6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ohio Mfrs. Assn. v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2022Ohio Manufacturers’ Assn. v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act, 149 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2016-Ohio-5377 , 74 N.E.3d 399, ¶ 1-2 (“OMA”); Jones III at ¶ 10 . 19 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 43} In response to the OMA’s action, the initiative’s proponents filed a mandamus complaint in this court, seeking to restore signatures that were invalidated on rereview so as to avoid the possibility that the OMA’s challenge would reduce the validated signatures to a number below the threshold for certification to the ballot. 2022Ohio Manufacturers’ Assn. v. Ohioans for Drug Price Relief Act, 149 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2016-Ohio-5377 , 74 N.E.3d 399, ¶ 1-2 (“OMA”); Jones III at ¶ 10 . 19 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 43} In response to the OMA’s action, the initiative’s proponents filed a mandamus complaint in this court, seeking to restore signatures that were invalidated on rereview so as to avoid the possibility that the OMA’s challenge would reduce the validated signatures to a number below the threshold for certification to the ballot. | 1 | 2 |
State ex rel. Masiella v. Brimfield Twp. Bd. of Trusteesgreen2 sentences2025Bd. of Trustees, 2017-Ohio-2934, ¶ 53 (11th Dist.) (holding that a plaintiff fails to prove an OMA violation where they present no direct evidence that the gathering was prearranged, that public business was discussed, or that any official action resulted from it). {¶41} Critically, to overcome the legal presumption that the Land Bank acted properly, Pelmear was required to present actual evidence of a violation, not just bare allegations. 2025Bd. of Trustees, 2017-Ohio-2934, ¶ 53 (11th Dist.) (holding that a plaintiff fails to prove an OMA violation where they present no direct evidence that the gathering was prearranged, that public business was discussed, or that any official action resulted from it). {¶41} Critically, to overcome the legal presumption that the Land Bank acted properly, Pelmear was required to present actual evidence of a violation, not just bare allegations. | 1 | 1 |
Kaplin v. Lower Merion Townshipgreen1 sentence2024Compare Kaplin v. Lower Merion Twp., 19 A.3d 1209, 1215-1216 (Pa Commonwealth Ct. 2011) (finding written pre-hearing deliberations permissible and concluding that even if the communications were improper the remedy would be invalidation of the board’s decision through an appeal, not compelled disclosure of the internal, pre-decisional communications).1 {¶ 16} Surber may be correct in asserting that due-process violations and OMA violations are not mutually exclusive. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Board of Education
green
2 sentences2019The Board asserts these executive sessions were excepted from the OMA because (1) they were information-gathering in nature and did not contain discussions of public business, and (2) the conversations were protected by attorney-client privilege. {¶34} In support of its assertions that the information-gathering nature of these executive sessions exempted them from the open meeting requirements, the Board cites Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edn., 192 Ohio App.3d 566 , 2011-Ohio-703 (1st Dist.), which found “the timing of a public body’s investigative or information- gathering session 2019The Board asserts these executive sessions were excepted from the OMA because (1) they were information-gathering in nature and did not contain discussions of public business, and (2) the conversations were protected by attorney-client privilege. {¶34} In support of its assertions that the information-gathering nature of these executive sessions exempted them from the open meeting requirements, the Board cites Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edn., 192 Ohio App.3d 566 , 2011-Ohio-703 (1st Dist.), which found “the timing of a public body’s investigative or information- gathering session | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Eaton v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections, Unpublished Decision (2-28-2006)
neutral
1 sentence2018No. E-05-065, 2006-Ohio-966 , 2006 WL 513910 at ¶ 66-67, fn. 3. {¶ 19} Therefore, if the BOE proceedings related to the ECOT resolution were quasi-judicial, there can be no OMA violation. {¶ 20} In determining whether a proceeding is quasi-judicial, the Supreme Court has indicated the most common test is whether the function under consideration involves the exercise of discretion and involves notice and the right to a hearing. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.