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 3 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Wright v. Heller C-160897RES JUDICATA/ESTOPPEL - ISSUE PRECLUSION - PRIVITY: The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs' claims for conversion, replevin and unjust enrichment related to personal property plaintiffs had failed to remove from their home after a foreclosure proceeding: plaintiffs were precluded from raising the claims because a federal court had issued a valid judgment on the merits in a prior proceeding, the parties to the state court proceeding were in privity with the party in the federal proceeding, the state action raised claims that could have been raised in the federal proceeding, and both actions arose from the same occurrence.ZayasHamilton 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 2018-Ohio-149
State v. Slaughter C-170110, C-170111, C-170112AUTOMOBILES/CRIMINAL - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - TRAFFIC STOP: In a prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol and a marked-lanes violation, the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion to suppress evidence on the basis that the Ohio state highway patrol trooper had lacked probable cause or a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle where the trooper testified that he had witnessed a marked-lanes violation, which was not inconsistent with a video recording of the traffic stop taken from his cruiser camera, even though the marked-lanes violation was not visible on the video due to the glare of oncoming headlights.DetersHamilton 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 2018-Ohio-105
State v. Bowers C-160756SENTENCING - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL: Where defendant was found guilty of raping a child, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), with the accompanying specification that the child was under ten years old, the trial court had three sentencing options according to the plain language of the relevant statutes: under R.C. 2907.02(B), the trial court could have imposed a sentence of life without parole; under R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(b), a sentence of 15 years to life; and under R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(c), a sentence of 25 years to life upon a finding by the court that the defendant had compelled his victim to submit by force. [But see DISSENT: The trial court's finding of force unconstitutionally raised the mandatory minimum sentence from 15 years to life to 25 years to life.] Judicial fact-finding that creates a middle sentencing option, i.e., one that does not raise the sentencing floor or ceiling, is constitutionally permissible and does not violate Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), or Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). [But see DISSENT: Judicial fact-finding that raises the mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutional; and where the jury found that the victim of defendant's rape was under ten, but defendant was not charged with or found guilty by the jury of the use or threat of force, the trial court erred in increasing the minimum sentence to 25 years to life upon its finding that defendant had used force.]MillerHamilton 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 2018-Ohio-30