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 136 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Brownfield v. Krupman 14AP-294The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellant failed to complete service of process under Civ.R. 4.1(A) because, nearly two years after the commencement of the action, there was no evidence of a signed return receipt in the record, and appellant's sole evidence of delivery consisted of an unauthenticated computer printout without a signature confirming delivery to any person.DorrianFranklin 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1966
Tauring Corp. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. 14AP-622Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the order of the Liquor Control Commission, which found appellant's bar to be in violation of R.C. 4301.22(B) by selling and furnishing beer or an intoxicating liquor to an intoxicated person, where the bar's server confirmed that she sold shots to a group she described as intoxicated and used terms depicting continuous alcohol service up until the bar's closing, and the blood alcohol level of the patron ultimately measured 0.268. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1967
Bostic v. Davis 14AP-635The trial court did not err in dismissing the appellant's action for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with court order and the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.KlattFranklin 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1968
In re G.D. 14AP-801, 14AP-802, 14AP-803, 14AP-804, 14AP-805, 14AP-884, 14AP-885, 14AP-886, 14AP-887, 14AP-888In appeal of common pleas court domestic relations division order granting permanent custody of six children to public children services agency there was no denial of due process when mother failed to appear for third day of hearing without explanation. In permanent custody cases that involve proof by clear and convincing evidence, determination of "against the manifest weight of the evidence" is the same analysis as used in criminal and other civil cases. Judgment affirmed.BrunnerFranklin 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1969
Nichter v. Shamansky 14AP-811Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment because plaintiff failed to file his legal malpractice complaint within the one-year statute of limitations. The attorney-client relationship was terminated through the plaintiff's letter to his attorney indicating that he no longer wished for the attorney to represent him; therefore, the statute of limitations began to run as of the date of the plaintiff's letter, rather than the date on which the attorney filed his motion to withdraw.DorrianFranklin 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1970
In re Adoption of K.A.H. 14AP-831Probate court was witnin its discretion to require consent of biological father before granting adoptions.TyackFranklin 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1971
State v. Newton 14AP-920Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's motion for new trial.BrownFranklin 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1972
State v. Q.S.P. 14AP-938Trial court did not err when it imposed consecutive sentences.BrownFranklin 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1973
Daniels-Rodgers v. Rodgers 15AP-202Trial court's nunc pro tunc entry did not extend time to appeal from initial final orderKlattFranklin 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1974
State v. F.R. 14AP-440Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony offered by child abuse victim's mother and friend as excited utterance pursuant to Evi.R. 803(2). Trial court's error in admitting hearsay testimony of police officer relating child abuse victim's statements was harmless becuase child abuse victim testified at trial and was cross-examined on matters identical to those contained in the hearsay statements.BrownFranklin 5/19/2015 5/19/2015 2015-Ohio-1914