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

Opinion Search Filter Settings
To search on full text click here
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
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 9 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Lancaster v. Cheeks Law Offices, L.L.C. 17AP-714This Court affirmed a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, reversing a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission. The common pleas court found there was no just cause to terminate Lancaster’s employment.BrunnerFranklin 1/15/2019 1/15/2019 2019-Ohio-111
Bugh v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 17AP-779Judgment reversed. When viewing the summary judgment evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint was filed within four years of the defendant's last culpable act or omission. As such, the statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C) did not bar the plaintiff's complaint for medical negligence.BrownFranklin 1/15/2019 1/15/2019 2019-Ohio-112
Springfield Acme Elec. Co. v. Adams 17AP-837Judgment affirmed; trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Civ.R. 37(A)(5) and entering a default judgment as a sanction pursuant to Civ.R. 37(B)(1)(f).KlattFranklin 1/15/2019 1/15/2019 2019-Ohio-113
Smith v. Smith 18AP-190Appellant failed to file a motion to set aside the magistrate’s order and thus waived her right to argue the merits of the order on appeal. Further, where the record does not indicate that the magistrate or trial court committed plain error, and appellant’s brief did not provide legal errors for review nor a transcript that would support any conclusion otherwise, an appellate court must presume the regularity of the trial court's proceedings and affirm its decision. Judgment affirmed.BrunnerFranklin 1/15/2019 1/15/2019 2019-Ohio-114
State v. Marques 17AP-849Kidnapping and rape convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.KlattFranklin 1/10/2019 1/10/2019 2019-Ohio-42
Holloway v. Leech 18AP-02There is competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court's decision and this court found no plain error and the judgment is not against the manifest weight of the judgment.HortonFranklin 1/10/2019 1/10/2019 2019-Ohio-43
Lucas v. Reywal Co. Ltd. Partnership 17AP-479Trial court's instructing a receiver to proceed with a purchase agreement for a tract of land was a final appealable order and was not an abuse of discretion.TyackFranklin 1/8/2019 1/8/2019 2019-Ohio-27
Lukie v. Doctor's Hosp. 17AP-634Judgment reversed; case remanded. The legal requirement for injury in a tort case is not demanding: "a plaintiff need only show some slight injury for the question of damages to go to the jury." Loudin v. Radiology & Imaging Servs., 128 Ohio St.3d 555, 2011-Ohio-1817, ¶ 19. It is inconsistent with the standard of review on summary judgment, where evidence must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party, to dismiss appellant’s evidence of injury as being insufficient as a matter of law. In review, summary judgment was inappropriate as to all of the three claims set forth in the complaint, i.e., medical negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of services and consortium.HortonFranklin 1/8/2019 1/8/2019 2019-Ohio-28
Calypso Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. 180 Indus., L.L.C. 18AP-53The trial court erred in (1) not applying the lodestar method to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees due under a fee-shifting provision of a contract between the parties, (2) not finding the conduct of a plaintiff and its attorneys frivolous under R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(ii), and (3) not addressing defendant's argument that another plaintiff and its attorneys engaged in frivolous conduct.KlattFranklin 12/31/2018 1/2/2019 2019-Ohio-2