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 279 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Robinson 13AP-563Late application for reopening under App.R. 26(B) is denied. The record demonstrates no ineffective counsel.TyackFranklin 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3486
State ex rel. Amanda Bent Bolt Co. v. Indus. Comm. 14AP-295Mandamus denied; commission did not abuse its discretion in interpreting Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-11(E)(4) and in granting claimant's VSSR application; commission did not abuse its discretion in rejecting employer's unilateral negligence defense to the VSSR violation because this defense only applies when the employer has first complied with the relevant safety requirement and deliberately render an otherwise complying device noncompliant.KlattFranklin 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3487
Columbus v. Zimmerman 14AP-963 & 14AP-964OVI conviction affirmed; defendant's administrative license suspension terminated upon her conviction for OVI, and because defendant challenged the ALS but not her conviction, her challenge to the ALS was moot.KlattFranklin 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3488
State v. Nichter 15AP-40Decision to grant judicial release reversed when trial court failed to comply with requirements of R.C. 2929.20(J) in granting judicial release.KlattFranklin 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3489
State v. Whiteside 15AP-55A motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial is properly denied as unreasonably untimely where the defendant failed to explain what diligent efforts he undertook to find a witness that he has known existed for more than 30 years or to explain why he waited over 25 years to present discrepancies in the testimony by one witness who testified at his and another defendant's trial over the span of more than a year. Judgment affirmed.BrunnerFranklin 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3490
State v. Simpson 15AP-188Inmate's "motion to reverse conviction" was appropriately viewed as a petition for post-conviction relief which was filed too late.TyackFranklin 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3491
Evans v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 15AP-463Lawsuit based on adulterated food served to an inmate should not have been dismissed under Civ.R. 12.TyackFranklin 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3492
State v. C.A. 14AP-738In an application to seal records of dismissed criminal misdemeanors, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the applicant's prior guilty plea as a confession that could be controverted and that was not issue preclusive in determining whether to grant her application. The trial court was able to conclude that other dismissed cases, filed simultaneously with the applicant's OVI case, did not arise "as a result of or in connection with the same act" when the guilty plea to OVI had been part of a resolution of several cases. Judgment affirmed.BrunnerFranklin 8/25/2015 8/25/2015 2015-Ohio-3437
State v. Ellis 14AP-912Trial court sufficiently advised the defendant of the rights he was giving up in accepting his plea bargain and entering pleas instead of going to trial.TyackFranklin 8/25/2015 8/25/2015 2015-Ohio-3438
Bruso v. Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities 15AP-130Because no termination happened, only a threat of a termination of appellant, the bureau of services for the Visually Impaired acted in contravention of Ohio Adm.Code 3304:1-21-09. Appellant could not be removed from his former place as a vendor at the Ohio Department of Public Safety.TyackFranklin 8/25/2015 8/25/2015 2015-Ohio-3439
12345678910...>>