Opinions Authored by Justice O'Connor

 

RULINGS EFFECTING BUSINESS/INSURANCE

Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis: This case reversed and overruled the Supreme Court’s infamous Scott-Pontzer decision. Galatis holds that absent any language to the contrary, a corporation’s uninsured/underinsured motorist policy covers only those employees who may be injured in the course and scope of employment. Although the immediate impact of Galatis was felt on the hundreds of Scott-Pontzer claims in the state, the lasting effect of Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Galatis was her development of a three-part test for determining when the Court should abandon the principle of stare decisis and overturn prior precedent.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc.: In this case, Justice O’Connor held that third-party lay people may perform several tasks in a representative capacity for employers challenging a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Pursuant to Justice O’Connor’s opinion, these third-parties can make determinations regarding settlement offers, can relay those offers to the employer, and can communicate the employer’s concerns to the hearing officer. Justice O’Connor held these activities permissible in this situation because they do not require legal training. The effect of the decision is to decrease the litigation costs for the employer.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

Greer-Burger v. Temesi In this case, the employer filed a lawsuit seeking damages for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against his former employee, who had previously lost her employment discrimination case against him.  The Ohio Civil Rights Commission prohibited the employer from pursuing his lawsuit, finding that it was per se retaliatory.  The trial and appellate courts affirmed this order.  In reversing these judgments, Justice O’Connor, writing for the court, held that the employer was not automatically barred from filing an action against the employee.  Instead, the employer can proceed with his lawsuit so long as he can establish that his claims are not objectively baseless.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

Groch v. GMC Justice O’Connor’s opinion in this case affirmed the constitutionality of the state’s recently passed laws allowing a self-insured employer to recover workers’ comp payments made to an injured worker from the proceeds of a civil judgment or settlement that the worker later receives; and a 10-year statute of repose (time limit) for product liability claims against a product’s manufacturer. Pursuant to this opinion, a manufacturer cannot be liable for a product liability claim once ten years have passed from the date the product is delivered to an end user.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson Justice O’Connor concurred with Chief Justice Moyer’s majority opinion on this case that upheld two tort reform statutes that the General Assembly passed in 2004. The statutes the Court affirmed as a result of this opinion capped (1) non-economic damages at $350,000 and (2) punitive damages to just twice the amount of compensatory damages, unless a felony was involved in causing the injury. These were the first tort reform laws the Court had affirmed in several sessions as the Court had struck down previous tort reform attempts in the late 1990s.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

RULINGS EFFECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS

Norwood v. Horney: This landmark decision regarding the government’s use of eminent domain was the first in the nation to be released following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo. In this unanimous opinion, Justice O’Connor held that the individual’s right to their home and property prevails when the government uses the reason of economic benefits to the community, standing alone, as justification to satisfy the public-use requirements of the Ohio Constitution.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

LAW ENFORCEMENT/SAFETY FORCE RULINGS

Bellecourt v. Cleveland: Justice O’Connor upheld the actions of Cleveland police in this case involving the burning of a Chief Wahoo effigy at Jacobs Field. Police arrested several people, who in protesting Chief Wahoo, lit an effigy on fire in a cordoned-off section of Jacobs Field. Justice O’Connor stated that the police arrested the protesters due to the public safety threat. Thus, the city’s interest in preserving public safety did not infringe on the protesters’ First Amendment rights.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

State ex rel. Fisher v. Cleveland: The Cleveland firefighters brought this action as a result of the city’s efforts to enforce its residency requirements. Cleveland required those firefighters who were the subject of residency investigations to submit copies of their income tax returns. Justice O’Connor, writing for a unanimous court, declared that the city’s policy was an invasion of the firefighters’ right to privacy and prohibited the city from continuing it.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

Assn. of Cleveland Firefighters v. Cleveland: In this case involving the Cleveland firefighters union, Justice O’Connor wrote that the city’s practice of “arrowing” (defined as temporarily rescheduling shifts that changes the ordinary 48 hours firefighters get off between shifts) violated the express terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Justice O’Connor reached this conclusion because the firefighters never agreed to the practice.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

UNION WORKERS

Summit Cty. Children Servs. Bd. V. Communication Workers of Am., Local 4546: The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ judgment in this opinion authored by Justice O’Connor. Justice O’Connor agreed with the communication workers union in determining that because the collective bargaining agreement between the parties did not define what constituted “good cause” for disciplining an employee, the arbitrator was permitted to utilize a test for “good cause” that took into consideration the employee’s work record and other mitigating circumstances.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

CRIMINAL OPINION

State v. Craig: A Cuyahoga County trial court judge dismissed a rape case because the prosecutor was 30 minutes late for trial. The State appealed, but the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals said that it could not hear the case. Justice O’Connor’s opinion for a unanimous court held that the court of appeals did have jurisdiction to hear the case, and remanded the case to the appellate court for consideration of the State’s appeal.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>

State v. Crager Writing for the majority, Justice O’Connor reversed the ruling of the court of appeals that excluded DNA records as evidence in a murder trial. Justice O’Connor held that simply because BCI conducted the DNA testing did not mean the records were untrustworthy and subject to a higher standard because BCI is not an “arm” of law enforcement. Thus, a lab worker who had not performed the test could testify as to the results.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>