Savoy v. Univ. of Akron
15 N.E.3d 430
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In April 2008 Alan Savoy, then an undergraduate at The University of Akron, had a verbal confrontation with VP John Case; university police were called and later arrested Savoy on two outstanding Akron warrants. Officers issued a trespass warning and referred the matter to student judicial affairs.
- Student judicial affairs held a fact-finding meeting and then referred the matter to the University Hearing Board; at the hearing Savoy admitted calling Case a liar but disputed other allegations. The Board found him responsible for disorderly conduct and imposed sanctions (anger management, visit scheduling requirements).
- Savoy sued the university in the Court of Claims asserting false arrest, defamation, and breach of contract (and later argued malicious prosecution and abuse of process). The trial court dismissed constitutional claims for lack of jurisdiction and granted summary judgment to the university on the state-law claims.
- On appeal Savoy argued the Court of Claims should hear his constitutional claims and that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on his state-law claims.
- The appellate court affirmed: it held the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims; Savoy’s false-arrest claim failed because his arrest rested on valid warrants; defamation claims were barred by absolute privilege for judicial/quasi-judicial and police reporting statements; breach-of-contract failed because the university followed its published procedures; malicious prosecution/abuse of process were not pled and thus forfeited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction for constitutional claims | Savoy: Court of Claims should adjudicate constitutional claims arising from student disciplinary/police/adjudicative actions | Univ.: Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims; plaintiff limited to statutory/common-law claims against state entity | Court of Appeals: Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims; assignment overruled |
| False arrest | Savoy: Arrest was pretextual and unlawful despite warrants | Univ.: Arrest was pursuant to valid outstanding Akron warrants | Held: Arrest on valid warrants defeats false-arrest claim; summary judgment for university |
| Defamation | Savoy: University officials and filings made false statements harming reputation | Univ.: Statements were made to police, in hearings, or in court filings and are absolutely privileged | Held: Absolute privilege applies to statements reasonably related to judicial/quasi-judicial and police reporting proceedings; summary judgment for university |
| Breach of contract (student-university relationship) | Savoy: University mishandled disciplinary process and impeded attendance/graduation | Univ.: Contract terms are university policies; the university followed its code and sanctions tied to Savoy’s noncompliance; any attendance hold lifted upon compliance | Held: No breach shown; summary judgment for university |
| Malicious prosecution / Abuse of process | Savoy (attempted): these torts arise from university’s prior actions | Univ.: Claims not pled in complaint; no basis shown | Held: Claims were not pleaded and were forfeited; trial court did consider them but summary judgment for university sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Bleicher v. Univ. of Cincinnati Coll. of Med., 78 Ohio App.3d 302 (10th Dist. 1992) (Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims against state agencies)
- Brinkman v. Drolesbaugh, 97 Ohio St. 171 (Ohio 1918) (arrest pursuant to valid warrant bars false-arrest claim)
- Jackson v. Columbus, 117 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2008) (definition and elements of defamation)
- A & B–Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1995) (defamation definition and standards)
- Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 (Ohio 1986) (application of privilege in defamation actions is question of law)
- Costanzo v. Gaul, 62 Ohio St.2d 106 (Ohio 1980) (actual malice may overcome qualified privilege but not absolute privilege)
- Behrend v. State, 55 Ohio App.2d 135 (10th Dist. 1977) (student–university relationship may create contractual obligations)
- Yaklevich v. Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., L.P.A., 68 Ohio St.3d 294 (Ohio 1994) (elements of abuse of process)
- Michaels v. Berliner, 119 Ohio App.3d 82 (9th Dist. 1997) (witness testimony in quasi‑judicial proceedings is protected by absolute privilege)