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

Issues Accepted for Review

About |  Help
Download PDFadobe icon

  All open cases and cases closed in past 180 days.
Case No.Case CaptionCase StatusDate
Accepted
Case Issue
2014-1128 State of Ohio v. Montie E. Sullivan OPEN
(Held)
9/24/2014 Does the good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule apply to the warrantless attachment and monitoring of a GPS device where no "binding appellate precedent" authorized the warrantless search?
2014-1127 State of Ohio v. Montie E. Sullivan OPEN
(Held)
9/24/2014 Proposition of Law No. 1. When the warrantless attachment and monitoring of a GPS device on a vehicle occurred before United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012), the exclusionary rule will not be applied to suppress evidence arising therefrom unless such attachment and monitoring involved the deliberate, reckless, or grossly-negligent disregard of Fourth Amendment rights or involved circumstances of recurring or systemic negligence. (Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496; Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), followed and applied).
2014-1127 State of Ohio v. Montie E. Sullivan OPEN
(Held)
9/24/2014 Proposition of Law No. 2. The warrantless attachment and monitoring of a GPS device on a vehicle so as to follow the vehicle's movements on public roadways does not violate the Fourth Amendment when there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause justifying such attachment/monitoring.
2014-1127 State of Ohio v. Montie E. Sullivan OPEN
(Held)
9/24/2014 Proposition of Law No. 3. There is no Exclusionary Rule for a violation of the search-and-seizure provisions of Article l, Section 14, of the Ohio Constitution. (State v. Lindway, 131 Ohio St. 166, 2 N.E.2d 490 (1936), paragraphs four, five, and six of the syllabus, approved and followed).
2014-1062 State of Ohio v. Walter Polus OPEN 9/3/2014 "Whether a trial court may impose consecutive sentences for felony and misdemeanor convictions under R.C. 2929.41(B)(1)."
2014-0990 State of Ohio v. V.M.D. OPEN 9/24/2014 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. I: OHIO COURTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM GRANTING MOTIONS TO EXPUNGE AND SEAL RECORDS OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS THAT ARE OFFENSES OF VIOLENCE.
2014-0943 In the Matter of: C.R., Adjudicated Delinquent Child OPEN
(Held)
9/24/2014 PROPOSITION OF LAW: The imposition of a punitive sanction that extends beyond the age jurisdiction of the juvenile court violates the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.
2014-0942 State of Ohio v. Dajhon Walker OPEN
(Held)
9/24/2014 STATE'S PROPOSITION OF LAW I: AN APPELLATE COURT, WHEN REVIEWING A CHALLENGE TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, IS REQUIRED TO DRAW ALL REASONABLE INFERENCES IN FAVOR OF THE STATE'S CASE AND MAY NOT ADOPT THE DEFENSE'S INFERENCES TO REVERSE A CONVICTION.
2014-0942 State of Ohio v. Dajhon Walker OPEN
(Held)
9/24/2014 STATE'S PROPOSITION OF LAW II: THE STATE INTRODUCES SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CALCULATION AND DESIGN WHERE A JURY COULD REASONABLY INFER THAT THE DEFENDANT DISCUSSED PURPOSELY KILLING THE VICTIM OVER A FIFTEEN MINUTE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE MURDER.
2014-0941 State of Ohio v. Derrell B. Shabazz OPEN 9/24/2014 STATE'S PROPOSITION OF LAW I: AN APPELLATE COURT, WHEN REVIEWING A CHALLENGE TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, IS REQUIRED TO DRAW ALL REASONABLE INFERENCES IN FAVOR OF THE STATE'S CASE AND MAY NOT ADOPT THE DEFENSE'S INFERENCES TO REVERSE A CONVICTION.
12345678910...
Case Issue Votes
lbCaseNumber

lbCaseCaptionShort

lbCaseIssueDescription