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 213 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Chamberlain CA2015-03-008Postconviction Relief; Materials Outside the Record; R.C. 2953.21(C); Affidavit; Credibility; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Res Judicata. The trial court did not err by considering materials outside the record when ruling on appellant's petition for postconviction relief where the disputed materials were not relied upon by the trial court in issuing its decision dismissing appellant's petition. The trial court also did not err by finding an affidavit submitted to trial court by co-defendant recanting her trial testimony lacked credibility where the victim had not recanted her trial testimony and where trial court had several opportunities to personally assess the co-defendant's credibility during appellant's trial, as well as at her own plea and sentencing hearings. Finally, the trial court did not err by overruling appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims on the basis of res judicata where appellant's claims were the exact same issues previously rejected on direct appeal.PowellBrown 7/27/2015 7/27/2015 2015-Ohio-2987
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Washington CA2014-10-214Complaint for forcible entry and detainer; eviction; failure to vacate premises; writ of possession; failure to appeal correct order; waiver of issues not raised before the trial court.HendricksonButler 7/27/2015 7/27/2015 2015-Ohio-2988
State v. Simon CA2014-12-255Postconviction Relief; Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea; Evidentiary Hearing; Affidavits; Credibility.RinglandButler 7/27/2015 7/27/2015 2015-Ohio-2989
State v. Coffman CA2015-01-014Guilty Plea; Knowingly, Intelligently and Voluntarily Made; Partial Compliance; Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(A); Overstatement of Maximum Penalty; Allied Offenses of Similar Import; Merger; Attempted Tampering with Evidence; Possession of Heroin; Plain Error; Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); Sufficient Evidence to Support Consecutive Sentence Findings; Appellant's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made where he failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice from the trial court's overstatement that he would be subject to a mandatory prison sentence if he failed to comply with the terms of his intervention in lieu of conviction treatment plan. In addition, the trial court did not err, let alone commit plain error, by failing to merge appellant's attempting tampering with evidence charge with that of his possession of heroin charge as the offenses were committed separately and with a separate animus or motivation where appellant attempted to flush a baggie of heroin in his possession down the toilet as police executed a search warrant on the property. Finally, the trial court did not err by sentencing appellant to serve consecutive sentences where the record contained sufficient evidence to support the trial court's consecutive sentence findings where appellant had been placed on house arrest as a juvenile, had several misdemeanor convictions as an adult, and absconded while the case was pending, during which time he was arrested and charged with two additional counts of possessing drug abuse instruments.PowellButler 7/27/2015 7/27/2015 2015-Ohio-2990
In re E.T.B. CA2014-07-051Grandparent visitation; R.C. 3109.051(D); abuse of discretion; juvenile court's failure to give the requisite special weight to mother's wishes and concerns.PowellClermont 7/27/2015 7/27/2015 2015-Ohio-2991
State v. McGlothin CA2015-02-017Ambulance involved in a collision with motorist at intersection of two roadways; ambulance proceeding against a red light; motorist proceeding against green light; R.C. 4511.03, 4511.45; trial court's post-trial amendment of the traffic ticket complaint from "emergency vehicle" to "public safety vehicle;" amendment proper under Crim.R. 7(D); conviction not against manifest weight of the evidence. PowellClermont 7/27/2015 7/27/2015 2015-Ohio-2992
Collins v. Collins CA2014-12-016Child Support Modification; Substantial Change of Circumstances. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that father's alleged substantial change of circumstances, i.e., that the parties' children were spending 39 more days with him per year and he moved out of his parents' home, was insufficient to support father's request for downward deviation from the basic child support schedule and worksheet and thus a decrease in his child support obligation.PowellClinton 7/27/2015 7/27/2015 2015-Ohio-2993
State v. Begley CA2015-01-005; CA2015-01-006; CA2015-01-007Community Control Sanctions: Municipal court was not precluded from imposing jail term on appellant for violating the terms of his community control when municipal court failed to advise appellant at his original sentencing hearing at which community control sanctions were imposed that he may be sentenced to jail if he violates the terms of the community control. R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(a), 2929.25(A)(1)(b) and 2929.25(A)(3): R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(a) allows a sentencing court the option of directly imposing community control sanctions, while R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(b) allows the sentencing court to impose a jail term, suspend the jail term, and then place the offender on community control. R.C. 2929.25(A)(3)'s requirement of notifying the defendant of the consequences of violating community control applies only if the sentencing court directly imposes community control under R.C. 2929.25(A)(1)(a).PiperClermont 7/20/2015 7/20/2015 2015-Ohio-2892
Gough v. 1031 Properties, L.L.C. CA2014-09-196Contract, Prospective Tenant, Rental ApplicationM. PowellButler 7/13/2015 7/13/2015 2015-Ohio-2820