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 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:   What is Year Decided?
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 138 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. McGee C-150496HOMICIDE - EVIDENCE - HEARSAY - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - CONFRONTATION CLAUSE - WEAPONS - TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE: The trial court did not commit plain error in allowing the state to introduce a taped call between the homicide victim and a 911 operator in which the victim told the operator that the defendant had threatened to kill him, because the tape was admissible as an excited utterance under Evid.R. 803(2): although the record did not indicate exactly how much time had elapsed between the defendant's threat and the victim's 911 call, a review of the 911 call shows that the victim had still been under stress from the defendant's threat at the time of the call-the victim could not remember his apartment number, and he told the operator to have emergency services "[g]et here on the double." The defendant's Confrontation-Clause rights were not violated when the state introduced evidence of the victim's 911 call to police where the record demonstrates that the primary purpose of the victim's statements to the 911 operator was to obtain police assistance in an ongoing emergency: the statements described a present, hostile situation in which the victim anticipated that the defendant would arrive at his home within minutes, the defendant carried weapons, the defendant had threatened the victim's life, and the victim requested immediate police assistance for the situation. Sufficient evidence existed to support the defendant's carrying-a-concealed-weapon conviction, and it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the defendant told police that he had been wearing a large coat had kept the gun in his back pocket until the victim had opened his apartment door. Sufficient evidence existed to support the defendant's tampering-with-evidence conviction, and it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the defendant's specific intent to impair the investigation after the shooting can be inferred from the fact that police could not find the gun at the victim's apartment, and the defendant refused to tell police a consistent story when asked what he had done with the gun after the shooting.FischerHamilton 10/28/2016 10/28/2016 2016-Ohio-7510
State v. Brand C-150590EVIDENCE/WITNESS/TRIAL - OTHER ACTS - ID/PHOTOS: The trial court erred in admitting other-acts evidence of prior crimes committed by defendant to show proof of defendant's identity, because the prior crimes did not share common features with the crimes for which defendant was on trial and did not establish a scheme or plan identifiable only to defendant where the only common feature of the crimes was that they involved the robberies of drug dealers; however, the error was not prejudicial in light of the other evidence of defendant's guilt. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in responding to a question from the jury by reading back to the jury during deliberations a portion of the testimony of a state's witness. Because the photographic lineup from which the state's witness identified defendant was not unduly suggestive, the trial court did not err in failing to grant the defendant's motion to suppress the eyewitness identification.HendonHamilton 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 2016-Ohio-7456
Turley v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Ctr. C-150717FORFEITED ERROR - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR: Where plaintiff failed to object to evidence submitted in support of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that the evidence was not the type contemplated by Civ.R. 56, the trial court had the discretion to consider the evidence even if it did not comply with Civ.R. 56, and plaintiff's failure to object forfeited the issue for appeal absent a claim of plain error. The trial court did not err when it granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that defendants were liable to plaintiff under a theory of respondeat superior where defendants had submitted an affidavit in support of their motion for summary judgment asserting that their employee had acted outside the scope of her employment in accessing and disclosing plaintiff's medical records and where plaintiff had failed to rebut this assertion so as to create a genuine issue of material fact.StautbergHamilton 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 2016-Ohio-7457
Watkins v. Good Samaritan Hosp. of Cincinnati C-160194PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE - IN CAMERA REVIEW: The trial court erred when it granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel production of certain documents where defendants hospital and doctors had reasonably asserted that the documents were subject to the peer review privilege under R.C. 2305.252 and where the trial court failed to conduct an in camera review of the documents to determine whether the privilege applied before ordering their release.StautbergHamilton 10/26/2016 10/26/2016 2016-Ohio-7458
Lugenbeal v. Stupak C-160413CORPORATION - SHAREHOLDER-DERIVITIVE CLAIMS - NONSHAREHOLDER - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - R.C. 1701.93: The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to the defendants, a corporation and two of its officers, on the plaintiff's breach-of-fiduciary-duty and civil-conspiracy claims, because the claims were shareholder-derivative claims that could not be brought by a nonshareholder. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff's claim for a violation of R.C. 1701.93, because the plaintiff presented no evidence that an officer, director, or the corporation had issued, with the intent to deceive, false documents knowing them to be false.CunninghamHamilton 10/21/2016 10/21/2016 2016-Ohio-7408
Fisher v. Doe C-160226DEFAMATION - INVASION OF PRIVACY - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL - INTERNET - SUBPOENA: Out-of-state cases relating to the First Amendment right to remain anonymous on the Internet did not apply in a defamation/invasion-of-privacy case, because no public forum was involved where the defendant allegedly sent an anonymous email to the plaintiff's employer. The defendant failed to meet his burden to show that providing his identifying information would be an undue burden, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying in part his motion to quash a subpoena to his Internet provider, which related to the defendant's name, mailing address, residential address, business address, email address, user name and phone numbers.MockHamilton 10/19/2016 10/19/2016 2016-Ohio-7383
State v. Hafford C-150578COMMUNITY CONTROL - REVOCATION - SENTENCING - NUNC PRO TUNC: The trial court did not err in revoking the defendant's community control after the defendant pleaded guilty to the violation where the defendant had been notified of the community-control term at the time of sentencing, the trial court notified the defendant before his revocation hearing of the clerical error omitting the community-control term from the sentencing entry, and the trial court journalized a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the clerical error in the sentencing entry before entering the judgment revoking the defendant's community control.StautbergHamilton 10/12/2016 10/12/2016 2016-Ohio-7282
Engelhart v. Bluett C-160189JURISDICTION - COMPLAINT - CORPORATIONS - PROCEDURE/RULES - CIV.R. 60(B): The trial court had jurisdiction to grant a default judgment to the plaintiff even though the defendant was referred to by a trade name in the caption of the complaint, because R.C. 1329.10(C) allows suit to be brought against a fictitious party and because the plaintiff named the proper party in the body of the complaint and the substance of the complaint is controlling. The default judgment was not void for lack of jurisdiction where the plaintiff served the defendant's statutory agent as required by Civ.R. 4.2(F).FischerHamilton 10/7/2016 10/7/2016 2016-Ohio-7237
State v. Cobia C-160256APPELLATE REVIEW - JURISDICTION - POSTCONVICTION - SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION: The common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain defendant's postconviction motion challenging the tolling under R.C. 2950.07 of his ten-year sex-offender registration period: the motion was not reviewable under Crim.R. 47 because it was not filed in a pending criminal proceeding, under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. as a postconviction petition because it did not allege a constitutional violation, under Crim.R. 33 as a motion for a new trial or under Crim.R. 32.1 as a motion to withdraw guilty pleas because the conviction was upon guilty pleas and the motion did not seek withdrawal of those pleas, under R.C. Chapter 2731 as a petition for a writ of mandamus or under R.C. Chapter 2721 as a declaratory judgment action because the motion did not satisfy those statutes' procedural requirements, or under R.C. 2725.01 as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the offender had been released from confinement; nor did Crim.R. 57(B) require review under Civ.R. 60(B) because the motion did not seek relief from the offender's convictions. The court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal from the common pleas court's judgment overruling a sex-offender's postconviction motion challenging the tolling under R.C. 2950.07 of his ten-year registration period: the judgment was not reviewable under the jurisdiction conferred upon an intermediate appeals court by R.C. 2953.02 or 2953.08 to review a judgment of conviction entered in a criminal case, by R.C. 2953.23(B) to review an order awarding or denying postconviction relief, or by R.C. 2505.03(A) to review, affirm, modify, or reverse a "final order, judgment or decree"; nor was the matter reviewable by either the common pleas court or the court of appeals under the jurisdiction to correct a void judgment.MockHamilton 10/5/2016 10/5/2016 2016-Ohio-7213
Higgins v. Buehrer C160288EVIDENCE - WORKERS' COMPENSATION: The trial court's judgment denying plaintiff the right to participate in the workers' compensation fund for the conditions of depression and anxiety must be reversed where it is apparent from the record that the trial court failed to review the stipulated exhibits before entering judgment.HendonHamilton 10/5/2016 10/5/2016 2016-Ohio-7214