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 full-text search.
Opinion Text Search:    What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:   What is a Source?
Year Decided:   What is Decided?
County:   What is Decided?
Case Number:   What is Case Number?
Author:   What is Decided?
Topics and Issues:   What is Decided?
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 74 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Mendiola 8-14-05The trial court considered the statutory factors and did not abuse its discretion in applying the statutory factors in imposing the sentence.WillamowskiLogan 5/4/2015 5/4/2015 2015-Ohio-1690
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources v. Knapke 10-14-03Trial court's error in denying request for jury view of property was harmless error in this case. The trial court erred by admitting one exhibit into evidence, but error was harmless given the large number of exhibits entered. Trial court did not err in denying Appellant's witness to testify about future plans. Jury instructions were not prejudicial. There was no cumulative error.WillamowskiMercer 5/4/2015 5/4/2015 2015-Ohio-1691
State v. Sierra 5-14-15, 5-14-19, 5-14-20, 5-14-21, 5-14-22Trial court erred in ordering that reimbursement be made to the drug task force when it was not a victim of the offense and was not entitled to reimbursement for investigation costs pursuant to R.C. 2929.18.WillamowskiHancock 5/4/2015 5/4/2015 2015-Ohio-1692
Denney v. Carroll 15-14-10The trial court erred in dismissing Appellant's FED complaint.ShawVan Wert 5/4/2015 5/4/2015 2015-Ohio-1693
State v. Jackson 13-14-30Trial court erred by not obtaining valid waiver of counsel before proceeding to trial. State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the conviction when it failed to establish venue.WillamowskiSeneca 5/4/2015 5/4/2015 2015-Ohio-1694
State v. Simmons 1-14-45Assignments of error are overruled where the defendant expressly agreed to proceed with sentencing without a new presentence investigation, agreed to the State's right to be heard as to sentencing, and did not object in the trial court to the alleged errors of which he now complains.WillamowskiAllen 4/27/2015 4/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1594
Welch v. Welch 14-14-05Trial court's decision dividing marital property and awarding spousal support is affirmed where husband failed to satisfy his burden of proving financial misconduct by wife and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the factors of R.C. 3105.18(C)(1).WillamowskiUnion 4/27/2015 4/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1595
Martinez v. Martinez 13-14-40The trial court correctly divided the marital portion of the pension by dividing it equally pursuant to the statute when no evidence was presented that this would be inequitable.WillamowskiSeneca 4/27/2015 4/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1596
State v. Pettaway 13-14-18Judgment affirmed where convictions for trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, and possessing criminal tools were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, trial counsel was not ineffective, the right to confrontation was not violated, the defendant did not show plain error with respect to admissibility of allegedly improper testimony, and no prejudice stemmed from the police officer's general comments about drug traffickers.WillamowskiSeneca 4/27/2015 4/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1597
State ex rel. Karr Revocable Trust v. Zehringer 10-14-16The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering respondents-appellants, under a writ of mandamus that the trial court previously granted, to deposit money in the amounts that respondents-appellants recited in their petitions for appropriation against relators-appellees.PrestonMercer 4/20/2015 4/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1495