Hill-Lewis v. Clifton Healthcare Ctr.
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 846
Syllabus
PROCEDURE/RULES – COMPLAINT: The trial court did not err in granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint where plaintiffs failed to name the defendants in the body of the complaint and failed to assert any claims against them. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' alternative motion for leave to amend the complaint where plaintiffs failed to tender a proposed amended complaint or to explain how they would resolve the complaint's deficiencies. See Olthaus v. Niesen, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-230142, 2023-Ohio-4710, ¶ 27.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “While ... the governmental interest is unlikely to be implicated where the production of information is compelled, ... there are circumstances in which disclosure could affect the reliability of such data.”
- “INPO itself is a not-for-profit enterprise, but INPO's non-profit status is not determinative of the character of the information it reports; information may qualify as ‘commercial’ even if the provider’s (i.e., INPO’s
- “[B]ecause the concessioners [were] required to provide this financial informa tion ..., there is presumably no danger that public disclosure will impair the ability of the Government to obtain this information in the future” (second alteration in original)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bergeron
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.