorney general in arbitration, the arbitration clause directly hinders the consumer protection purposes of the CSPA. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Sun Furniture & Appliance Co.green2 sentences2004See Crye, 110 Ohio App.3d at 512 , 674 N.E.2d 779 , citing Thomas, 61 Ohio App.2d at 81 , 11 O.O.3d 26 , 399 N.E.2d 567 ; 17 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1980) 528, Contracts, Section 94, supra. {¶ 73} Additionally, by expressly eliminating a consumer’s right to proceed through a class action or as a private attorney general in arbitration, the arbitration clause directly hinders the consumer protection purposes of the CSPA. 2004See Crye, 110 Ohio App.3d at 512 , 674 N.E.2d 779 , citing Thomas, 61 Ohio App.2d at 81 , 11 O.O.3d 26 , 399 N.E.2d 567 ; 17 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1980) 528, Contracts, Section 94, supra. {¶ 73} Additionally, by expressly eliminating a consumer’s right to proceed through a class action or as a private attorney general in arbitration, the arbitration clause directly hinders the consumer protection purposes of the CSPA. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ball v. Ohio State Home Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011Inc., 168 Ohio App. 3d 622 , 2006- Ohio-4464, at ¶7). {¶19} The school has argued that the provision is not substantively unconscionable because this Court has repeatedly enforced arbitration agreements in cases involving claims made under the Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio courts have held that class action waivers do not make arbitration provisions substantively unconscionable, and the confidentiality provision does not interfere with enforcement of the statutory claims because the provision forbids disclosure “[e]xcept as may be required by law.” The students have argued that the class | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Norcom Electronics Corp. v. CIM USA INC.
green
1 sentence2009Norcom Electronics Corp. v. CIM USA, Inc. , (S.D.N.Y. 2000), 104 F. Supp.2d 198 . {¶ 33} As in Eagle , the arbitration clause in the present case prevents Hawkins from proceeding as a private attorney general, as well as in a class action, but it does not contain a confidentiality clause, which was a particular concern in Eagle . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Johnson v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2007Johnson v. Johnson (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 579 , 583 , 731 N.E.2d 1144 citing R.C. 2151.99 . {¶ 39} R.C. 2151.421 (H)(1) sets forth the relevant confidentiality rule which provides as follows: . . . a report made under this section is confidential. 2007Johnson v. Johnson (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 579 , 583 , 731 N.E.2d 1144 citing R.C. 2151.99 . {¶ 39} R.C. 2151.421 (H)(1) sets forth the relevant confidentiality rule which provides as follows: . . . a report made under this section is confidential. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board
green
1 sentence2005Pons, supra. {¶ 9} By the first assignment of error, appellant contends that the common pleas court abused its discretion in finding that a discussion between a board staff member and the state's expert witness, Dr. Shin, was protected by the confidentiality privilege set forth in R.C. 4731.22 (F)(5). {¶ 10} Dr. Shin testified that at the board's request, he reviewed the sixteen patient files at issue and prepared a written report outlining his opinion as to appellant's treatment and care of those sixteen patients. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Coffman
green
1 sentence2001State v. Coffman (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 125 , 127 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.