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 95 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re L.S. 14-15-05, 14-15-06The trial court abused its discretion by not dismissing the agency-appellee's complaints against father-appellant as to R.C. 2151.04(D). The trial court's adjudications of the minor children as dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D) are not supported by sufficient evidence.PrestonUnion 7/18/2016 7/18/2016 2016-Ohio-4999
In re S.L. 14-15-07, 14-15-08The trial court failed to satisfy the requirement of R.C. 2151.28(L) that the trial court make findings of fact and conclusions of law if the trial court determines that a child is a dependent child. The trial court's adjudication of one of the minor children as dependent under R.C. 2151.04(D) is not supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing hearsay evidence under Evid.R. 803(4). Assuming the trial court abused its discretion in admitting other hearsay evidence, the admission of that evidence was cumulative to properly admitted evidence and therefore harmless error. It was not plain error for the trial court to admit other evidence, even assuming that evidence was hearsay, because that evidence was cumulative to properly admitted evidence. The trial court's adjudication of one of the minor children as abused is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not violate Juv.R. 37(A).PrestonUnion 7/18/2016 7/18/2016 2016-Ohio-5000
Swartz v. Gwiner 13-15-41Trial court erred by dismissing objections as being untimely filed for being faxed when the clerk accepted the filing and file-stamped the objections. Although the document may have been filed in an improper manner, it was not untimely and no motion to strike was filed.WillamowskiSeneca 7/11/2016 7/11/2016 2016-Ohio-4907
State v. Nevels 8-15-12Trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal when sufficient evidence was presented. The trial court did not err in imposing fees.WillamowskiLogan 6/20/2016 6/20/2016 2016-Ohio-3497
Meyers v. Chiaverini 7-16-01Municipal court's decision granting FED reversed because action was already pending in common pleas court. Dismissal of counterclaims and third-party complaint affirmed.ShawHenry 6/20/2016 6/20/2016 2016-Ohio-3498
State v. Walker 13-15-42Trial court erred in denying the motion for acquittal as to the element of the charge that it was committed in the vicinity of a juvenile when no evidence was presented as to this specification. Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.WillamowskiSeneca 6/20/2016 6/20/2016 2016-Ohio-3499
Sayre v. Furgeson 17-15-16The trial court did not err in adopting the recommendations of the magistrate on father's motion for change of custody and in denying mother's request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.WillamowskiShelby 6/20/2016 6/20/2016 2016-Ohio-3500
Figley v. Ivex Protective Packaging, Inc. 17-16-02The trial court did not err in granting defendant-appellee's motion to dismiss plaintiff-appellant's amended complaint based on a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant-appellee. Plaintiff-appellant's assignment of error challenging the trial court's summary judgment concerning plaintiff-appellee's subrogation interest is moot.PrestonShelby 6/20/2016 6/20/2016 2016-Ohio-3501
State v. Koehler 16-15-10The defendant-appellant's waiver of trial counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the trial court substantially complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 44(A) by making sufficient inquiry to determine the defendant-appellant fully understand and intelligently relinquished her right to counsel and by obtaining a written waiver. The defendant-appellant's sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law because the trial court explicitly impose a prison sentence and community-control sanctions for the same offense.PrestonWyandot 6/13/2016 6/13/2016 2016-Ohio-3384
Merriman v. Merriman 11-15-10The trial court did not abuse its discretion by designating defendant-appellee as the child's residential parent for school purposes.PrestonPaulding 6/13/2016 6/13/2016 2016-Ohio-3385
12345678910