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
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
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 803 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re K.A. 107080Serious youthful offender; R.C. 2152.13; indictment. The juvenile court did not err in dismissing a serious youthful offender indictment where the state failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in R.C. 2152.13(A).CelebrezzeCuyahoga 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4599
State v. Clark 107041R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12/maximum sentence; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)/consecutive sentences. The trial court’s imposition of a maximum term was proper where it was not outside the statutory range and the seriousness and recidivism factors were considered. There was no error in the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences where it was found that consecutive sentences were required to protect the public from future crime, to punish appellant, and that the consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct or the danger appellant poses to the public.JonesCuyahoga 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4600
Dabney v. Metro Appraisal Group, Inc. 106917Motion to dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); breach of contract; contractual relationship; negligence; duty; appraisal. Appellant can prove no set of facts to support his breach of contract and negligence claims that would entitle him to relief. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted appellee’s motion to dismiss.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4601
Cleveland Assn. of Rescue Emps./ILA Local 1975 v. Cleveland 106783Writ of mandamus; R.C. 149.43; mootness; attorney fees; failure to respond; reasonable time; costs. Relator was entitled to attorney fees incurred in the bringing of a mandamus action to require respondent city to produce public records, where the records were released after the filing of the mandamus action but prior to its conclusion, rendering that portion of the action moot.KilbaneCuyahoga 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4602
State v. Sanders 106744Witness intimidation; R.C. 2921.04(B)(2); criminal act; prosecutorial misconduct. State did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had been murdered in order for the death to be considered a criminal act for purposes of witness intimidation. The state need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed that a criminal act occurred and attempted to intimidate a witness to that criminal act. Statement that defendant’s attempt to intimidate the witnesses did not stop those witnesses from coming to court and “telling you the truth” was not a statement vouching for the credibility of the witnesses.StewartCuyahoga 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4603
Cleveland v. Ruiz 106743Sufficient evidence; aggravated menacing; subjective fear; serious physical harm; court costs. A conviction for aggravated menacing is not supported by sufficient evidence where there is no proof that the victim had subjective fear of serious physical harm. It is harmless error where trial court imposes court costs outside of sentencing because the court retains jurisdiction over the issue of waiving the payment of court costs at any time.StewartCuyahoga 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4604
Henderson v. Speedway, L.L.C. 106737Motion to compel discovery; Civ.R. 56/summary judgment; objections to magistrate’s decision. Appellant’s motion to compel failed to designate which of appellee’s responses were deficient. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to compel. There also was no error by the trial court where it did not compel depositions of additional witnesses where appellant agreed to limit his depositions to key witnesses only. Appellant failed to preserve the gasoline he is claiming to have damaged his vehicle and therefore cannot show that the gasoline was contaminated, and without evidence that the gasoline was contaminated appellant cannot show that the gasoline was the cause of the damage to his vehicle. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment was proper. Because appellant failed to file a transcript or affidavit of the evidence for the trial court record with his objections, this court under a plain-error review find no error in the trial court’s overruling appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision.JonesCuyahoga 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4605
State v. Cross 106728R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)/consecutive sentences. Evidence in the record supported the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences were required and that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct or the danger appellant poses to the public.JonesCuyahoga 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4606
Cantlin v. Smythe Cramer Co. 106697Class certification; rigorous analysis; fraud; unjust enrichment; unearned real estate transaction fees; identifiability; typicality; predominance. New class definition after remand satisfies the Civ.R.23(B) class certification requirements. At issue is a $225 real estate transaction fee that plaintiffs (certain home buyers and sellers) allege is unearned by defendant (real estate brokers and agents). Class certification is favored when plaintiffs allege fraud concerning the defendant’s form contracts. The class is identifiable, and the definition is unambiguous. The claims of the named-plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the entire class, and common questions of law or fact predominate over individual issues.BlackmonCuyahoga 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4607
Johnson v. New Direction IRA F.B.O. 106628Express easement; modification of easement; termination of easement; statute of frauds; R.C. 1335.04; R.C. 1335.05; recording of instruments; constructive notice; R.C. 5301.01; bona fide purchaser for value; R.C. 5301.25; forfeiture deed; R.C. 5723.12; Civ.R. 54(D); fees and costs; compensatory damages for trespass. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the existence of an express easement appurtenant in favor of appellee. Appellee, owner of the dominant estate, sued appellant, owner of the servient estate, for constructing a fence across the shared driveway that provided the sole source of ingress and egress to appellee’s landlocked property. Appellee is a bona fide purchaser for value under R.C. 5301.25 who purchased the property without knowledge of an unrecorded notice of termination of the easement that stemmed from an invalid agreement attempting to modify the easement to provide a termination right. Prior transfer of the parcel by forfeiture deed did not terminate the easement pursuant to R.C. 5723.12. A presumption in favor of costs exists under Civ.R. 54(D) and the award of costs is within the sound discretion of the trial court. The owner of a dominant estate is entitled to compensatory damages from the owner of the servient estate for easement interference.Laster MaysCuyahoga 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4608
12345678910...>>