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

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 From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
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 323 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Adams 27141The trial court erred in overruling Appellant's motion to suppress evidence. After a police officer administered a field sobriety test and told Appellant that he was not over the limit and was fine to go, the officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion to administer further tests. However, whether Appellant thereafter voluntarily consented to a portable breath test must be considered on remand. In light of these conclusions, Appellant's remaining assignments of error are moot. Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings.WelbaumMontgomery 9/22/2017 9/22/2017 2017-Ohio-7743
State v. Fields 2016-CA-76The State's evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts for murder, felony murder, felonious assault, tampering with evidence, and improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation. Defendant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. No cumulative error demonstrated. Judgment affirmed.FroelichClark 9/22/2017 9/22/2017 2017-Ohio-7745
Fenton v. Fischer 2017-CA-6The lower court, in an R.C. 119.12 administrative appeal, affirmed a county sheriff's denial of Plaintiff-appellant's application for a concealed handgun license under R.C. 2923.125. The sheriff's decision was based upon Plaintiff-appellant's Georgia misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana. The lower court, based upon R.C. 2923.125(D)(1)(e), concluded that the Georgia conviction disqualified Plaintiff-appellant from obtaining a concealed handgun license. In Ohio, Plaintiff-appellant's offense, given the amount of marijuana involved, would have been a minor misdemeanor. We conclude, since, under R.C. 2923.125(D)(5), a minor misdemeanor conviction cannot be considered when making a concealed handgun licensure determination, that the lower court erred in concluding that Plaintiff-appellant's Georgia conviction acted to disqualify him from obtaining a concealed handgun license. Judgment reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.TuckerGreene 9/22/2017 9/22/2017 2017-Ohio-7746
State v. Schimmel 2017-CA-23The trial court erred in granting Appellee's motion to supress statements that he made during a pre-employment interview and polygraph examination, and evidence that was obtained as the result of the statements. Appellee failed to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege, and he did not fall within any established exceptions to assertion of the privilege. The interview and examination were part of a routine and accepted law enforcement application process, and Appellee was not under any compulsion to continue. To the contrary, Appellee could have ended the process at any time. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. (Froelich, J., concurring in judgment only).WelbaumClark 9/22/2017 9/22/2017 2017-Ohio-7747
Tollefson v. Tollefson 2017-CA-4The trial court erred by including in a consolidated shared-parenting plan provisions that do not appear to reflect the court's current shared-parenting orders. Judgment reversed; remanded.HallDarke 9/22/2017 9/22/2017 2017-Ohio-7748
Keener v. Buehrer 27537Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part. The judgment of the trial court that Keener may not receive compensation for the deposition transcript expense of Northmont City Schools' expert witness is affirmed; the judgment of the trial court that Keener may not receive compensation for the videography deposition expense of Keener's expert witness is reversed, and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.DonovanMontgomery 9/22/2017 9/22/2017 2017-Ohio-7749
Baskin v. Baskin 27373The trial court did not err in awarding spousal support following a 25-year marriage, or in the amount of the award, where there was a significant difference in the parties' incomes. Judgment affirmed. FroelichMontgomery 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7632
State v. Clark 27365Appellant's convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance. The trial court did not err by not merging the offenses of having weapons under disability and felonious assault under R.C. 2941.25. Nor did the trial court fail to consider the consecutive-sentence factors in R.C. 2929.14. The trial court did not err by preventing Appellant from impeaching the victim's testimony where a foundation for impeachment had not been laid. Finally, the trial court did not err by denying Appellant a continuance. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)HallMontgomery 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7633
Smith v. Gilbert 2016-CA-52Plaintiff-appellant received a notice informing him of the scheduled trial date. The notice informed Plaintiff-appellant that his failure to appear at the scheduled trial would result in dismissal of his complaint. Plaintiff-appellant, albeit incarcerated, did not appear on the scheduled trial date nor did he request a continuance. The trial court, accordingly, did not err by granting Defendant-appellee judgment on her counterclaim and by dismissing Plaintiff-appellant's complaint based upon a failure to prosecute. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7634
State v. Hardy 27158The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant's motion to suppress. Appellant's waiver of her Miranda rights was made in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner. The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant's motion to dismiss pursuant to R.C. 1.51 because none of the charged offenses are irreconcilable to one another. The trial court did not err when, pursuant to Evid.R 404(B), it permitted the State to introduce evidence of two prior attacks by appellant's dog in order to establish that appellant had knowledge of her dog's aggressive nature. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the prior acts evidence adduced by the State, as well as statements made by appellant that dog was "vicious." The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support appellant's convictions for the charged offenses, and her convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. DonovanMontgomery 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7635