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 116 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re L.J. CA2014-10-124There was sufficient evidence presented to support juvenile court's determinations that child had been in agency's temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, that agency made reasonable efforts to reunify child with his biological parents and that it is in child's best interest to grant agency permanent custody of him. Father failed to show that his counsel provided him with constitutionally ineffective representation at permanent custody hearing, since nothing in the record shows trial court would have granted the request for an extension of temporary custody or supports father's contention he nearly completed his case plan and would have done so had he been given more time. PiperWarren 4/23/2015 4/24/2015 2015-Ohio-1567
State v. Shavers CA2014-05-119Guilty Plea; Crim. R. 11; Sentencing.HendricksonButler 4/20/2015 4/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1485
Robinson v. Cameron CA2014-09-191Summary judgment; trespass action; plaintiff's allegation that next-door neighbors' pool was leaking water, which in turn infiltrated plaintiff's home, causing structural damages to home; intentional conduct element of trespass not met.M. PowellButler 4/20/2015 4/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1486
State v. Emery CA2014-09-062Community control condition; R.C. 2929.27(C); no uninvited contact with minor daughter except as authorized by Children's Protective Services or juvenile court; constitutional challenge; compelling governmental interest in safety and welfare of children; narrowly tailored sanction; condition reasonably related to rehabilitating the offender; condition has some relationship to offender's domestic violence conviction; condition is reasonably related to future criminality and serves the statutory ends of probation; municipal court had jurisdiction to impose condition.HendricksonClermont 4/20/2015 4/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1487
State v. Brannon CA2014-09-012Division of Wildlife Regulations; OAC 1501:31-15-09; Property Owners; Open Fields; Fourth Amendment; Motion to Suppress; Search; Jury Instructions; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Sufficiency of the Evidence.HendricksonClinton 4/20/2015 4/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1488
State v. Babyak CA2014-08-016The trial court erred by affirming the resentencing entry, which was filed during the pendency of appellant's direct appeal. Once appellant filed a written notice of appeal, the trial court was temporarily divested of jurisdiction to correct appellant's sentence. Trial court erred at the original sentencing hearing when it failed to notify appellant of the potential consequences for violating postrelease control. In addition, the sentencing entry was improper because it suggested appellant may receive less than the statutorily-required term. Appellant must be resentenced to postrelease control pursuant to R.C. 2929.191. Appellant's arguments regarding the trial court's failure to merge allied offenses and to make the necessary findings to impose maximum, consecutive sentences, were barred by res judicata. Appellant had the opportunity, but failed to raise those issues on direct appeal.PiperMadison 4/20/2015 4/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1489
State v. Campbell CA2014-06-137The trial court's consecutive sentence was contrary to law where the trial court failed to make the required statutory findings at the sentencing hearing. Appellant failed to prove that his convictions were allied offenses where each image that he downloaded was distinct, thus constituting multiple victims, separate conduct, and a separate animus for each image.PiperButler 4/13/2015 4/13/2015 2015-Ohio-1409
In re C.A. CA2014-07-165Legal Custody; Best Interest; R.C. 3109.04(F)(1); Abuse of Discretion; Manifest Weight of the Evidence.PowellButler 4/13/2015 4/13/2015 2015-Ohio-1410
State v. Frazer CA2014-10-216Appellant's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made where the trial court discussed what a bill of information is, what rights appellant was waiving by agreeing to the bill of information, as well as performed the entire Crim.R. 11 colloquy and appellant stated his agreement and acknowledgement that he understood the charge against him before pleading guilty. PiperButler 4/13/2015 4/13/2015 2015-Ohio-1411
State v. Neal CA2014-04-031Fourth-degree felony; R.C. 2929.13(B); offense of violence; not amenable to community control sanctions; purposes and principles of sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; seriousness and recidivism factors; R.C. 2929.12; consecutive sentence findings; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.HendricksonClermont 4/13/2015 4/13/2015 2015-Ohio-1412