Two significant cases have been decided by the Ohio Supreme Cour, both of which presented constitutional challenges to Ohio's 2005 Ohio tort reform law, S.B. 80. The two cases and resources relating to them are:

Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson
On August 23, the Ohio Supreme Court certified questions relating to the constitutionality of three provisions of Ohio Senate Bill 80: The non-economic damages limitation included in ORC §2315.18; the collateral source provision included in ORC §2315.20; and the punitive damages limitations included in ORC §2315.21.

The Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision on December 27, 2007 and found the damages limitations constitutional.

Groch v. General Motors Corp.
On December 27, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to answer nine questions challenging the constitutionality of Ohio Senate Bill 80. Eight questions concern the workers' compensation subrogation statutes and the statute of repose for products. The ninth question concerns whether S.B. 80 violates the one-subject rule, which disallows the combination in a single bill of various topics that lack a common purpose.

The Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision on February 21, 2008 and in the decision upheld a 2003 workers’ compensation law that allows companies to recover costs of medical care and lost wages from injured workers who win damage awards from third parties; upheld the constitutionality of a 10-year statute of repose for the accrual of a product liability claim against a product manufacturer; found the retroactive application of the time limit to bar a claim against a manufacturer for injuries that a person sustained within two years before the law took effect to be unconstitutional; and found that the statute in question did not violate the single subject rule.

In addition to challenges to S.B. 80 tort reform, there are challenges pending to Ohio's 2004 asbestos litigation reform bill, H.B. 292.
Asbestos Reform Litigation and Challenges