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 619 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Darling 104517Motion to disqualify; right to choice of counsel; Crim.R. 11(C); right to testify; package deal; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.18(B)(1); present and future ability to pay. Appellant waived a challenge of the state's motion to disqualify his retained counsel in an earlier case by his guilty plea in the reindicted case. Regardless of this waiver, his retained counsel's voluntarily withdrawal did not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to choice of counsel. The trial court was not required to advise of the right to testify as it is not expressly provided for under Crim.R. 11(C). The trial court made all required findings to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C), but failed to include these findings in the sentencing entry. Appellant did not object to the imposition of the mandatory fine under R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) at sentencing and thus waived such a challenge. The trial court acted within its discretion under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1) in imposing court costs regardless of appellant's financial status.KilbaneCuyahoga 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 2017-Ohio-7603
O.G. v. Middleburg Hts. 105056Civ.R. 56, summary judgment, R.C. Chapter 2744, political subdivision immunity, recreation center, physical defect. The trial court properly granted summary judgment under R.C. Chapter 2744. Appellants failed to overcome immunity by establishing that the injury to their minor son involving a gym divider curtain rolling machine at a city recreation center was due to a physical defect.Laster MaysCuyahoga 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 2017-Ohio-7604
State v. Steele 105085Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); history of criminal conduct; uncharged crimes. Sentencing judge may consider uncharged acts as constituting a "criminal history" or criminal conduct for purposes of deciding whether to order consecutive service of sentences.StewartCuyahoga 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 2017-Ohio-7605
State v. Ellis 105108 & 105155R.C. 2967.29, R.C. 2929.11, postrelease, trial court, jurisdiction, terminate, void sanction, sentencing, conceded error, journal entry, consequences of violating. The trial court's failure to provide notification in the sentencing journal entry advising the defendant of the consequences of violating postrelease control rendered the imposition of his postrelease control under R.C. 2967.29 void. This decision is not impacted by the failure to submit a transcript, or the Ohio Supreme Court's recent holding in State v. Grimes, Slip Opinion No. 2017 Ohio 2927.Laster MaysCuyahoga 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 2017-Ohio-7606
State v. Parker 105224R.C. 2953.08; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); sentence range; consecutive sentences. A sentence within the statutory range is not contrary to law. Consecutive sentences are properly imposed when trial court makes required statutory findings.StewartCuyahoga 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 2017-Ohio-7607
Beard v. St. Vincent Charity Hosp. 105245Expert report; Civ.R. 26(E); directed verdict; failure to renew motion for directed verdict; harmless error. Court did not abuse its discretion to allow defense expert to testify regarding records that were not specifically stated as having been reviewed by him in his expert report because the records were mentioned in other materials that the expert did review, he was questioned about the materials in deposition, and those materials were so crucial to the issue of liability that the plaintiff could not have been surprised when the expert expressed an opinion on them when testifying at trial. Plaintiff who sought directed verdict at the close of his case-in-chief but failed to renew the motion at the close of all evidence waived the right to raise the issue on appeal. And even if raised, a jury verdict in defendant's favor rendered any error in failing to grant plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict moot.StewartCuyahoga 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 2017-Ohio-7608
State v. Walker 105350Violation of community control sanctions; consecutive service; void sentence; motion to correct void sentence. Trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to correct void sentences because the trial court imposed sentencing upon the "violation" of an expired sanction in one case and in the other case, the community control sanctions being imposed consecutive to a prison term were invalid ab initio.GallagherCuyahoga 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 2017-Ohio-7609
Socha v. Weiss 105468Civ.R. 12(C); motion for judgment on pleadings; legal malpractice; failure to return documents; statute of limitations; time-barred; R.C. 2305.11(A); cognizable event; termination of attorney-client relationship - Trial court did not err in granting attorneys' motion for judgment on the pleadings on grounds that legal malpractice claim was time-barred under R.C. 2305.11(A) where legal malpractice claim was based on attorneys' alleged failure to return documents plaintiff requested 14 years before filing his complaint.GallagherCuyahoga 9/14/2017 9/14/2017 2017-Ohio-7610
Otte v. State 106204Death penalty; Eighth Amendment; cruel and unusual punishment; declaratory judgment; postconviction; collateral attack; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); motion to dismiss; ages 18 to 21. Trial court's dismissal of declaratory judgment action is affirmed. Plaintiff's request for a declaration that he is ineligible for the death penalty because he was under 21 years of age at the time he committed the capital offenses is not justiciable as a declaratory judgment action.GallagherCuyahoga 9/12/2017 9/12/2017 2017-Ohio-7568
Branden v. Branden 104523Magistrate's decision; objections; abuse of discretion; show cause; contempt; nunc pro tunc; spousal support; judgment; debt; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 15; modification; R.C. 3105.73(D); R.C. 3121.03(B)(1); 401(k); change in circumstance; R.C. 3105.18(F)(b); R.C. 3105.18(C); attorney fees; interest; arrearage; R.C. 3123.17(A)(2). Trial court's ruling on objections to magistrate's decision pertaining to contempt, modification of spousal support, attorney fees, and interest was affirmed. No abuse of discretion was found.GallagherCuyahoga 9/7/2017 9/7/2017 2017-Ohio-7477
12345678910...>>