Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75 (2026)

Jurisdiction over claims alleging denial of access to public records

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) In order to provide for an expeditious and economical procedure that attempts to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records in violation of division (B) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code, except for a court that hears a mandamus action pursuant to that section, upon the expiration of the three-day period in which a public office or person responsible for public records may cure or address an alleged violation pursuant to division (C)(1) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code, the court of claims shall be the sole and exclusive authority in this state that adjudicates or resolves complaints based on alleged violations of that section. The clerk of the court of claims shall designate one or more current employees or hire one or more individuals to serve as special masters to hear complaints brought under this section. All special masters shall have been engaged in the practice of law in this state for at least four years and be in good standing with the supreme court at the time of designation or hiring. The clerk may assign administrative and clerical work associated with complaints brought under this section to current employees or may hire such additional employees as may be necessary to perform such work.

(B) The clerk of the court of common pleas in each county shall act as the clerk of the court of claims for purposes of accepting those complaints filed with the clerk under division (D)(1) of this section, accepting filing fees for those complaints, and serving those complaints.

(C)(1) Subject to division (C)(2) of this section, a person allegedly aggrieved by a denial of access to public records in violation of division (B) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code may seek relief under that section or under this section, provided, however, that if the allegedly aggrieved person files a complaint under either section, that person may not seek relief that pertains to the same request for records in a complaint filed under the other section.

(2) If the allegedly aggrieved person files a complaint under this section and the court of claims determines that the complaint constitutes a case of first impression that involves an issue of substantial public interest, the court shall dismiss the complaint without prejudice and direct the allegedly aggrieved person to commence a mandamus action in the court of appeals with appropriate jurisdiction as provided in division (C)(1) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code.

(D)(1) An allegedly aggrieved person who proceeds under this section shall file a complaint, on a form prescribed by the clerk of the court of claims, with the clerk of the court of claims or with the clerk of the court of common pleas of the county in which the public office from which the records are requested is located. The person shall attach to the complaint copies of the original records request and any written responses or other communications relating to the request from the public office or person responsible for public records and shall pay a filing fee of twenty-five dollars made payable to the clerk of the court with whom the complaint is filed. The clerk shall serve a copy of the complaint on the public office or person responsible for public records for the particular public office in accordance with Civil Rule 4.1 and, if the complaint is filed with the clerk of the court of common pleas, shall forward the complaint to the clerk of the court of claims, and to no other court, within three business days after service is complete.

(2) Upon receipt of a complaint filed under division (D)(1) of this section, the clerk of the court of claims shall assign a case number for the action and a special master to examine the complaint. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this section, upon the recommendation of the special master, the court of claims on its own motion may dismiss the complaint at any time. The allegedly aggrieved person may voluntarily dismiss the complaint filed by that person under division (D)(1) of this section.

(E)(1) Upon service of a complaint under division (D)(1) of this section, except as otherwise provided in this division, the special master assigned by the clerk under division (D)(2) of this section immediately shall refer the case to mediation services that the court of claims makes available to persons. If, in the interest of justice considering the circumstances of the case or the parties, the special master determines that the case should not be referred to mediation, the special master shall notify the court that the case was not referred to mediation, and the case shall proceed in accordance with division (F) of this section. If the case is referred to mediation, any further proceedings under division (F) of this section shall be stayed until the conclusion of the mediation. Any mediation proceedings under this division may be conducted by teleconference, telephone, or other electronic means. If an agreement is reached during mediation, the court shall dismiss the complaint. If an agreement is not reached, the special master shall notify the court that the case was not resolved and that the mediation has been terminated.

(2) Within ten business days after the termination of the mediation or the notification to the court that the case was not referred to mediation under division (E)(1) of this section, the public office or person responsible for public records shall file a response, and if applicable, a motion to dismiss the complaint, with the clerk of the court of claims and transmit copies of the pleadings to the allegedly aggrieved party. No further motions or pleadings shall be accepted by the clerk of the court of claims or by the special master assigned by the clerk under division (D)(2) of this section unless the special master directs in writing that a further motion or pleading be filed.

(3) All of the following apply prior to the submission of the special master's report and recommendation to the court of claims under division (F)(1) of this section:

(a) The special master shall not permit any discovery.

(b) The parties may attach supporting affidavits to their respective pleadings.

(c) The special master may require either or both of the parties to submit additional information or documentation supported by affidavits.

(F)(1) Not later than seven business days after receiving the response, or motion to dismiss the complaint, if applicable, of the public office or person responsible for public records, the special master shall submit to the court of claims a report and recommendation based on the ordinary application of statutory law and case law as they existed at the time of the filing of the complaint. For good cause shown, the special master may extend the seven-day period for the submission of the report and recommendation to the court of claims under this division by an additional seven business days.

(2) Upon submission of the special master's report and recommendation to the court of claims under division (F)(1) of this section, the clerk shall send copies of the report and recommendation to each party by certified mail, return receipt requested, not later than three business days after the report and recommendation is filed. Either party may object to the report and recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk and sending a copy to the other party by certified mail, return receipt requested. Any objection to the report and recommendation shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for the objection. If neither party timely objects, the court of claims shall promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation. If either party timely objects, the other party may file with the clerk a response within seven business days after receiving the objection and send a copy of the response to the objecting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The court, within seven business days after the response to the objection is filed, shall issue a final order that adopts, modifies, or rejects the report and recommendation.

(3) If the court of claims determines that the public office or person responsible for the public records denied the aggrieved person access to the public records in violation of division (B) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code and if no appeal from the court's final order is taken under division (G) of this section, both of the following apply:

(a) The public office or the person responsible for the public records shall permit the aggrieved person to inspect or receive copies of the public records that the court requires to be disclosed in its order.

(b) The aggrieved person shall be entitled to recover from the public office or person responsible for the public records the amount of the filing fee of twenty-five dollars and any other costs associated with the action that are incurred by the aggrieved person, but shall not be entitled to recover attorney's fees, except that division (G)(2) of this section applies if an appeal is taken under division (G)(1) of this section.

(G)(1) Any appeal from a final order of the court of claims under this section or from an order of the court of claims dismissing the complaint as provided in division (D)(2) of this section shall be taken to the court of appeals of the appellate district where the principal place of business of the public office from which the public record is requested is located. However, no appeal may be taken from a final order of the court of claims that adopts the special master's report and recommendation unless a timely objection to that report and recommendation was filed under division (F)(2) of this section. If the court of claims materially modifies the special master's report and recommendation, either party may take an appeal to the court of appeals of the appellate district of the principal place of business where that public office is located but the appeal shall be limited to the issue in the report and recommendation that is materially modified by the court of claims. In order to facilitate the expeditious resolution of disputes over alleged denials of access to public records in violation of division (B) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code, the appeal shall be given such precedence over other pending matters as will ensure that the court will reach a decision promptly.

(2) If a court of appeals in any appeal taken under division (G)(1) of this section by the public office or person responsible for the public records determines that the public office or person denied the aggrieved person access to the public records in violation of division (B) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code and obviously filed the appeal with the intent to either delay compliance with the court of claims' order from which the appeal is taken for no reasonable cause or unduly harass the aggrieved person, the court of appeals may award reasonable attorney's fees to the aggrieved person in accordance with division (C) of section 149.43 of the Revised Code. No discovery may be conducted on the issue of the public office or person responsible for the public records filing the appeal with the alleged intent to either delay compliance with the court of claims' order for no reasonable cause or unduly harass the aggrieved person. This division shall not be construed as creating a presumption that the public office or the person responsible for the public records filed the appeal with the intent to either delay compliance with the court of claims' order for no reasonable cause or unduly harass the aggrieved person.

(H) The powers of the court of claims prescribed in section 2743.05 of the Revised Code apply to the proceedings in that court under this section.

(I)(1) All filing fees collected by a clerk of the court of common pleas under division (D)(1) of this section shall be paid to the county treasurer for deposit into the county general revenue fund. All such money collected during a month shall be transmitted on or before the twentieth day of the following month by the clerk of the court of common pleas to the county treasurer.

(2) All filing fees collected by the clerk of the court of claims under division (D)(1) of this section shall be deposited into the state treasury to the credit of the public records fund, which is hereby created. Money credited to the fund shall be used by the court of claims to assist in paying for its costs to implement this section. All investment earnings of the fund shall be credited to the fund. Not later than the first day of February of each year, the clerk of the court of claims shall prepare a report accessible to the public that details the fees collected during the preceding calendar year by the clerk of the court of claims and the clerks of the courts of common pleas under this section.

(J) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the auditor of state under division (G) of section 109.43 of the Revised Code.

Last updated March 17, 2025 at 4:42 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 354 cases (265 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020).
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 43× “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017 Ohio 7820 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 9× “{¶ 14} On November 21, 2016, Requesters filed a complaint against the Township under R.C. 2743.75 alleging denial of access to a public record in violation of R.”
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 2185 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). · cites it 15× “{¶12} Cases brought under R.C. 2743.75 are controlled by the same principles as mandamus actions.”
Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 5891 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 25× “{¶ 9} On July 25, 2023, Doe filed a complaint in the Court of Claims against Ohio State pursuant to R.C. 2743.75. The complaint alleged that Ohio State had denied Doe access to public records in violation of R.”
Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022 Ohio 1619 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022). · cites it 22× “) The Special Master also states: On review, the special master concludes that resolution of this dispute is unlikely to be expeditiously litigated under the procedures available in R.C. 2743.75. The public records law sophistication of the parties suggests that mediation is…”
Anthony v. Columbus City Schs., 2021 Ohio 3241 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2021). · cites it 18× “03(D) (providing that the “Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern practice and procedure in all actions in the court of claims, except insofar as inconsistent with this chapter”).”
Matis v. Toledo Police Dept., 2023 Ohio 4878 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). · cites it 12× “75(A) (R.C. 2743.75 proceedings are intended to provide “an expeditious *** procedure *** to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records”).”
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 2625 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). · cites it 12× “If, as a matter of course, the Court were to permit additional motion practice after the issuance of a report and recommendation, this would delay the adjudication of public-records disputes that are brought in this forum under R.C. 2743.75, thereby frustrating the expeditious…”
Viola v. Ohio Atty. Gen., Pub. Record Unit, 2021 Ohio 3828 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 15× “{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Anthony Viola, appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio adopting a special master's report and recommendation in favor of defendant-appellee, the Ohio Attorney General's Office, Public Records Unit, on appellant's public-records dispute…”
Meros v. Off. of Ohio Atty. Gen. Yost, 2023 Ohio 1861 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). · cites it 35× “2023-00146PQ -2- DECISION AND ENTRY {¶4} Requester essentially maintains in his objections that the Special Master prejudicially erred because the Special Master failed to refer this case to mediation and because he failed to contact Requester before recommending dismissal of…”
Hicks v. Union Twp., 2023 Ohio 874 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 13× “{¶1} Appellant, Christopher Richard Hicks, appeals from a decision rendered by the Court of Claims of Ohio which adopted a special master's report and recommendation in favor of appellee, the Union Township, Clermont County Board of Trustees ("the Township"), on a public-records…”
Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 565 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). · cites it 17× “In response, Requester filed a Memorandum Contra OSU’s Motion for Leave to Amend Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike said Motion for Leave, and Motion for Sanctions, to which OSU replied.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(2) — 1 case
Welsh-Huggins v. Off. of the Pros. Atty., 2019 Ohio 964 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(A) — 82 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 2625 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). “If, as a matter of course, the Court were to permit additional motion practice after the issuance of a report and recommendation, this would delay the adjudication of public-records disputes that are brought in this forum under R.C. 2743.75, thereby frustrating the expeditious…”
Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022 Ohio 1619 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022). “) The Special Master also states: On review, the special master concludes that resolution of this dispute is unlikely to be expeditiously litigated under the procedures available in R.C. 2743.75. The public records law sophistication of the parties suggests that mediation is…”
Viola v. Ohio Atty. Gen., Pub. Record Unit, 2021 Ohio 3828 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Anthony Viola, appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio adopting a special master's report and recommendation in favor of defendant-appellee, the Ohio Attorney General's Office, Public Records Unit, on appellant's public-records dispute…”
Matis v. Toledo Police Dept., 2023 Ohio 4878 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). “75(A) (R.C. 2743.75 proceedings are intended to provide “an expeditious *** procedure *** to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records”).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(A)(1) — 6 cases
Sell v. Trumbull Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2023 Ohio 1174 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
Webb v. Buckeye Schs., 2024 Ohio 1267 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024).
Martin v. New Philadelphia Police Dept., 2023 Ohio 1862 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
Knapp v. Lorain Cty. Dom. Court Juv. Div., 2023 Ohio 3621 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
Sell v. Trumbull Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2023 Ohio 627 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(B) — 1 case
Hunt Eng., L.L.C. v. Ohio Env't Prot. Agency, 2022 Ohio 3141 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(C) — 4 cases
Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022 Ohio 1619 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022). “) The Special Master also states: On review, the special master concludes that resolution of this dispute is unlikely to be expeditiously litigated under the procedures available in R.C. 2743.75. The public records law sophistication of the parties suggests that mediation is…”
Advance Local Media, L.L.C. v. Ohio State Univ., 2022 Ohio 321 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022).
Sandusky Register v. Cedar Point Police Dept., 2022 Ohio 1615 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022).
Hicks v. Court of Claims, 2024 Ohio 2999 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(C)(1) — 3 cases
Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017 Ohio 7820 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 14} On November 21, 2016, Requesters filed a complaint against the Township under R.C. 2743.75 alleging denial of access to a public record in violation of R.”
Bello v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020 Ohio 4559 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2020).
Crenshaw v. E. Cleveland, 2019 Ohio 1614 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(C)(2) — 15 cases
Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022 Ohio 1619 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022). “) The Special Master also states: On review, the special master concludes that resolution of this dispute is unlikely to be expeditiously litigated under the procedures available in R.C. 2743.75. The public records law sophistication of the parties suggests that mediation is…”
Tingler v. Ottawa Cty. Prosecutor's Off., 2017 Ohio 8451 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2017).
Meros v. Off. of Ohio Atty. Gen. Yost, 2023 Ohio 1861 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). “2023-00146PQ -2- DECISION AND ENTRY {¶4} Requester essentially maintains in his objections that the Special Master prejudicially erred because the Special Master failed to refer this case to mediation and because he failed to contact Requester before recommending dismissal of…”
Lavar v. Accel Schs. Ohio, 2025 Ohio 3150 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(D) — 51 cases
Ryan v. Ashtabula, 2023 Ohio 621 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
Hicks v. Union Twp., 2023 Ohio 874 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶1} Appellant, Christopher Richard Hicks, appeals from a decision rendered by the Court of Claims of Ohio which adopted a special master's report and recommendation in favor of appellee, the Union Township, Clermont County Board of Trustees ("the Township"), on a public-records…”
Hicks v. Union Twp. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Trs., 2024 Ohio 5449 (Ohio 2024).
Viola v. Ohio Atty. Gen., Pub. Record Unit, 2021 Ohio 3828 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Anthony Viola, appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio adopting a special master's report and recommendation in favor of defendant-appellee, the Ohio Attorney General's Office, Public Records Unit, on appellant's public-records dispute…”
Phelps v. Ohio Parole Bd., 2023 Ohio 284 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(D)(1) — 20 cases
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 2185 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). “{¶12} Cases brought under R.C. 2743.75 are controlled by the same principles as mandamus actions.”
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Myers v. Paint Twp., 2024 Ohio 4784 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024).
Hunt Eng., L.L.C. v. Ohio Env't Prot. Agency, 2022 Ohio 3141 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022).
Kovach v. Walder, 2019 Ohio 5455 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(D)(2) — 47 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Meros v. Off. of Ohio Atty. Gen. Yost, 2023 Ohio 1861 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). “2023-00146PQ -2- DECISION AND ENTRY {¶4} Requester essentially maintains in his objections that the Special Master prejudicially erred because the Special Master failed to refer this case to mediation and because he failed to contact Requester before recommending dismissal of…”
Schaffer v. Sheets, 2025 Ohio 1007 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2025).
Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022 Ohio 1619 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022). “) The Special Master also states: On review, the special master concludes that resolution of this dispute is unlikely to be expeditiously litigated under the procedures available in R.C. 2743.75. The public records law sophistication of the parties suggests that mediation is…”
Isreal v. Franklin Cty. Clerk, 2019 Ohio 2630 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(E) — 6 cases
Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 565 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). “In response, Requester filed a Memorandum Contra OSU’s Motion for Leave to Amend Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike said Motion for Leave, and Motion for Sanctions, to which OSU replied.”
Mentch v. Cleveland, 2021 Ohio 1567 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2021).
Sandusky Register v. Cedar Point Police Dept., 2022 Ohio 1193 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022).
Gardner v. Mantua, 2026 Ohio 1315 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2026).
Clyde v. Mantua, 2026 Ohio 1316 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(E)(1) — 11 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Meros v. Off. of Ohio Atty. Gen. Yost, 2023 Ohio 1861 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). “2023-00146PQ -2- DECISION AND ENTRY {¶4} Requester essentially maintains in his objections that the Special Master prejudicially erred because the Special Master failed to refer this case to mediation and because he failed to contact Requester before recommending dismissal of…”
Isreal v. Franklin Cty. Commrs., 2021 Ohio 3824 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
Parks v. Colburn, 2018 Ohio 4595 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2018).
Ferrise v. Berea City Sch. Dist., 2024 Ohio 5968 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(E)(2) — 33 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Dillingham v. Butler Cty. Prosecutor's Off., 2018 Ohio 3654 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2018).
Parks v. Colburn, 2018 Ohio 4595 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2018).
Kovach v. Walder, 2019 Ohio 5455 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019).
Bello v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020 Ohio 4559 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(E)(3) — 1 case
Law Off. of Josh Brown, L.L.C. v. Ohio Secy. of State, 2025 Ohio 2130 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(E)(3)(a) — 9 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Speros v. Secy. of State, 2017 Ohio 8453 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2017).
Grant v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2022 Ohio 1619 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022). “) The Special Master also states: On review, the special master concludes that resolution of this dispute is unlikely to be expeditiously litigated under the procedures available in R.C. 2743.75. The public records law sophistication of the parties suggests that mediation is…”
Meros v. Off. of Ohio Atty. Gen. Yost, 2023 Ohio 1861 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). “2023-00146PQ -2- DECISION AND ENTRY {¶4} Requester essentially maintains in his objections that the Special Master prejudicially erred because the Special Master failed to refer this case to mediation and because he failed to contact Requester before recommending dismissal of…”
Advance Local Media, L.L.C. v. Ohio State Univ., 2022 Ohio 321 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(E)(3)(b) — 2 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
White v. Ross Corr. Inst., 2026 Ohio 1002 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(E)(3)(c) — 19 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 2185 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). “{¶12} Cases brought under R.C. 2743.75 are controlled by the same principles as mandamus actions.”
Ryan v. Ashtabula, 2023 Ohio 621 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
Schaffer v. Sheets, 2025 Ohio 1007 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2025).
Kirk v. Coshocton Cty. Sheriff's Off., 2019 Ohio 1825 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(E)(3)(e) — 1 case
Geauga Cty. Prosecutor's Off. v. Munson Fire Dept., 2023 Ohio 3958 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(F) — 53 cases
Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 5891 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “{¶ 9} On July 25, 2023, Doe filed a complaint in the Court of Claims against Ohio State pursuant to R.C. 2743.75. The complaint alleged that Ohio State had denied Doe access to public records in violation of R.”
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 2185 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). “{¶12} Cases brought under R.C. 2743.75 are controlled by the same principles as mandamus actions.”
Matis v. Toledo Police Dept., 2023 Ohio 4878 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). “75(A) (R.C. 2743.75 proceedings are intended to provide “an expeditious *** procedure *** to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records”).”
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 2625 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). “If, as a matter of course, the Court were to permit additional motion practice after the issuance of a report and recommendation, this would delay the adjudication of public-records disputes that are brought in this forum under R.C. 2743.75, thereby frustrating the expeditious…”
Anthony v. Columbus City Schs., 2021 Ohio 3241 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2021). “03(D) (providing that the “Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern practice and procedure in all actions in the court of claims, except insofar as inconsistent with this chapter”).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(F)(1) — 52 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Staton v. Timberlake, 2023 Ohio 1860 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
Speros v. Secy. of State, 2017 Ohio 8453 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2017).
Hicks v. Union Twp., 2023 Ohio 874 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶1} Appellant, Christopher Richard Hicks, appeals from a decision rendered by the Court of Claims of Ohio which adopted a special master's report and recommendation in favor of appellee, the Union Township, Clermont County Board of Trustees ("the Township"), on a public-records…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(F)(2) — 285 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Anthony v. Columbus City Schs., 2021 Ohio 3241 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2021). “03(D) (providing that the “Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern practice and procedure in all actions in the court of claims, except insofar as inconsistent with this chapter”).”
Matis v. Toledo Police Dept., 2023 Ohio 4878 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). “75(A) (R.C. 2743.75 proceedings are intended to provide “an expeditious *** procedure *** to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records”).”
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 2625 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). “If, as a matter of course, the Court were to permit additional motion practice after the issuance of a report and recommendation, this would delay the adjudication of public-records disputes that are brought in this forum under R.C. 2743.75, thereby frustrating the expeditious…”
Geauga Cty. Pros. Off. v. Munson Fire Dept., 2023 Ohio 4437 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(F)(2)(a) — 1 case
Reigert v. State of Ohio Med. Bd., 2023 Ohio 1172 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(F)(3) — 24 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 5891 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “{¶ 9} On July 25, 2023, Doe filed a complaint in the Court of Claims against Ohio State pursuant to R.C. 2743.75. The complaint alleged that Ohio State had denied Doe access to public records in violation of R.”
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 2185 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). “{¶12} Cases brought under R.C. 2743.75 are controlled by the same principles as mandamus actions.”
Ryan v. Ashtabula, 2023 Ohio 621 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
Anthony v. Columbus City Schs., 2021 Ohio 3241 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2021). “03(D) (providing that the “Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern practice and procedure in all actions in the court of claims, except insofar as inconsistent with this chapter”).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(F)(3)(a) — 3 cases
Anthony v. Columbus City Schs., 2021 Ohio 3241 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2021). “03(D) (providing that the “Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern practice and procedure in all actions in the court of claims, except insofar as inconsistent with this chapter”).”
Fairley v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor, 2020 Ohio 1426 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2020).
Spehar v. Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities, 2020 Ohio 4901 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(F)(3)(b) — 51 cases
Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017 Ohio 7820 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 14} On November 21, 2016, Requesters filed a complaint against the Township under R.C. 2743.75 alleging denial of access to a public record in violation of R.”
Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 5891 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “{¶ 9} On July 25, 2023, Doe filed a complaint in the Court of Claims against Ohio State pursuant to R.C. 2743.75. The complaint alleged that Ohio State had denied Doe access to public records in violation of R.”
Staton v. Timberlake, 2023 Ohio 1860 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
Matis v. Toledo Police Dept., 2023 Ohio 4878 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023). “75(A) (R.C. 2743.75 proceedings are intended to provide “an expeditious *** procedure *** to resolve disputes alleging a denial of access to public records”).”
Speros v. Secy. of State, 2017 Ohio 8453 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(F)(3)(c) — 1 case
Maleky v. Ohio State Univ., Off. of Compliance & Integrity, 2026 Ohio 890 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(G) — 1 case
Viola v. Ohio Atty. Gen., Pub. Record Unit, 2021 Ohio 3828 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Anthony Viola, appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio adopting a special master's report and recommendation in favor of defendant-appellee, the Ohio Attorney General's Office, Public Records Unit, on appellant's public-records dispute…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(G)(1) — 136 cases
Welsh-Huggins v. Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5371 (Ohio 2020). “In proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 2743.75, the Court of Claims determined that competent evidence had not been presented to establish the security-record exemption and consequently ordered the video’s public release subject to certain redactions for undercover-officer…”
Hicks v. Union Twp., 2023 Ohio 874 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶1} Appellant, Christopher Richard Hicks, appeals from a decision rendered by the Court of Claims of Ohio which adopted a special master's report and recommendation in favor of appellee, the Union Township, Clermont County Board of Trustees ("the Township"), on a public-records…”
Hicks v. Union Twp. Clermont Cty. Bd. of Trs., 2024 Ohio 5449 (Ohio 2024).
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 2185 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2024). “{¶12} Cases brought under R.C. 2743.75 are controlled by the same principles as mandamus actions.”
Ryan v. Ashtabula, 2023 Ohio 621 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(G)(2) — 4 cases
Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 5891 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “{¶ 9} On July 25, 2023, Doe filed a complaint in the Court of Claims against Ohio State pursuant to R.C. 2743.75. The complaint alleged that Ohio State had denied Doe access to public records in violation of R.”
Smith v. OSU Off. of Univ. Compliance & Integrity, 2020 Ohio 5593 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2020).
Clyde v. Mantua, 2026 Ohio 1717 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.75(H) — 2 cases
Morrison v. Mt. Vernon, Saf. Serv. Dir. Off., 2025 Ohio 470 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2025).
Clyde v. Mantua, 2026 Ohio 1717 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.