Skip to main content
· 1/4/2024

CPC Parts Delivery, L.L.C. v. Ohio Bur. of Worker's Comp.

Citations

  • 2024 Ohio 18

Syllabus

The trial court did not err in finding BWC was entitled to summary judgment on appellants' claim for unjust enrichment because the evidence showed BWC did not retain any benefits conferred by appellants upon it. Neither did the trial court hold that there was a rational basis for BWC's differing treatment of employers based on whether the employers participated in the Large Deductible Program versus the Individual Retro Program, because the trial court's statement presented in a footnote to that effect was merely dicta. However, the trial court erred in finding it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over appellants' claim premised on violation of equal protection. Appellants' equal protection claim was brought not as a private cause of action seeking relief for the violation itself, but rather as an alternative basis for the same relief sought under its unjust enrichment claim. As such, the Court of Claims retains subject matter jurisdiction over the ancillary constitutional claim. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concurring opinions of Chief Judge Friendly and Judge Mansfield
  • testimony of young complainant in rape prosecution
  • search held unconstitutional in absence of probable cause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Beatty Blunt

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.