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 275 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Allen 101342R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); consecutive sentences; required findings. Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing where trial court did not make the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences and amended defendant's sentence in its journal entry of sentencing in defendant's absence.KeoughCuyahoga 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1448
Rababy v. Metter 101445Nuisance; negligence; tortious interference with a business relationship; Massachusetts Rule; Hawaii Rule; affidavit; summary judgment; dangerous condition; trees. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a landowner in a suit brought by his neighbor alleging trees on the landowner's property constituted a nuisance, a trespass, and that they were negligently maintained. The trial court also properly granted summary judgment on the tortious interference claim.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1449
State v. Raimundy-Torres 101490R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; R.C. 2929.18; R.C. 2929.19. The trial court did not err in imposing six-year sentence for first-degree felony drug trafficking. The trial court did not err in imposing mandatory fine.KilbaneCuyahoga 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1450
High St. Properties, L.L.C. v. Cleveland 101585Civ.R. 12(B)(6); dismissal; declaratory judgment; compensatory damages; injunctive relief; vacated street; reasonable access; Cleveland Codified Ordinances; controversy; justiciable; zoning restrictions. The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as the complaint fails to articulate a set of facts if taken as true, that would entitle plaintiff's to relief.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1451
State v. Gay 101647Community Control; Contrary to law; Definite sentence. Appellant's sentence is not contrary to law because the trial court indicated at the sentencing hearing the maximum term of imprisonment appellant faced for any violation of community control sanctions.Laster MaysCuyahoga 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1452
State v. Nordstrom 101656felonious assault; domestic violence; sufficiency; manifest weight; jury instructions; consecutive sentence; joint sentencing. Appellant's convictions for felonious assault and domestic violence were supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, did not contain prejudicial error. Consecutive-sentence issue was improperly raised in this appeal because the consecutive sentence actually was imposed in another case at a joint sentencing.GallagherCuyahoga 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1453
State v. Nordstrom 101657Domestic violence; felonious assault; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); findings; disproportional; conduct. A court's duty under Crim.R. 11 to inform the defendant of the maximum penalties involved does not mandate that a court inform the defendant that it can order his prison terms to be consecutive. However, courts must make the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentences and then incorporate those findings in the sentencing entry. Incorporation, in this context, is not satisfied by simply referring back to the sentencing transcript.StewartCuyahoga 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1454
In re K.S. 101735Permanent custody; termination of parental rights; clear and convincing evidence; R.C. 2151.414. The trial court did not err in terminating mother's parental rights and denying the biological family members' motions for custody in light of the guardian ad litem's recommendation, the failure of mother to comply with the case plan, and the bond developed between the children and the foster family.GallagherCuyahoga 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1455
State v. Hill 101755Aggravated burglary; Felonious assault; Firearm; Identification procedure; Jury instruction; Manifest weight; Plain error; Sufficiency. Appellant did not renew his request for a special instruction when the trial court discussed jury instructions, therefore, this court reviews for only plain error. Because the police officers complied with R.C. 2933.83 requirements for conducting photo identifications, the trial court did not need to give a jury instruction pursuant to that statute. Appellant's convictions for aggravated burglary and felonious assault with firearm specifications were supported by both sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence.Laster MaysCuyahoga 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1456
State v. Brito 101793Sentence; postrelease control; allied offenses. Because no transcript of the sentencing hearing was provided on appeal, we presume regularity that the trial court advised appellant regarding the terms of his postrelease control and the consequences should he violate the terms of control. However, because the sentencing entry fails to include the consequences for violating postrelease control, we remand for the trial court to include a nunc pro tunc entry to include the consequences for violating postrelease control. Res judicata prevents us from reviewing appellant's allied offenses argument.BlackmonCuyahoga 4/16/2015 4/16/2015 2015-Ohio-1457