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 86 rows. Rows per page: 
123456789
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re K.B. 1-18-07Juvenile did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.ShawAllen 7/2/2018 7/2/2018 2018-Ohio-2619
State v. Rhoads 6-18-02Escape under R.C. 2921.34(A)(3) and failure to notify of change of address under R.C. 2950.05(F)(1) are offenses of dissimilar import and defendant-appellant can be convicted of both offenses. The trial court did not err by sentencing defendant-appellant without obtaining a new or updated presentence investigation because the trial court did not sentence defendant-appellant to a community-control sanction or probation.PrestonHardin 7/2/2018 7/2/2018 2018-Ohio-2620
State v. Stein 8-17-39Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to testimony regarding the fact that defendant was a thief and a drug dealer when the charges were unrelated to those prior bad acts. The State then argued that testimony as a basis for finding that the defendant was not entitled to a verdict of self-defense. Given that the remaining testimony was conflicting, the evidence is not overwhelming that a jury would have convicted the defendant. Thus, the appellant was prejudiced.WillamowskiLogan 7/2/2018 7/2/2018 2018-Ohio-2621
Hackathorne v. Hackathorne 14-17-13Trial court's shared parenting schedule and order regarding sale of marital residence was not an abuse of discretion.ShawUnion 7/2/2018 7/2/2018 2018-Ohio-2622
State v. Beaver 9-17-37Under Evid.R. 601(A), children under the age of ten may be competent to testify if they can truly receive and relate just impressions of facts. Statements made for the purpose of medical examination and treatment are admissible under the hearsay exception in Evid.R. 803(4).WillamowskiMarion 6/25/2018 6/25/2018 2018-Ohio-2438
State v. Fisher 14-17-09A legal challenge to the imposition of jail credit time must be raised in a timely filed direct appeal. Otherwise, the legal challenge will be barred by res judicata. However, a defendant may submit a motion for correction to address a mathematical calculation issue after the time for direct appeal has expired.WillamowskiUnion 6/25/2018 6/25/2018 2018-Ohio-2439
State v. Woodum 8-17-53The trial court did not err by failing to inform the defendant that he could not use drugs of abuse while in prison. The trial court considered all of the statutory sentencing guidelines and the sentence was within the sentencing range, so there was no abuse of discretion.WillamowskiLogan 6/25/2018 6/25/2018 2018-Ohio-2440
Smith v. Wyandot Mem. Hosp. 16-17-07The trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s wrongful-death action asserting a medical claim against defendants-appellees because it is barred by Ohio’s medical-malpractice statute of repose. PrestonWyandot 6/25/2018 6/25/2018 2018-Ohio-2441
In re C.N. 6-17-16, 6-17-23If a conflict of interest exists between the legal custodian and the child, the trial court is to appoint a guardian ad litem. If the trial court fails to appoint a guardian ad litem and the child's trial counsel does not object, appellate review is limited to analyzing the case under a criminal plain error standard.WillamowskiHardin 6/25/2018 6/25/2018 2018-Ohio-2442
Birkmeier v. St. Rita's Med. Ctr. 1-17-57The trial court did not err in granting Appellees' motion for summary judgment. Judgment affirmed. ZimmermanAllen 6/18/2018 6/18/2018 2018-Ohio-2343
123456789