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 42 rows. Rows per page: 
12345
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Mayse 9-16-50Defendant suffered no prejudice when trial court denied his challenge to a potential juror for cause when the juror was removed and defendant still had peremptory challenges remaining. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for a mistrial when the alleged error was not material. Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. The verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.WillamowskiMarion 4/24/2017 4/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1483
State v. Flynn 11-16-06A sua sponte continuance issued by the trial court pursuant to R.C. 2945.71(H) tolls speedy trial time when the continuance is recorded in a contemporaneous journal entry, the length of the continuance is reasonable, and the purpose for the continuance is apparent from the record and reasonable under the circumstances. WillamowskiPaulding 4/24/2017 4/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1484
State v. Rocha 12-16-11, 12-16-12, 12-16-13Two appeals are dismissed for failure to assign error to judgments. Trial court did not err in using the filler as well as the cocaine in determining the amount of drugs and the level of the offense.WillamowskiPutnam 4/24/2017 4/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1485
In re D.W. 4-16-23, 4-16-24, 4-16-25Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying incarcerated father's motion to be conveyed to permanent custody hearing.ShawDefiance 4/24/2017 4/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1486
State v. Wilkie 2-17-01Trial court did not err in denying motion to compel or in denying suppression motion.ShawAuglaize 4/24/2017 4/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1487
State v. White 13-16-21The defendant-appellant's rape and gross-sexual-imposition convictions are based on sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.PrestonSeneca 4/24/2017 4/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1488
Spinner v. Barger 17-16-27Without the benefit of a transcript of the proceedings or a suitable alternative, and presuming regularity of the proceedings, this court cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in its attorney-fee assessment or that the trial court's damages determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence.PrestonShelby 4/24/2017 4/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1489
State v. Berry 5-16-16Appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.PrestonHancock 4/24/2017 4/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1490
State v. Parsons 7-16-08The trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant's motion to suppress a handgun as evidence. Law enforcement's entry on the property and search of the automobile-which led to the discovery of the handgun outside the vehicle-were lawfully conducted under the automobile exception of the Fourth Amendment, and the handgun was discovered in plain view. The defendant-appellant's convictions are based on sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective. The State did not fail to disclose evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Law enforcement did not act in bad faith in its preservation of potentially useful evidence in contravention of Arizona v. Youngblood. The defendant-appellant's sentence is contrary to law because the trial court imposed a prison term as to each of the three counts of which the defendant-appellant was convicted, and ordered that the terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently, despite concluding that the offenses of which the defendant-appellant were allied offenses of similar import.PrestonHenry 4/10/2017 4/10/2017 2017-Ohio-1315
State v. Fetherolf 14-16-10,11Witnesses did not testify that victim was "credible," contrary to appellant's assertions, introduction of "other acts" evidence and prior conviction did not constitute reversible error, it was not error to deny motion for new trial and prosecutor did not commit misconduct to an extent warranting reversal.ShawUnion 4/10/2017 4/10/2017 2017-Ohio-1316
12345