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 18 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Brown 9-16-37A no contest plea with a stipulated finding of guilt is not by itsefl sufficient to waive the explanation of circumstances requirement; rather, the no contest plea must be accompanied by conduct that shows an intent to waive the explanation of circumstances requirement.WillamowskiMarion 2/27/2017 2/27/2017 2017-Ohio-678
State v. Hernandez 6-16-08The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's motion to withdraw his 2002 guilty plea under R.C. 2943.031(D) where the appellant failed to meet his burden in presenting facts warranting the request. ZimmermanHardin 2/27/2017 2/27/2017 2017-Ohio-679
HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v. Watson 11-16-03Appellant must have suffered prejudice as the result of a trial court's ruling in order to have standing to appeal that ruling.WillamowskiPaulding 2/27/2017 2/27/2017 2017-Ohio-680
Pearsall v. Guernsey 5-16-25The trial court did not err by granting defendant-appellee's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss because it is apparent from the face of plaintiff-appellant's complaint that her complaint is barred by the statute of limitations under R.C. 2305.113.PrestonHancock 2/27/2017 2/27/2017 2017-Ohio-681
State v. Guzman 1-16-27The trial court did not abuse its discretion by remitting only $5,000 of a $150,000 surety bond.PrestonAllen 2/27/2017 2/27/2017 2017-Ohio-682
In re D.P. 6-16-07The trial court erred in (1) failing to inform the appellant-juvenile of his right to counsel or to obtain a valid waiver of the right to counsel and (2) failing to conduct a proper Juv.R. 29(D) colloquy with the appellant-juvenile and allowing appellant-juvenile to enter an admission on the record prior to revoking the appellant-juvenile's probation and invoking a prior commitment of the appellant-juvenile to DYS.ShawHardin 2/21/2017 2/21/2017 2017-Ohio-606
State v. Thomas 9-16-41The trial court did not err calculating Appellant's jail-time credit.ShawMarion 2/21/2017 2/21/2017 2017-Ohio-607
State v. Lauf 12-16-06Appellant's convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence.ShawPutnam 2/21/2017 2/21/2017 2017-Ohio-608
State v. Arnold 13-16-13The trial court did not err by finding the defendant-appellant guilty because the defendant-appellant waived the explanation-of-the-circumstances requirement of R.C. 2937.07 when he pled no contest. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering, as part of the defendant-appellant's sentence, that the dog be destroyed following the defendant-appellant's conviction under R.C. 955.22.PrestonSeneca 1/30/2017 1/30/2017 2017-Ohio-326
State v. Silknitter 14-16-07The record supports the trial court's findings under the relevant sentencing statutes, and the defendant-appellant's sentence is not otherwise contrary to law. The defendant-appellant waived any arguments related to alleged inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report and to the trial court's treatment of those inaccuracies. Ohio's incest statute, R.C. 2907.03(A)(5), does not violate the defendant-appellant's constitutional rights. The requirements imposed on the defendant-appellant as a Tier III sex offender do not violate the defendant-appellant's constitutional rights. The sex-offender-registration legislation, Am.Sub.S.B. 10, codified in R.C. Chapter 2950, does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine.PrestonUnion 1/30/2017 1/30/2017 2017-Ohio-327