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 114 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Mosley C-150429POSTCONVICTION-JURISDICTION-SENTENCING: Defendant's postconviction challenge to his postrelease-control notification was not reviewable under R.C. 2953.21 et seq., because he sought relief based on a statutory, rather than a constitutional, violation; nor was the challenge reviewable under a court's jurisdiction to correct a void judgment, because he was sentenced in compliance with the postrelease-control statutes. The common pleas court had jurisdiction to correct defendant's sentences, because they were void to the extent that they did not include the driver's license suspension mandated by R.C. 2925.03(D)(2) and 2925.03(G) and the fine mandated by R.C. 2925.03(D)(1) and 2929.18(B)(1).Per CuriamHamilton 8/26/2016 8/26/2016 2016-Ohio-5525
Young v. Durrani C-150562; C-150566APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - JURISDICTION - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL: Appellate jurisdiction over the trial court's order declaring the medical statute of repose unconstitutional extends to determining whether the claims alleged against the hospital are medical claims subject to the statute of repose. Appellate jurisdiction does not extend to the trial court's determination that the peer-review-immunity statute is unconstitutional, because R.C. 2305.252(A) provides only that orders compelling production of peer-review information are final, and the trial court did not order the production of any information. [But see DISSENT: The appellate court has jurisdiction to review the trial court's determination that the peer-review-immunity statute is unconstitutional, because the court's order, which states that the plaintiffs must have access to the physician's peer-review file and that discovery should proceed, requires the hospital to produce peer-review materials for discovery, and therefore, the order is immediately appealable under R.C. 2305.252.] The plaintiffs' claims for negligence, negligent credentialing and retention, loss of consortium, fraud, violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and product liability are medical claims subject to the medical statute of repose. The trial court erred in declaring R.C. 2305.113(C), the medical statute of repose, unconstitutional, because the court was bound by the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in Ruther v. Kaiser, 134 Ohio St.3d 408, 2012-Ohio-5686, 983 N.E.2d 291, that the statute is constitutional. R.C. 2305.113(C), the medical statute of repose, does not violate the plaintiffs' First Amendment right to petition the government for redress, because it does not prevent the plaintiffs from petitioning the government, it just sets the time in which they must do so.DeWineHamilton 8/26/2016 8/26/2016 2016-Ohio-5526
State v. Farris C-150567APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL - JURISDICTION: Defendant's appeal must be dismissed as moot where he was convicted of a misdemeanor criminal offense, failed to seek a stay of the sentence from the trial court, and voluntarily completed a sentence exceeding the time already served, and no evidence is offered from which an inference can be drawn that defendant will suffer some actual collateral disability or loss of civil rights as a result of the conviction.MockHamilton 8/26/2016 8/26/2016 2016-Ohio-5527
State v. Morris C-150421EVIDENCE - KIDNAPPING - AGGRAVATED ROBBERY - FELONIOUS ASSAULT - R.C. 2941.25 - ALLIED OFFENSES - COUNSEL: Where defendant forced one victim into a second-floor apartment at knifepoint and the second victim followed, defendant jumped on the first victim and threatened him with a knife, defendant told the victims not to leave and two other men in the apartment told the victims to listen to defendant because he was "crazy," the state presented sufficient evidence to sustain the kidnapping conviction as to the second victim because she was restrained in the second-floor apartment by defendant's threat of violence. The state presented sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for felonious assault against the second victim where she was severely injured after jumping from the second-floor balcony in an attempt to escape, because escape is a natural consequence of holding a person hostage; but the state did not present sufficient evidence to sustain defendant's conviction for aggravated robbery against the same victim because her injuries resulted from her voluntary jump off of the balcony, and therefore, the state failed to establish that defendant inflicted her injuries through any direct action. [But see DISSENT: The evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant recklessly inflicted the second victim's injuries because he set the events in motion that caused those injuries, and therefore, his conviction for aggravated robbery was supported by sufficient evidence.] The trial court did not commit plain error in failing to merge the kidnapping and aggravated-robbery counts as to the second victim where the defendant's prolonged restraint of the victim demonstrated a separate animus for the two offenses. Defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for dismissal of the kidnapping charges or requesting merger of the kidnapping and aggravated-robbery counts as to the second victim where neither argument would have been successful.DeWineHamilton 8/24/2016 8/24/2016 2016-Ohio-5490
Pitcher v. Waldman C-160245SANCTIONS - PROCEDURE/RULES: The trial court did not err in failing to hold a hearing on defendant's motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct under R.C. 2323.51, because the statute does not mandate a hearing if the motion lacks merit, defendant did not ask for a hearing on the motion as required by the local rules, and defendant forfeited any right to a hearing by failing to request one when the parties asked the trial court to decide the motion. Where defendant filed a motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct by plaintiffs in bringing suit against defendant, the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion where a reasonable interpretation of a previous settlement agreement, in which the plaintiffs released all claims against defendant that they knew to exist as of the time of the agreement, was that the agreement did not include the specific dissemination of confidential information by defendant that was the subject of the lawsuit, and where the court could not say that no reasonable lawyer would have brought the suit.MockHamilton 8/24/2016 8/24/2016 2016-Ohio-5491
State v. Hengehold C-150402APPELLATE REVIEW-JURISDICTION-POSTCONVICTION In an appeal from the overruling of a postconviction motion, the court of appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain an assignment of error challenging the denial of postconviction relief on a ground not advanced in the motion. R.C. 2953.21 et seq. did not confer upon the common pleas court jurisdiction to entertain defendant's postconviction challenge to his trial counsel's effectiveness in failing to object to the trial court's failure to provide at sentencing the community-service-for-nonpayment-of-costs notification required by R.C. 2947.23(A)(1): the claim was reviewable under the postconviction statutes, but did not satisfy the statutes' time restrictions or jurisdictional requirements for a late postconviction claim. In an appeal from the overruling of a postconviction motion, the court of appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain an assignment of error challenging the denial of relief on the ground that the trial court had failed to provide at sentencing the community-service-for-nonpayment-of-costs notification required by R.C. 2947.23(A)(1): the judgment denying relief on that ground 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. Defendant's sentences were not subject to correction under a court's jurisdiction to correct a void judgment, because his sentences would not have been rendered void by the alleged error in the imposition of costs, by the lack of community-service-for-nonpayment-of-costs notification, or by trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness concerning that notificationFischerHamilton 8/17/2016 8/17/2016 2016-Ohio-5383
State v. Emmons C-150636SEARCH AND SEIZURE The trial court erred in suppressing evidence of defendant's illegal drug possession that had been obtained during a traffic stop of a car in which defendant had been a passenger: the trooper's questions did not convert the stop into something other than a lawful seizure, because the questions did not unlawfully prolong the duration of the stop.DeWineHamilton 8/17/2016 8/17/2016 2016-Ohio-5384
State v. Nelson C-150650SEARCH AND SEIZURE: The trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his bedroom after probation officers entered the home he shared with a probationer, peeked through a blanket hanging in the entrance to defendant's bedroom, and saw a gun and a bag of marijuana: the probationer had consented to the search of his residence when he agreed to the terms of his community control, provided that the probation officers had reasonable grounds to believe the probationer was not abiding by the law or the conditions of his community control, and even if the probationer's consent did not extend to the defendant's bedroom, concerns for officer safety justified the limited intrusion into the bedroom.DeWineHamilton 8/12/2016 8/12/2016 2016-Ohio-5344
State v. Long C-150713ALLOCUTION - SENTENCING: The trial court did not deny the defendant his right of allocution even though it refused to allow him to speak following a discussion of the presentence-investigation report where the trial court had allowed the defendant to speak earlier in the sentencing hearing and where the defendant had the presentence-investigation report prior to the sentencing hearing and had had an opportunity to address its contents.FischerHamilton 8/12/2016 8/12/2016 2016-Ohio-5345
State v. Keelings C-150395PROCEDURE/RULES: Where the defendant was convicted of falsification, but was never served with a copy of the magistrate's decision, noncompliance with the requirements of Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii), including the requirement that the magistrate's decision be served on the defendant by the clerk, resulted in reversible error where the defendant lost the opportunity to file timely objections to the magistrate's decision.CunninghamHamilton 8/10/2016 8/10/2016 2016-Ohio-5292
12345678910...>>