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 526 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Cox v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr. Bd. of Trustees 101673Second jury trial; motion for new trial; witness testimony; foreseeability jury instruction; Cromer v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 142 Ohio St.3d 257, 2015 Ohio 229, 29 N.E.3d 921; manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. The jury verdict from the second trial is not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the jury, as trier of fact, was in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve any conflicts in the evidence in the hospital's favor. The foreseeability instruction read to the jury was proper because there was a factual dispute as to whether the back blows caused plaintiff's injuries and whether the hospital knew or should have known of the risk of harm. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.KilbaneCuyahoga 7/23/2015 7/23/2015 2015-Ohio-2950
PNC Bank, Natl. Assn. v. J & J Slyman, L.L.C. 101777Dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); nullity; Civ.R. 15; relation back doctrine; leave of court; additional party; substitution; statute of limitations; negligence. Plaintiff failed to obtain leave of court prior to filing original complaint. Without leave, the complaint is considered a nullity. Because the only complaint before the trial court was filed after the applicable two-year statute of limitations period had expired, the trial court did not error in dismissing the complaint pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6).GallagherCuyahoga 7/23/2015 7/23/2015 2015-Ohio-2951
Cleveland v. Brown 102066Restitution; R.C. 2929.28; probation department; manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant's conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; trial court erred in delegating its responsibility for determining the amount of restitution to be paid to the probation department because the trial court is required to determine the amount.KeoughCuyahoga 7/23/2015 7/23/2015 2015-Ohio-2952
McKee v. Univ. Circle, Inc. 102066Motion to dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6)political subdivision immunity; R.C. Chapter 2744; "body corporate or politic." Trial court's denial of University Circle, Inc.'s motion to dismiss is affirmed. At this early stage in the proceedings, it cannot be said beyond doubt that University Circle, Inc. is entitled to political subdivision immunity.KilbaneCuyahoga 7/23/2015 7/23/2015 2015-Ohio-2953
State v. Switzer 102175Sentencing; R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. The trial court did not err by imposing the maximum sentence of 18 months for appellant's failure to verify his address. This was the fifth time that the appellant, a sex offender, has failed to register his address.BlackmonCuyahoga 7/23/2015 7/23/2015 2015-Ohio-2954
Brooklyn v. Murray 102303Falsification; Brooklyn Codified Ordinance 525.02(a)(3); Crim.R. 52(B); plain error; Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c); strict compliance; invalid guilty plea - Defendant's guilty plea to falsification in violation of Brooklyn Codified Ordinance 525.02(a)(3) was invalid where trial court failed to inform defendant that she could not be compelled to testify against herself at trial in violation of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). Trial court's failure to inform defendant of this constitutional right constituted plain error.GallagherCuyahoga 7/23/2015 7/23/2015 2015-Ohio-2955
Maclin v. Cleveland 102417Police; political subdivision immunity; R.C. 2744. The trial court erred by denying the city's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, because plaintiff's complaint did not allege any claim that could overcome the city's immunity under R.C. 2744.StewartCuyahoga 7/23/2015 7/23/2015 2015-Ohio-2956
State ex rel. Womack v. Saffold 102719Procedendo; Crim.R. 36 motion to correct clerical error; mootness; R.C. 2969.25; and inmate's prison cashier statement. Procedendo action to compel rulings on Crim.R. 36 motions was rendered moot when the respondent judge ruled on the subject motions. Relator did not attach his prison cashier's statement as required by R.C. 2969.25.KeoughCuyahoga 7/22/2015 7/23/2015 2015-Ohio-2957
State v. Carrington 100918App.R. 26(B), plea, R.C. 2951.03, maximum potential penalty, Crim.R. 11. Application to reopen the appeal is denied where the record demonstrates that the trial court did comply with R.C. 2951.03 in resolving inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report and the record supported a finding that the trial court informed applicant, and applicant confirmed his understanding of, the maximum potential penalties associated with his guilty plea.McCormackCuyahoga 7/20/2015 7/23/2015 2015-Ohio-2948
State v. Smith 101105App.R. 26(B), untimely, denied. Untimely application for reopening is denied because limited access to the prison law library does not constitute good cause for the delay.McCormackCuyahoga 7/20/2015 7/23/2015 2015-Ohio-2949
12345678910...>>