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 203 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Boukissen S-14-046The trial court did not err in imposing an R.C. 2925.11(E)(2) driver's license suspension for a minor misdemeanor violation of R.C. 2925.11(A).PietrykowskiSandusky 7/24/2015 7/24/2015 2015-Ohio-2973
State v. Harvey WM-15-003Appellant's sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court examined the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, considered the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, properly imposed post-release control, and ordered appellant to serve a sentence that was within the statutory range for a felony of the third degree.YarbroughWilliams 7/24/2015 7/24/2015 2015-Ohio-2974
Steinen v. Ohio Div. of Wildlife E-14-129Governmental entity is not bound by the terms of a document where the person signing the document did not have authority to bind the entity, and where the entity did not approve the document through its formal procedures. Agent is not personally liable under the terms of a document where the existence of the agency and identity of the principal were known to the contracting party.YarbroughErie 7/24/2015 7/24/2015 2015-Ohio-2975
State v. Boone L-14-1145Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress or in convicting appellant. Judgment affirmed.OsowikLucas 7/22/2015 7/22/2015 2015-Ohio-2944
State v. Britton L-14-1280Trial court's judgment is void; void judgment is not final appealable order; appeal dismissed.SingerLucas 7/22/2015 7/22/2015 2015-Ohio-2945
State v. Taylor L-14-1188Where a defendant has been found guilty of two or more allied offenses and the trial court erroneously dismisses one or more of the offenses at sentencing instead of merging them, double jeopardy does not preclude the defendant from being resentenced so that those offenses can be properly merged.PietrykowskiLucas 7/22/2015 7/22/2015 2015-Ohio-2946
Kostrzewski v. Toledo L-14-1271The municipal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant's administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2506.PietrykowskiLucas 7/17/2015 7/21/2015 2015-Ohio-2913
State v. Starr L-14-1194The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences where it found, at both the sentencing hearing and in its sentencing entry, that (1) consecutive sentences were necessary in order to protect the public from future crime, as demonstrated by appellant's lengthy criminal history, (2) consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant's conduct, and (3) appellant committed the offenses while he was on post-release control from a prior offense.YarbroughLucas 7/17/2015 7/21/2015 2015-Ohio-2914
In re A.G. OT-14-043custody case, daughter emancipatedSingerOttawa 7/10/2015 7/10/2015 2015-Ohio-2796
Bergman v. Genoa Banking Co. OT-14-019The trial court maintained jurisdiction to consider defendant's post-dismissal motion for sanctions under Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51. Competent, credible evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that appellants made factual contentions that lacked evidentiary support and asserted claims that were not warranted under existing law. The court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellants' conduct willful.JensenOttawa 7/10/2015 7/10/2015 2015-Ohio-2797
12345678910...>>