Volume 169 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Immunity of political subdivision employee judgment on the pleadings reverse racial discrimination R.C. 2744.03(A) R.C. 2744.09. Plaintiff's complaint for claims of reverse racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation contained sufficient allegations for the liability of defendant political subdivision employee pursuant to the exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(a) and (b). The trial court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

workers' compensation retaliation, disability discrimination, public policy wrongful termination, employer intentional tort, loss of consortium

Civ.R. 56(C) declaratory and injunctive relief deceptive act or practice R.C. 1345.02(A) multiple-unit pricing promotions R.C. 1345.02(B)(8) specific price advantage Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-02(A)(1) Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3- 02(A)(2)(g). Trial court did not err in granting defendant retailer's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff consumer's motion for summary judgment on complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged deceptive acts or practices under R.C. 1345.02(A). There was nothing deceptive, untrue or inaccurate in defendant's multiple-unit pricing promotions. Plaintiff did not show that defendant's multiple-unit pricing promotions represented that a specific price advantage existed when it did not under R.C. 1345.02(B)(8) and presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could otherwise find that defendant's representations were false, material and would mislead a reasonable consumer. Defendant's failure to state in its advertisements that a consumer must purchase at least one unit of the advertised product for the pro-rata advertised sales price to apply did not violate Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-02(A)(2)(g) and did not constitute a deceptive act or practice under Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-02(A)(1) or R.C. 1345.02(A).

R.C. 2315.18 damage caps for noneconomic loss as-applied constitutional challenge minors who are victims of sexual assault trial by jury open courts and a remedy due process of law equal protection. - Applying the damage caps for noneconomic loss in R.C. 2315.18 to appellant, a victim of sexual assault as a minor, did not violate appellant's constitutional rights to a jury trial, open courts and a remedy, due process of law, and equal protection.

Probate court erred in denying motions to reopen estate to challenge fee awards and consider former attorney's fee claim where fiduciary failed to serve next of kin with copy of inventory, violating local rule, court approved statement in lieu of final account earlier than 30 days after it was filed, violating R.C. 2109.32, R.C. 2117.06(B)'s six-month deadline was inapplicable, and fiduciary failed to reject attorney-fee claim before estate was closed, so R.C. 2117.12's two-month deadline did not bar claim.

Reagan Tokes Law right to appeal constitutional challenges ripe for review separation-of-powers doctrine procedural due process. State has right to appeal sentence that did not impose indefinite sentence under Reagan Tokes Law. Reagan Tokes Law does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine because the judicial branch imposes the indefinite sentence, and the executive branch does not have authority to increase the maximum sentence imposed Reagan Tokes Law does not violate procedural due process because it provides for notice of a hearing at which an inmate is allowed an opportunity to be heard.

Daubert motion—proximate cause-- cranial compression ischemic encephalopathy—peer review—expert testimony—cumulative error