Siliko v. Miami Univ.
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 4133
Syllabus
Appellants, employees of Miami University, lacked standing under common-law principles and the Declaratory Judgment Act to bring their claims for (1) violation of the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment under Article I, Section I of the Ohio Constitution, (2) coercion under R.C. 2905.12, (3) violation of statutory authority under R.C. 3709.212, and (4) violation of 3972.04(B)(1) as they failed to demonstrate injury or that a real justiciable controversy existed between the parties. However, as appellants' amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts establishing standing to bring a discrimination claim under R.C. 3792.04(B)(2) pursuant to common-law standing principles, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of this claim and remand 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.
- denying on equitable grounds action to collect credit-card debt primarily composed of late fees and penalty interest, rather than amounts advanced for purchases
- denying on equitable grounds action to collect credit-card debt primarily composed of late fees and penalty interest, rather than amounts advanced for purchases
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hendrickson
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.