Maleky v. Ohio State Univ., Office of Compliance & Integrity
Citations
- 2026 Ohio 890
Syllabus
The Court of Claims did not exceed the scope of our remand from the direct appeal in this matter. The judgment entry issued by the Court of Claims on remand was limited to the issue of Family Education Rights and Privacy Act redactions. Despite appellant's claims to the contrary, the Court of Claims judgment entry issued after our remand did not vacate prior binding rulings. Additionally, any of appellant's claims regarding unresolved issues could have been raised in the direct appeal and therefore are barred by res judicata. Appellant failed to establish that the Court of Claims erred in entering final judgment prior to appellee's full production of public records. By the plain language of R.C. 2743.75(F)(3), the cost recovery provision in subsection (b) did not apply because an appeal was taken from the Court of Claims final order. Appellant's claim that the trial court permitted improper redactions could not be considered because it relied upon appellee's record productions that occurred after the judgment entry at issue, and were therefore outside of the record on appeal. Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Jamison
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.