State ex rel. Master v. City of Cleveland
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
In our previous opinion in this case, we held that the R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c) work-product exception did not justify withholding the subject records because “[tjhere is no evidence that criminal charges against police officers or other individuals involved in the alleged wiretapping are either ‘pending’ or ‘highly probable’ as required for application of the work product exception.” Master, 75 Ohio St.3d at 29, 661 N.E.2d at 186; State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83, paragraph five of the syllabus; State ex rel. Police Officers for Equal Rights v. Lashutka…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State ex rel. Steckman v. JacksonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. SoloveOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Multimedia Inc. v. SnowdenOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Zuern v. LeisOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Police Officers for Equal Rights v. LashutkaOhio Supreme Court · 1995
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- State ex rel. Nix v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State Ex Rel. Rocker v. Guernsey County Sheriff's OfficeOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. PetroOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- John H. Nix v. Patrick J. O'Malley Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & HowleyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- State ex rel. Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. City of MentorOhio Supreme Court · 2000
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.