Ra v. Ohio Atty. Gen.
Citations
- 153 N.E.3d 759
- 2020 Ohio 1346
Syllabus
Trial court did not err in holding appellants' claims for negligence, tortious interference with business relationships, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were disguised defamation claims. Having filed the complaint past the one-year statute of limitations for defamation, appellants were not prejudiced by the trial court's determination that the attorney general's office had absolute privilege to publish an allegedly defamatory press release. Judgment affirmed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “ ‘The fact that a different conclusion might be arguable does not diminish the deference we must give to [the] decision of the trial court’ under the abuse of discretion standard.” (quoting Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 746 N.E.2d 1242 (2001))
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Sadler
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.