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 50 rows. Rows per page: 
12345
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re K.C. C-140307DELINQUENCY - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - MIRANDA: R.C. 2903.05(A)(4) was not unconstitutionally applied to a 12-year-old juvenile who engaged in sexual contact with a six-year-old, because the mens rea of purpose applies to the sexual-contact element of gross sexual imposition, providing a way to distinguish between the victim and the offender. (In re D.B., 129 Ohio St.3d 104, 2011-Ohio-2671, 950 N.E.2d 528, distinguished.) The juvenile was in custody for purposes of determining whether she waived her Miranda rights, because a reasonable 12-year-old in the juvenile's position would not have felt at liberty to terminate the police interrogation and leave, where she had no previous experience with the criminal justice system, her mother had brought her to the interview at the request of police detectives, and her mother had been asked to leave after the juvenile had signed a written waiver of her rights. The trial court erred in overruling the juvenile's motion to suppress her statements to the police, because the state failed to show that the waiver of her rights was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.MockHamilton 4/29/2015 4/29/2015 2015-Ohio-1613
Rural Bldg. of Cincinnati, L.L.C., v. Evendale C-140404MANDAMUS-PROCEDURE/RULES: The trial court erred in dismissing the corporation's complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel a municipality to begin an appropriation proceeding for the alleged regulatory taking of the corporation's private property, when an administrative appeal would not have constituted an adequate remedy at law and would have been a vain act, because the administrative body had no authority to determine whether a taking had occurred or to grant a monetary award. The corporation's complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel a municipality to begin an appropriation proceeding was not subject to dismissal, because the complaint was brought within the four-year limitations period set forth in R.C. 2305.09(E).MockHamilton 4/29/2015 4/29/2015 2015-Ohio-1614
State v. Carpenter C-140423INDICTMENT/COMPLAINT - EVIDENCE/WITNESS/TRIAL - SENTENCING: Where the defendant's indictment alleged the same conduct in three counts, but distinguished the charges by narrowing the time frame of each count, the defendant suffered no due process violation and was not deprived of the ability to prepare a meaningful defense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a witness for the state to be a hostile witness when that witness showed a strong affinity for the defendant, provided evasive answers to the state's questions, and attempted to qualify statements previously given. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from a child victim of sexual abuse concerning all episodes of abuse that the victim had suffered, because the testimony was direct evidence offered in support of the offenses with which the defendant had been charged, and it was to the defendant's advantage that the indictment charged only one sexual offense during each time period specified, even though the victim's testimony would have supported the charging of additional offenses. The trial court erred in imposing court costs in the sentencing entry without informing the defendant in court that costs would be imposed, because the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to claim indigency and seek a waiver of costs.HendonHamilton 4/29/2015 4/29/2015 2015-Ohio-1615
Partin v. Norwood C-140461MUNICIPAL - IMMUNITY: Because the claim asserted by the husband of a city employee against the city of Norwood concerned the city's failure to maintain an Early Retirement Incentive Plan, which was a governmental function under R.C. 2744.02(A)(2), and because no exceptions under R.C. 2744.02(B) applied, Norwood was entitled to a grant of statutory immunity on the claim. Because the allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint concerned specific actions taken by the City of Norwood Auditor, rather than general practices of the Norwood Auditor's office, the plaintiffs had sued the auditor in his individual capacity, rather than his official capacity. The City of Norwood Auditor, sued in his individual capacity, was entitled to a grant of statutory immunity, where the record failed to demonstrate that he had acted with a malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.CunninghamHamilton 4/29/2015 4/29/2015 2015-Ohio-1616
State v. Ingels C-140312, C-140313, C-140328SENTENCING - POSTRELEASE CONTROL: A reviewing court's decision in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in that case; thus when a reviewing court has fully reviewed and rejected a defendant's sentencing-enhancement argument, under the doctrine of law-of-the-case, the trial court does not err when it refuses to vary from the reviewing court's determination that the claimed sentencing errors had not rendered the sentences void. The common pleas court erred in failing to correct defendant's sentences to properly impose postrelease control: the sentences were void to the extent that he had not been properly notified concerning postrelease control, and the sentences were subject to review and correction.CunninghamHamilton 4/29/2015 4/29/2015 2015-Ohio-1621
In re M.P. C140373DELINQUENCY - SEARCH AND SEIZURE: In a delinquency proceeding for carrying a concealed weapon, the trial court properly overruled the juvenile's motion to suppress a handgun recovered from the waistband of his pants, because the detention of the juvenile, in a parking lot next to an apartment where the police were executing a search warrant, comported with the immediate-vicinity rule of United States v. Bailey, __U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1031, 185 L.Ed.2d 19 (2013).Fischer  4/24/2015 4/24/2015 2015-Ohio-1533
Montgomery Cty. v. Deters C-140266CONTRACTS - INSURANCE: A health insurer that has paid medical benefits on behalf of its insured and has been subrogated to the rights of its insured may recover from the insured after the insured recovers under the insured's auto policy. The application of a health-insurance policy's subrogation provision is governed by contract principles, not what is "just" or "equitable."MockHamilton 4/22/2015 4/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1507
Sakelos v. Cincinnati C-140327NEGLIGENCE/AUTO - MUNICIPAL - IMMUNITY: Where a police officer responding to an emergency call caused an automobile accident by making a right turn out of the left lane without signaling, the officer's conduct constituted negligence, not willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct, and the officer and his municipal employer are entitled to immunity.MockHamilton 4/22/2015 4/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1508
State v. Ferguson C-140368SEX OFFENSES - CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS: The trial court erred in overruling, without a hearing, defendant's postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender, where defendant's assertions, if taken as true, established that his conviction may have been invalid as a matter of law, because he had no duty to register as a sex offender.FischerHamilton 4/17/2015 4/17/2015 2015-Ohio-1463
State v. Campbell C-140372ARREST - PLEAS - WAIVER: The trial court did not err when it denied the defendant's motion to suppress, because the defendant waived his argument that there was no evidence that he had committed a crime at the time of his arrest by failing to raise it below. The trial court appropriately found that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant under the totality of the circumstances, where police officers independently corroborated information given by witnesses known to be unreliable. The defendant's no-contest plea precludes review of whether there was sufficient evidence of tampering, where the allegations in the indictment sufficiently stated the tampering offense.DeWineHamilton 4/17/2015 4/17/2015 2015-Ohio-1464
12345