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 372 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Jackson 101290Consecutive sentence; supervised release; bond; findings. Consecutive sentences affirmed where court made necessary findings.GallagherCuyahoga 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1947
State v. Kelly 101457Double jeopardy; mistrial; motion to dismiss; prosecutorial misconduct. Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy where his request for a mistrial was not prompted or instigated by prosecutorial misconduct. There is no evidence in the record to support appellant's argument that he was goaded into seeking a mistrial by the state.GallagherCuyahoga 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1948
State v. Pruitt 101736Res judicata; jurisdiction after final sentencing; vexatious litigator. The failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 does not render a final sentence void. Any future filings of appeals or original actions by the defendant that are not reasonably grounded in fact or warranted by existing law shall result in this court declaring him a vexatious litigator.GallagherCuyahoga 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1949
State v. Jallah 101773Gross sexual imposition; manifest weight of the evidence; motion to suppress; Miranda; jury instructions; Crim.R. 30(A). The defendant's conviction for gross sexual imposition was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err when it denied the defendant's motion to suppress as the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived them before he gave a statement to police. The trial court did not commit structural error when reading the jury instructions when it only read one word of the instructions wrong.BoyleCuyahoga 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1950
Rabkewych v. Cleveland Bd. of Bldg. Stds. & Appeals 101804R.C. 2506.04; R.C. 2506.03; R.C. 715.26; Board of Building Standards and Building Appeals; public nuisance; unsafe structure. The trial court's decision upholding the Board of Building Standards and Building Appeals' decision to immediately demolish the owner's structure was affirmed because it was supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that the structure was an imminent danger to human life.BoyleCuyahoga 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1952
State v. Webber 101875Indictment; due process; ex post facto; juvenile; jurisdiction; bindover; adult; greater punishment; notice; substantive rights. Trial court did not err in dismissing indictment charging defendant with offenses allegedly committed in 1993, when the defendant was 14 years old and was not eligible to be bound over to the general division of common pleas court to be tried as an adult. Application of the amended statutes would violate the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions because the defendant had no notice that he could be tried as an adult and allowing so would subject him to a greater punishment than the juvenile law in effect at the time of the alleged conduct and impair his substantive rights.GallagherCuyahoga 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1953
State v. Dzurilla 101960R.C. 4510.13; R.C. 4510.021; driver's license; suspension; driving privileges. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for limited driving privileges where he had nine previous convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol.KilbaneCuyahoga 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1954
Fannie Mae v. Hicks 102079Foreclosure; note; mortgage; holder; R.C. 1303.01; R.C. 1303.38; lost note; person entitled to enforce; magistrate; standing; Civ.R. 53; plain error; Uniform Commercial Code; debt. The trial court committed plain error in granting summary judgment in favor of Fannie Mae. The holder of the mortgage is not entitled to judgment under the note where it is not a "person entitled to enforce" the underlying note under R.C. 1303.31.GallagherCuyahoga 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1955
State v. Williams 102080Restitution; economic loss; theft by deception; R.C. 2929.28. Trial court erred in ordering restitution beyond the economic loss caused by the defendant's illegal conduct for which he was convicted.GallagherCuyahoga 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1957
State v. Sheppard 102085Crim.R. 11; presentence motion to withdraw plea; ineffective assistance of counsel. Mere change of heart is an insufficient basis to seek the presentence withdrawal of a guilty plea.GallagherCuyahoga 5/21/2015 5/21/2015 2015-Ohio-1958
12345678910...>>