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 full-text search.
Opinion Text Search:    What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:   What is a Source?
Year Decided:   What is Decided?
County:   What is Decided?
Case Number:   What is Case Number?
Author:   What is Decided?
Topics and Issues:   What is Decided?
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 220 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Eichenberger v. Clark 14AP-813Trial court erred in staying litigation and ordering the referral of the matter to arbitration. Plaintiff attorney was not required to arbitrate fee dispute with former client. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.Luper SchusterFranklin 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2718
State v. Boone 14AP-87Convictions affirmed; trial court's security procedures were not an abuse of discretion; no error in the trial court's use of causation instruction or verdict forms regarding aggravated murder and murder counts; sufficient evidence and manifest weight of the evidence supports conviction.KlattFranklin 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2648
State v. Daniels 14AP-326Convictions affirmed; state does not violate due process rights by failing to preserve potentially useful evidence where no indication of bad faith and request to preserve item was not made until well after item released by state.KlattFranklin 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2649
State ex rel. Manpower of Dayton, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. 14AP-376The objections to the magistrate's decision are overruled, and the court adopts the decision as its own. The relator's request for writ of mandamus to vacate an award of permanent total disability and enter an order denying the compensation is denied.DorrianFranklin 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2650
State v. Tabler 14AP-386Trial court did not err in granting defendant-appellee's motion to suppress.BrownFranklin 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2651
State v. Oliveira 14AP-501In kidnapping case, trial court erred by not providing instruction for jury to consider whether defendant released the victim unharmed and in a safe place, which would reduce degree of offense; matter remanded for new trial.KlattFranklin 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2652
State v. Barber 14AP-557Convictions for possession of drugs supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence; matter remanded, however, for resentencing due to the trial court's failure to make findings required to impose consecutive sentences.KlattFranklin 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2653
State ex rel. Rutherford v. Rusty's Towing Servs. 14AP-591Industrial Commission had some evidence to support its order denying benefits. No writ is granted.HortonFranklin 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2654
Autumn Health Care of Zanesville, L.L.C., v. DeWine 14AP-593Trial court erred by failing to conduct an in camera review of documents asserted to be protected under law enforcement investigatory privilege. Under the circumstances presented, an in camera review was the appropriate method to determine whether the documents were privileged and whether the party seeking the documents demonstrated a compelling need sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege.DorrianFranklin 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2655
State v. Hurse 14AP-687The trial court did not err in excluding from the evidence the judgment of conviction of appellant's co-defendant for possession of cocaine. Such exclusion would not be prejudicial to appellant where appellant was charged with complicity and where the jury was instructed that two or more persons may have possession if together they have the ability to control it exclusive to others. Furthermore, the trial court did not err in that the jury verdict and the court's conviction were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evience. Therefore, appellant's assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of te trial court is affirmed.DorrianFranklin 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2656
12345678910...>>