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 489 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Jukic 101663Noncitizen; deportation; guilty plea; R.C. 2943.031; intervention in lieu of conviction; motion to withdraw guilty plea; final order. Court that accepted a noncitizen defendant's guilty plea before ordering intervention in lieu of conviction without advising the defendant that the guilty plea could have deportation consequences erred by refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea. The motion to withdraw was made before the court actually dismissed the case against the defendant and should have been granted. Additionally, the subsequent dismissal of the case did not bar the defendant from appealing because the involuntary dismissal of the criminal charge affected a substantial right and prevented a judgment of vacating the guilty plea.StewartCuyahoga 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2695
Jakubs v. Borally 101756Abuse of discretion; trust; trustee; beneficiary; breach of fiduciary duties; egregious; bad faith; R.C. 5810.04; attorney fees; Civ.R. 54(D); costs; R.C. 5810.01(B)(10); expert witness costs; Prof.Cond.R. 1.5, Sup.R. 71(A). Trial court abused its discretion in failing to award estate of beneficiary attorney fees and costs under R.C. 5810.04, and expert witness fees under R.C. 5810.01(B)(10), for trustee's breach of fiduciary duties where the court failed to consider whether such relief was warranted and the record demonstrated appellee engaged in egregious conduct, acted in bad faith, and breached his fiduciary duties, to the detriment of appellant. Case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees upon consideration of the factors under Prof.Cond.R. 1.5.GallagherCuyahoga 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2696
State v. Catron 101789Felonious assault; murder; merger; allied offenses; mistake in jury instruction; prejudicial photographs; manifest weight; sufficiency. Although the trial court wrongly instructed the jury on a definition, it was harmless error as the jury instructions as a whole made up for the error, and the defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the instruction. The state presented sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions of felonious assault and felony murder, and the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The offenses of felony murder and felonious assault were not allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25 as each offense applied to separate victims. Further, certain autopsy photographs admitted at trial, although cumulative and irrelevant, did not amount to reversible error.StewartCuyahoga 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2697
Cleveland v. Hall 101820Manifest weight; lesser included offense. Appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Both parties testified that the other was the aggressor. When there are two versions of events, neither of which is unbelievable, we defer to the trier of fact regarding which version should be believed. Disorderly conduct is a lesser included offense of domestic violence.BlackmonCuyahoga 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2698
State v. Geraci 101946, 101947Crim.R. 32.1; postsentence motion to withdraw guilty plea; manifest injustice; self-serving affidavit; ineffective assistance of counsel; knowing and voluntary guilty plea; R.C. 2945.71; R.C. 2945.72; right to a speedy trial; waiver - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Defendant did not demonstrate manifest injustice based on claim that he was denied ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's alleged statement to defendant that speedy trial rights did not apply or trial counsel's failure to seek dismissal of the case on speedy trial grounds. Even if defendant did not waive speedy trial claims by entering his guilty pleas, defendant's statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights were not violated. Defendant's assertion that he would have been discharged due to a violation of his speedy trial rights and, therefore, would not have entered his guilty pleas were it not for the allegedly improper advice he received from trial counsel was pure speculation and did not establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, defendant would not have pled guilty to the offenses at issue and would have, instead, insisted on going to trial or support the conclusion that withdrawal of the guilty pleas was necessary to correct a manifest injustice.GallagherCuyahoga 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2699
State v. Green 101990Accepting a Guilty Plea: Before accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered the plea. In considering whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, an appellate court examines the totality of the circumstances through a de novo review.BlackmonCuyahoga 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2700
In re J.S. 101991, 101992The trial court did not err when it granted Cuyahoga County Department of Family and Children Services' motion for permanent custody as the agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the children's best interest and that the children had been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period.BoyleCuyahoga 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2701
Willow Grove, Ltd. v. Olmsted Twp. 101996Township zoning authority, R.C. 519.02, R.C. 519.021, R.C. Chapter 519, statutory scope of authority of township zoning inspector, zoning commission and board of trustees, planned unit developments, permitted uses sections of the Olmsted Township zoning resolution are unconstitutionally arbitrary, unreasonable and without substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. The unconstitutional zoning resolution sections exceed the authority of R.C. Chapter 519 under which the General Assembly delegated specific zoning powers to the zoning inspector, commission and board of trustees. The unlawful portions of the zoning resolution are severable and may be stricken while the remaining substantive provisions shall be enforced.Laster MaysCuyahoga 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2702
Telecom Acquisition Corp. I, Inc. v. Lucic Ents., Inc. 102067Appointment of Receiver: The appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary remedy. Therefore, normally the party requesting the receivership must show by clear and convincing evidence that the appointment is necessary for the preservation of the complainant's rights. Clear and convincing evidence is that "measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere `preponderance of the evidence,' but not to the extent of such certainty as is required `beyond a reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and which will provide in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established." .BlackmonCuyahoga 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2703
Devis v. Pineview Court Condominium Assn. 102147Intervention as of right; permissive intervention; Civ.R. 24(A); Civ. R. 24(C); charging lien; attorneys fees. Trial court properly denied Selker's motion to intervene to assert an attorney charging lien where he failed to attach a pleading to the motion as required by Civ.R. 24(C).GallagherCuyahoga 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2704
12345678910...>>