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 37 rows. Rows per page: 
1234
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Thomas C-150581, C-150555NEW TRIAL - APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL: An appeal purportedly taken from an entry that is not reflected in the record on appeal is subject to dismissal. In defendant's appeal from the overruling of his Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to move for a new trial, the court of appeals has no jurisdiction to address assignments of error challenging his convictions. The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in overruling, without a hearing, defendant's Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial upon a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence: defendant demonstrated that he did not know of, and could not have learned of, the proposed ground for a new trial within the prescribed period; but he delayed more than six years in moving for leave after discovering the evidence supporting that claim, and that delay was not adequately explained or reasonable under the circumstances.MillerHamilton 6/21/2017 6/21/2017 2017-Ohio-4403
R & A Lawn Care, L.L.C. v. Back C-160682CONTRACTS: Where the parties testified that they had entered into an oral agreement for the plaintiff to perform lawn care services for the defendant at a rate of $25 an hour, and where the agreement was demonstrated by the parties' course of conduct, the trial court erred in finding that the parties had not entered into an oral contract.MyersHamilton 6/21/2017 6/21/2017 2017-Ohio-4404
State v. Billups C-150500SEARCH AND SEIZURE - TRAFFIC STOP - TERRY PAT-DOWN: In a prosecution for trafficking in heroin, the trial court properly overruled the defendant's motion to motion to suppress evidence recovered from his person and his vehicle during a traffic stop, because the police officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry pat-down of the defendant, the pat-down did not exceed the permissible scope, the officer did not excessively detain the defendant to await the arrival of a drug-sniffing canine, and the officer's plain-feel discovery of the heroin on the defendant during the pat-down search gave police probable cause to arrest him.DetersHamilton 6/16/2017 6/16/2017 2017-Ohio-4309
State v. Valdez C-160437CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - COUNSEL - APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL: The municipal court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to misdemeanor domestic violence on the ground that his plea had been the unintelligent product of his trial counsel's ineffectiveness in advising him concerning the immigration consequences of his conviction: the motion was reviewable under Crim.R. 32.1; and counsel had a duty under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), to accurately advise defendant that, with his conviction, his removal was presumptively mandatory; but the record cannot be said to demonstrate that withdrawal was necessary to correct manifest injustice, when the municipal court, in deciding the motion, did not have before it a transcript of the plea hearing. [But see DISSENT: Manifest injustice can be established on facts supplied through the affidavit attached to the motion. Since the trial court did not consider whether defendant was prejudiced, this court should not address merits for the first time on appeal and instead should remand the case to the trial court for consideration of this issue.]MockHamilton 6/14/2017 6/14/2017 2017-Ohio-4260
In re D.G. C-160515-518DELINQUENCY - JUVENILE - ARREST - PROBABLE CAUSE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - CURFEW - MENACING: The trial court did not err in denying the juvenile's motion to suppress his arrest for violating the city of Norwood's daytime-curfew ordinance, because, under the totality of the circumstances, the arrest was supported by probable cause: where traveling to and from school was an exception to the daytime-curfew ordinance, the juvenile's statement that he was on his way to school was to be evaluated along with all other circumstances to determine whether he had violated the curfew. Where the juvenile had continually shouted profanities at the arresting officer, spit on the officer, and threatened to kill the officer, the officer's belief that the juvenile would cause him harm was reasonable, and the juvenile's adjudication for menacing was supported by sufficient evidence.MyersHamilton 6/14/2017 6/14/2017 2017-Ohio-4261
State v. Newell C-160453, C-160454, C-160455, C-160456CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - MIRANDA: In a prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol, the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence where defendant failed to sustain her initial burden of proof to demonstrate that her stop and seizure were warrantless and that her statements were the result of custodial interrogation.DetersHamilton 6/7/2017 6/7/2017 2017-Ohio-4143
State v. Martin C-160507NO-ERROR BRIEF - SENTENCING: Where counsel has filed a no-error brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and the appellate court determines that the appeal is wholly frivolous, the court may decide the appeal on its merits without appointing new counsel. Where the trial court announced the statutory findings for consecutive sentences in open court, but omitted the consecutive-sentencing findings from the sentencing entry, the court did not commit error prejudicial to defendant: the omission is a clerical error that may be corrected on remand by a nunc pro tunc entry.MillerHamilton 6/7/2017 6/7/2017 2017-Ohio-4144
Bright Future Partners, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Distrib., L.L.C. C-160589APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - JURISDICTION - FINAL ORDER - CIV.R. 34(D) - ARBITRATION: For an order to be a final order, it must meet the requirements of R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B), if applicable: to determine what provision of R.C. 2505.02 to apply, it is necessary to determine the nature and subject matter of the cause of action appealed from, and where the appeal is taken from an order issued in a Civ.R. 34(D) action for prelitigation discovery, R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) applies. The denial of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss is not a final order because it does not determine the action and prevent a judgment. The trial court's order in a prelitigation discovery action setting a deadline for defendant to respond to plaintiffs' requests for production of documents was not a final order: the order was akin to a scheduling order, because defendant still had the opportunity to object to the requests, and the order did not require the defendant to turn over any of the requested documents; therefore, the order did not determine the action or prevent a judgment in defendant's favor. Under R.C. 2711.02(C), an order that grants or denies a stay of a trial of any action pending arbitration is a final order. Where an action is brought on any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, the court in which the action is pending shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until the arbitration of the issue has been had in accordance with the agreement. Whether a controversy is arbitrable under a contract requires the court to invoke principles of contract interpretation and presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo, and where the plain language of a dispute resolution clause requires the parties to a contract to arbitrate discovery issues, the trial court erred by failing to grant defendant's motion to stay plaintiffs' prelitigation discovery action pending arbitration.MillerHamilton 6/7/2017 6/7/2017 2017-Ohio-4145
State v. Royal C-160666COUNSEL - CRIM.R. 32.1 - PLEAS: Defense counsel's mere inaccurate prediction of defendant's sentence did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas where manifest injustice did not result from defense counsel's erroneous sentence prediction and where the record supports a finding that defendant's guilty pleas were voluntarily and intelligently made.MyersHamilton 6/7/2017 6/7/2017 2017-Ohio-4146
State v. Foster C-160424CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - AUTOMOBILE: The trial court properly denied a motion to suppress money that was found on the defendant after he was lawfully stopped for a traffic violation and placed into custody due to an open warrant. The trial court erred by denying a motion to suppress contraband found during a search of the vehicle the defendant had been operating before his arrest on an open warrant: the search did not fall under the inventory-search exception to the warrant requirement because the state failed to demonstrate that the search was performed pursuant to the police department's standard procedure for inventory searches of vehicles taken into custody for impoundment and was therefore "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment where there was no evidence presented at the suppression hearing that the officer complied with the department's restrictions on impoundments and inventory searches, including the provisions concerning the driver's "right" to arrange for someone to remove the vehicle.CunninghamHamilton 5/31/2017 5/31/2017 2017-Ohio-4036
1234