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 187 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. McClure L-14-1182Trial court did not err in convicting appellant. Judgment affirmed.OsowikLucas 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2670
State v. Taylor L-14-1150The trial court's near maximum sentence was supported by the record and was not contrary to law. Plea agreement; mental health; ineffective assistance of counsel.PietrykowskiLucas 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2671
Speller v. Toledo Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. L-14-1149The lower court did not abuse its discretion by affirming the board of education's resolution terminating appellant teacher's employment. Further, the court did not err in dismissing various claims under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). R.C. 3319.16; R.C. 3319.12; R.C. Chapter 4112; punitive damages; attorney fees.PietrykowskiLucas 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2672
State v. Sadler WD-14-058Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress. Police officer had probable cause to arrest based on appellant's bloodshot and glassy eyes, mush-mouth speech, admission of consuming alcohol and failing field sobriety test, as well as the officer smelling alcohol on appellant's breath.SingerWood 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2673
Thomas v. Maras L-14-1136Land installment contract was ambiguous where the contract price failed to correspond to the monthly payments and, thus, was properly determined to include insurance and taxes.PietrykowskiLucas 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2674
Univ. of Toledo Chapter of Am. Assn. of Univ. Professors v. Erard L-14-1185The appeals court may reverse a trial court's decision in an administrative appeal only if the commission's conclusion was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. SingerLucas 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2675
State v. Smith L-14-1119Appellant was convicted in the Maumee Municipal Court for failure to maintain reasonable control of his vehicle. Because the conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we affirm.JensenLucas 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2676
State v. McCabe F-14-004Under the totality of the circumstances, the police were not required to readminister Miranda warnings to appellant prior to his subsequent interrogation, less than 30 minutes after the warnings were originally given. The evidence in the record was sufficient to support a conviction of illegally cultivating marihuana, a violation of R.C. 2925.04(A).PietrykowskiFulton 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2677
State v. Hodgkinson H-14-012A conviction will be reversed based on prosecutorial misconduct only where it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that, absent the prosecutor's comments, the jury would not have found appellant guilty.SingerHuron 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2678
Block Communications, Inc. v. Pounds L-13-1224The trial court did not err by denying a motion for a protective order and a motion to quash subpoenas, or by compelling discovery where: (1) the party resisting discovery did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate the material was confidential or a trade secret, or that discovery would produce a chilling effect or would harm the parties, (2) the issue of relevancy cannot be addressed in an interlocutory appeal, and (3) R.C. 1705.04 does not implicitly or explicitly protect names of an Ohio LLC's members.OsowikLucas 6/30/2015 6/30/2015 2015-Ohio-2679