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 295 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re G.P. L-18-1126, L-18-1130, L-18-1132The trial court’s decision to terminate appellants’ parental rights was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court based its findings under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and (E) on clear and convincing evidence. Father could not support his argument that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to show that counsel’s performance prejudiced him.MayleLucas 11/14/2018 11/14/2018 2018-Ohio-4584
State ex rel. DeWine v. Buckeye Impact Group, L.L.C. S-18-01The right against self-incrimination must be asserted properly and timely. A blanket assertion will generally be insufficient to invoke this right.WillamowskiSandusky 11/13/2018 11/14/2018 2018-Ohio-4578
U.S. Bank v. Hill OT-17-029Trial court properly granted summary judgment to appellee because there were no genuine issues of material fact and appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed. Summary judgment, de novo review, promissory note, mortgage, foreclosure, breach of contract, fraudulent inducementOsowikOttawa 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 2018-Ohio-4532
State v. Tucker WD-17-051Petition for postconviction relief properly denied where appellant’s assertion that state failed to disclose exhibits was belied by trial record showing that appellant made deliberate decision not to request discovery to avoid tolling speedy-trial time. Additionally, the issue was barred by res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal.MayleWood 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 2018-Ohio-4533
Toledo v. State L-18-1011; L-18-1016Beyond a reasonable doubt, blatant disunity exists in the subject-matter of S.B. 331, and the bill, therefore, violates the one-subject rule of Article II, Section 15(D) of the Ohio Constitution. And because the bill lacks a discernible primary subject, the severance doctrine cannot operate to save any portion of it.MayleLucas 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 2018-Ohio-4534
State v. Startzman L-17-1275Appellant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of evidence. Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal was properly denied. Judgment affirmed.OsowikLucas 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 2018-Ohio-4535
State v. Quinn L-18-1055Application for DNA testing properly denied on res judicata grounds where previous application, requesting the same testing, was denied. Also, because the identity of the perpetrator was not at issue, defendant could not show that he would have otherwise been entitled to DNA testing under R.C. 2953.74(C)(3).MayleLucas 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 2018-Ohio-4536
State v. Poulin WD-17-052Trial court properly imposes mandatory fine under R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) where the record reveals that appellant will be able to obtain gainful employment upon his release from prison and therefore possesses the future ability to pay the fine.JensenWood 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 2018-Ohio-4537
Pollard v. Elber E-17-050The trial court erred by granting summary judgment because it relied on improper evidence. Appellee’s evidence was not of the types permitted by Civ.R. 56(C) and the trial court could not take judicial notice of proceedings in a separate case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying prejudgment interest because appellant did not show that she was entitled to prejudgment interest under the common law.MayleErie 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 2018-Ohio-4538
Ogdahl v. Baumgartner WD-18-001Trial court’s judgment adopting a magistrate’s decision is not a final appealable order where the trial court has not yet ruled on appellants’ objections to the magistrate’s decision.PietrykowskiWood 11/9/2018 11/9/2018 2018-Ohio-4539