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 385 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Taylor 101615R.C. 2907.03(A)(3); sexual battery. Defendant's conviction for sexual battery under R.C. 2907.03 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim testified that she did not consent to sex, fell asleep in the car during ride home, awoke with the individual on top of her, and defendant's DNA was present after the incident.KilbaneCuyahoga 5/28/2015 5/28/2015 2015-Ohio-2033
Eaton Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co. 101654Motion for Stay to Compel Arbitration: When addressing whether a trial court has properly granted a motion to stay and compel arbitration, the appropriate standard of review depends on "the type of questions raised challenging the applicability of the arbitration provision. Arbitration is a creature of contract, so we are guided by "the principle that a party can be forced to arbitrate only those issues it specifically has agreed to submit to arbitration. This requires an examination of the agreement to arbitrate, which has always been considered a review as a "matter of law;" in other words, a de novo review.BlackmonCuyahoga 5/28/2015 5/28/2015 2015-Ohio-2034
Powell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 101662Civ.R. 56/summary judgment; settlement agreement; res judicata. Appellant failed to file a direct appeal on the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to enforce settlement agreement. Appellant's current appeal on that issue is barred by res judicata. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion where a final judgment was issued on the merits.JonesCuyahoga 5/28/2015 5/28/2015 2015-Ohio-2035
State v. McKinney 101674Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; R.C. 2929.14(C); concurrent sentences; domestic violence. Defendant's counsel was not ineffective at resentencing hearing because counsel argued that consecutive sentences were not appropriate and that concurrent sentences should be imposed.KilbaneCuyahoga 5/28/2015 5/28/2015 2015-Ohio-2036
Allan v. Allan 101700Civil contempt; temporary support; impossibility; purge; attorney fees; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the husband in civil contempt for failure to comply with its temporary support orders where the evidence showed that Husband failed to make support payments as ordered and was unable to demonstrate in sufficient detail why he was unable to comply with the court's orders. Husband's unsupported claims of inability to pay are insufficient to establish that the court's purge condition was unreasonable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Wife attorney fees where the court considered the evidence, assessed the reasonableness of the fees, and determined that the fees were associated with Husband's act of contempt.McCormackCuyahoga 5/28/2015 5/28/2015 2015-Ohio-2037
State v. Torres 101769Anders brief; frivolous appeal; independent review. After an independent review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, this court found no errors in the trial court that were prejudicial to appellant. Appointed counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.McCormackCuyahoga 5/28/2015 5/28/2015 2015-Ohio-2038
State v. West 101844, 101845Mandatory fine; indigency or ability to pay. While the trial court is not prohibited from imposing a fine on an indigent defendant, the record did not reflect the requisite consideration by the trial court on the issue of the defendant's ability to pay in a resentencing proceeding. The matter is therefore remanded for the limited purpose of a consideration of the defendant's claim of indigency.McCormackCuyahoga 5/28/2015 5/28/2015 2015-Ohio-2039
Williams v. Flannery 101880Civil stalking protection order. Competent, credible evidence was presented to show respondent knowingly engaged in a pattern of conduct that caused petitioner mental stress. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a civil stalking protection order.McCormackCuyahoga 5/28/2015 5/28/2015 2015-Ohio-2040
State v. Williams 101885Proportionality; Resentencing hearing. Because the trial court conducted a proper de novo resentencing hearing and imposed a sentence that was commensurate with appellant's culpability and not disproportionately longer than that of his codefendants, appellant's sentence is affirmed.Laster MaysCuyahoga 5/28/2015 5/28/2015 2015-Ohio-2041
In re D.S. 101906Permanent custody; best interests of the child; temporary custody; Indian Child Welfare Act; clear and convincing evidence; custodial history; guardian ad litem; medical; housing; employment; ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial court complied with Indian Child Welfare Act and determined that child did not have any Native American ancestry. Permanent custody was in child's best interest because Father was unable to meet child's special medical needs or provide stable housing. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call witnesses to testify on Father's behalf where Father failed to show prejudice and reviewing court does not second guess counsel's trial strategy.GallagherCuyahoga 5/28/2015 5/28/2015 2015-Ohio-2042