Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:    What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:   What is a Source?
Year Decided:   What is Year Decided?
County:   What is County?
Case Number:   What is Case Number?
Author:   What is Author?
Topics and Issues:   What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-   What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 13 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Helm C-150242JURIES - JURY INSTRUCTIONS: Because the charge given by the trial court to the deadlocked jury was not coercive and encouraged the jurors to reach a verdict if they could conscientiously do so, the charge substantially complied with that approved by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18, 537 N.E.2d 188 (1989). The trial court did not err in instructing the jurors to deliberate for an additional 30-minute period where the court did not pressure the jury to reach a verdict within that time frame and did not indicate that it would declare a mistrial if a verdict was not reached. Where the record contains no evidence that any juror engaged in misconduct or formed an opinion on the case prior to it being submitted to the jury, no plain error resulted from the trial court's failure to properly admonish the jury pursuant to R.C. 2945.34. Where, when the trial court announced that it was going to release the jury for lunch, a juror left the courtroom to feed a parking meter, and the trial court, along with counsel, entered the jury room to deliver off-the-record admonitions in the juror's absence and then, when the juror returned, the trial court admonished the entire jury on the record, no plain error occurred in the trial court's failure to comply with R.C. 2945.33, because the record does not demonstrate that the jury engaged in deliberations without all members present.HendonHamilton 2/12/2016 2/12/2016 2016-Ohio-500
State v. Thomas C-150294SEX OFFENSES - COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION: The trial court did not err in dismissing defendant's motion, made after he had been released from incarceration for sexual battery, for a hearing under R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) to determine whether he should be exempted from the community-notification requirements, because defendant was not entitled to a hearing where the trial court had not sua sponte held a hearing and defendant had failed to request a hearing at or before the time of sentencing. StautbergHamilton 2/12/2016 2/12/2016 2016-Ohio-501
State v. Schulze C-150272SEX OFFENSES: The trial court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment and convicting defendant of attempted failure to notify of an address change, because there was no valid order in place requiring defendant to register as a sex offender where the defendant, as a juvenile, initially had been correctly classified under Megan's Law as a juvenile-offender registrant, but the end-of-disposition hearing was held and defendant was classified as a Tier II juvenile-offender registrant under the Adam Walsh Act: the end-of-disposition order under the Adam Walsh Act was void because defendant had committed his sex offense prior to the Adam Walsh Act's effective date, and the initial Megan's Law classification order was not still in effect or revived once the end-of-disposition order was entered without jurisdiction.Per CuriamHamilton 2/10/2016 2/10/2016 2016-Ohio-470
State v. Williams C-150320APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL - JURISDICTION/VENUE - R.C. 2941.25 - SENTENCING: Because the defendant agreed as part of the plea agreement that two offenses had been committed with a separate animus, he waived the protection of R.C. 2941.25, and therefore, the agreed sentences were not contrary to law. Because the agreed sentences were authorized by law, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review them, and where the defendant challenged only his sentences, the appeal must be dismissed.MockHamilton 2/5/2016 2/5/2016 2016-Ohio-376
State v. Ballard C-140755, C-140690AUTOS/CRIMINAL - OVI - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - SENTENCING: R.C. 2941.1413, which allows for a repeat-offender specification in OVI cases, does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions, because the statute is rationally related to the legislature's goal of punishing defendants who have repeatedly violated the operating-a-vehicle-while-under-the-influence statute. Absent a showing of illegal selective enforcement, such as enforcement based on race, religion or some other suspect classification, prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of the R.C. 2941.1413 repeat-offender specification does not render the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. The defendant's no-contest plea waived any challenge to facts underlying his conviction. The trial court did not err when it ordered the defendant's driver's license suspension to begin on the date of sentencing. Where the sentence was within the statutory range and the defendant did not demonstrate that the trial court had failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing the sentence was not contrary to law.DeWineHamilton 2/3/2016 2/3/2016 2016-Ohio-364
Jee v. Absolute Fire Protection, Inc. C-150374DEFAULT JUDGMENT - CIV.R. 60(B): Where, in support of its Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a default judgment, the defendant company submitted the affidavit of its owner that generally denied the allegations of the complaint but failed to specifically allege operative facts that would support a meritorious defense, the trial court abused its discretion in granting the defendant company relief from the default judgment.HendonHamilton 2/3/2016 2/3/2016 2016-Ohio-365
State v. Brown C-130120SENTENCING - AGREED SENTENCE - EARNED CREDIT - TRANSITIONAL CONTROL - JUDICIAL RELEASE: The trial court lacked the authority to limit the defendant's eligibility to earn days of credit for participation in approved programs under R.C. 2967.193 as part of its sentence, and that part of the defendant's sentence is vacated, even though the defendant agreed to this restriction as a condition of his jointly recommended and subsequently imposed 12-year prison term. [State v. Livingston, 2014-Ohio-1637, 9 N.E.3d 1117 (1st Dist.), followed.] The trial court has the statutory authority and wide discretion to disapprove and block an eligible offender's participation in the transitional-control program, and to deny judicial release, and where the defendant agreed that he would not participate in these programs as a condition of his 12-year prison term, the trial court's imposition of an agreed sentence including these restrictions was authorized by law.CunninghamHamilton 1/29/2016 1/29/2016 2016-Ohio-310
Whitman v. Gerson C-140592, C-140595SUMMARY JUDGMENT - FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE - REAL PROPERTY - TITLE - BOND FORFEITURE - SANCTIONS: The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiffs' fraudulent-conveyance claim brought under Ohio's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act where the property conveyed had been encumbered by a valid lien and therefore did not meet the definition of "asset" as defined in R.C. 1336.04. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion seeking forfeiture of plaintiffs' bond where the court determined that the plaintiffs' lawsuit had been brought in good faith. The trial court did not err in granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on defendant's cross-claims for slander of title and quiet title where defendant relied on privileged court filings to prove these claims. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for sanctions where the plaintiffs' lawsuit had been brought in good faith.StautbergHamilton 1/29/2016 1/29/2016 2016-Ohio-311
State v. Pippin C-150061APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL - JURISDICTION/VENUE: Where the trial court failed to dispose of four charges of the severed, ten-count indictment, the trial court's entry convicting the defendant on the other six charges is not a final, appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2505.02, because the entry does not dispose of all the charges in the action.DeWineHamilton 1/29/2016 1/29/2016 2016-Ohio-312
Centennial Plaza III Invest., L.L.C. v. Centennial Plaza I Invest., L.L.C. C-150257CONTRACTS - STATUTE OF FRAUDS - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - CIV.R. 12(B)(6): The plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of an express contract where the alleged conveyance of an easement did not comport with the signed-writing requirement of the statute of frauds. The trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had agreed to a real-property easement and had misrepresented its willingness to execute and record the easement, that it had reasonably, foreseeably, and detrimentally relied upon the false representations when it purchased real property without sufficient parking, and that it suffered damages in reliance, because these allegations, if true, stated a claim for relief for reliance damages under a promissory-estoppel theory.CunninghamHamilton 1/27/2016 1/27/2016 2016-Ohio-273