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 756 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Alman v. Alman 104951Abuse of discretion; order to sell real estate. Court lacked any basis for pretrial judgment entry ordering party to a divorce action to sell real estate and was, in any event, rendered moot by party's compliance with pretrial order to pay temporary spousal support.StewartCuyahoga 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 2017-Ohio-8659
Intergroup Internatl. Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos. 105290Breach of contract; summary judgment; insurance coverage; declaratory judgment; motion to strike; Loc.R.21.1. The trial court's judgment granting summary judgment to defendant was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Summary judgment was proper regarding the 2014 claim because plaintiff did not offer any evidence in its affidavit to counter defendant's expert and there was no "collapse" as defined by the insurance policy. Summary judgment was not proper regarding the 2015 claim because genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether defendant should cover plaintiff's damage from the roof collapsing. Further, the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to defendant on its counterclaim for declaratory judgment because defendant simply asked the court to resolve the matter in its favor and failed to ask the court to declare the rights, status, obligations or other legal relations between the parties. We also find no error in the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to strike the expert's supplemental affidavit under Loc.R. 21.1 because the trial court had broad discretion regarding motions to strike and the supplemental affidavit was not substantially different in opinion than his earlier affidavit.BoyleCuyahoga 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 2017-Ohio-8660
State v. Moon 105331R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) and (b); postconviction petition. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's postconviction petition because appellant did not show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts upon which the petitioner must rely to present the claim for relief, nor did he show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for a constitutional error at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense of which the petitioner was convicted.Laster MaysCuyahoga 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 2017-Ohio-8661
Harmon v. Cuyahoga Cty. 105574Workers' compensation claim; R.C. 4123.512(F); attorney fees; abuse of discretion; settlement; credibility. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to appellant pursuant to R.C. 4123.512(F). Appellant's right to continue participating in the workers' compensation fund was ultimately established upon the final determination of the trial court's proceedings. The trial court's award of attorney fees in the amount of $3,800 is supported by competent evidence in the record.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 2017-Ohio-8662
In re B.D. 105650Legal custody; dependent; unsuitable; best interest; R.C. Chapter 2151; R.C. 2151.353(A); R.C. 2151.414(D); preponderance; manifest weight. Appellate court reversed decision of juvenile court that granted legal custody of child to foster parents where the preponderance of the evidence showed the child's best interest, as well as the purpose of R.C. Chapter 2151, is served by granting legal custody to his mother without restriction. Although no finding of parental unsuitability was required because the child had been adjudicated dependent, the juvenile court's best interest determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence.GallagherCuyahoga 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 2017-Ohio-8663
In re C.S. 105700Anders brief; parental rights; permanent custody. Trial court did not err in awarding permanent custody of minor child to CCDCFS where mother and child tested positive for marijuana at the time of the child's birth, mother failed to comply with the case plan for reunification and failed to establish stable housing. Following an independent review under Anders, appointed counsel's motion to withdraw was granted and appeal was dismissed.GallagherCuyahoga 11/22/2017 11/22/2017 2017-Ohio-8664
State ex rel. Beckwith v. Russo 106318Mandamus, petition for postconviction relief, moot. Relator has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus through which he seeks an order that requires respondent to render a judgment and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to a petition for postconviction relief. Attached to respondent's motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry that demonstrates that a ruling was rendered with regard to relator's petition for postconviction relief. Thus, relator's request for a writ of mandamus is moot. Relief is unwarranted because mandamus will not compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 11/17/2017 11/22/2017 2017-Ohio-8665
Ayers v. Cleveland 105074R.C. 2744.07(A)(2); standing; indemnification; summary judgment; reverse; remand; enforce; judgment; federal; jurisdiction; bankruptcy; conflict; debt; employee; harmless; political subdivision; liability; duty; rights; good faith; scope of employment; private cause of action; legislative intent; zone of interest; judgment creditor; third party; statutory interpretation. R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) does not provide judgment creditors with a private cause of action against a political subdivision to enforce its statutory obligation to indemnify its employee. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the judgment creditor.GallagherCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8571
State v. Stuart 105050Anders brief, withdraw, dismissed. Appointed counsel's motion to withdraw granted and appeal dismissed where appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting there were no legal points of arguable merit to raise on appeal, and this court agreed after conducting an independent review of the record.KeoughCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8572
State v. Chandler 105246Evid.R. 404(B); impeachment; Evid.R. 608(B); excessive sentence; firearm specifications; self-defense of another; castle doctrine; R.C. 2901.05(B); jury instructions; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the state's motion to admit Evid.R. 404(B) evidence but allowed the state to impeach the defendant at trial under Evid.R. 608(B), and therefore defendant's argument regarding the admission of Evid.R. 404(B) evidence is without merit. Defendant's claim that his sentence is excessive cannot be entertained when the trial court imposed the statutory minimum. There is no error in requiring the parties to refer to firearm specifications without reference to the ultimate sentence in front of the jury. Defendant failed to identify evidence demonstrating the need to instruct the jury on defense of another and the castle doctrine under R.C. 2901.05(B). There is sufficient evidence underlying the defendant's conviction, which is also not against the manifest weight of the evidence.GallagherCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8573
12345678910...>>