Whether the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals committed plain error and the Ohio Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying review of this case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals committed plain error and the Ohio Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying review of this case. Here, pursuant to §1983; but, without a finding of deliberate indifference, the municipality and the police chief were found to be vicariously liable for police misconduct. At the time of the incident, the officer was off duty, inebriated and assigned to an outside law enforcement agency. After seven years, body cam footage was lost so the trial court committed plain error and abused its discretion by imposing excessive discovery sanctions. The trial court refused judicial notice of probable cause and introduction of rebuttable evidence. The ex parte verdict in the first trial was reversed. So, exhorted to send a message, the second jury entered an exemplary verdict for $50 million. The petition is for review of these questions: Ques. No. 1. The case below conflicts with the precedents of the Sixth Circuit, other circuits, fellow state supreme courts as well as is violative of constitutional rights and the precedents of this Honorable Court on matters of pure federal law resulting in splits between both state and federal courts. Ques. No. 2. Whether §1983 provides for $50 million in exemplary damages to be vicariously awarded against a city and its supervisor police chief without a showing of ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued deliberative indifference when the officer assailant was inebriated, off duty and tasked to an outside law enforcement agency. Ques. No. 3. Whether the trial court’s denial of judicial notice, rebuttable evidence (from a corollary criminal case, State v. Black, CR 12-562242) and a contradictory Admissions statement (approved inapposite of an appellate order, Ohio Appellate Eighth District Case No. 16-105248) was an abuse of discretion violative of City Petitioners’ Due Process rights.