Volume 205 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Record does not support appellants' contention that they were not permitted to testify at trial, and testimony introduced at trial established by clear and convincing evidence that appellants had knowledge of appellee's trade secrets and were working for appellee's competitor in a position that is substantially similar to the position they held with appellee, such that the trial court's issuance of a permanent injunction was not an abuse of discretion.

In an action by students against The Ohio State University ("OSU"), alleging OSU breached an implied contract by refusing to refund a portion of the student union fee when the student union was closed due to the pandemic, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court of claims to certify a class of students who paid the fee but were denied access to the facility. However, because the court of claims did not conduct a rigorous analysis of the evidence to determine whether questions of law or fact common to all subclass members predominated over question affecting individual subclass members, the court of claims abused its discretion when it certified a subclass of dental students who paid a clinical education support fee but were denied full access to the dental clinic in the spring and summer semesters of 2020. OSU's public duty defense does not present a question of subject matter jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded.

CRIMINAL LAW - rape gross sexual imposition victim is less than thirteen years of age force or threat of force amending indictment superseding indictment continuance reasonable opportunity to prepare defense case Crim.R. 7(D) R.C. 2945.02 relevant evidence Evid.R. 401 Evid.R. 402 insufficient evidence manifest weight of the evidence R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) sexual contact R.C. 2907.01(B) R.C. 2907.02 R.C. 2971.03 sexual conduct R.C. 2907.01(A) ineffective assistance of counsel polygraph.

CRIMINAL DAMAGING - RESTITUTION: The trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay restitution for damages to the victim's car relating to slashed tires and syrup in the gas tank where the defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to criminal damaging for running her car into the victim's rear bumper: those damages did not constitute economic loss because they did not flow as a natural and continuous consequence from the commission of the charged offense. [But see DISSENT: Competent, credible evidence supported the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court where strong circumstantial evidence, coupled with the lack of evidence that anyone else had caused the damage to the victim's tires and gas tank, supported the conclusion that defendant proximately caused those damages.] The trial court did not err in ordering restitution for damage to the side door of the victim's car where the complaint stated that defendant knowingly caused damage to the victim's car when she ran into it: the damage to the side door flowed as a natural and continuous consequence of the commission of the offense of criminal damaging and was a direct and proximate result of the defendant's commission of that criminal damaging.

Crim. R. 29/Manifest weight/Hearsay/Plain error

Service of process. Statute of limitations. Insurance policy. UM/UIM coverage.

Genuine dispute exists whether appellants' medical malpractice claims fall within the immunity provisions of Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, ("the Prep Act"), 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(a)(2)(B). Dispute existed whether pressure ulcers/bed sores, and which developed during appellant's hospitalization, were caused by, arose out of, relate to, or resulted from the administration to or use of a covered COVID-19 counter measure. Judgments reversed and remanded.

Trial court errs in denying motion to return seized property under R.C. 2981.11 where the property is no longer needed as evidence or for another lawful purpose.

R.C. 2743.48, statute of limitations, actual innocence, summary judgment, Civ.R. 56

summary judgment, negligence, duty, existence of duty is generally a question of law extent of duty is generally based on facts and circumstances moving party's initial burden under Dresher v. Burt