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 311 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Bryan 101209Consecutive sentences; S.B. 2; H.B. 86. A defendant who committed a crime should be sentenced under H.B. 86, in effect at the time of his sentencing, instead of sentencing law in effect at the time of his offense.McCormackCuyahoga 4/30/2015 4/30/2015 2015-Ohio-1635
Cleveland Hts. v. Cohen 101349Domestic violence; R.C. 2919.25(A); child endangering; R.C. 2919.22(A); disorderly conduct; Cleveland Heights Codified Ordinances 509.03(a)(1); sufficiency of the evidence; lesser included offense - Defendant's convictions for child endangering in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A) and disorderly conduct in violation of Cleveland Heights Codified Ordinances 509.03(a)(1) were not supported by sufficient evidence. That defendant's children were present in the home at the time of domestic dispute, may have witnessed part of the conflict and may have been upset by their parents' words and actions did not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly created a substantial risk to his children's health or safety by violating a duty of care, protection or support under R.C. 2919.22(A). Defendant's actions in pushing his wife off his back after she jumped on him did not support conviction for disorderly conduct under Cleveland Heights Codified Ordinances 509.03(a)(1) where city failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant was recklessly "engaging in fighting" or "violent or tumultuous behavior" or that there was a causal link between defendant's conduct and any inconvenience, annoyance or alarm experienced by wife.GallagherCuyahoga 4/30/2015 4/30/2015 2015-Ohio-1636
State ex rel. Petro v. Pure Tech Sys., Inc. 101447Civ.R. 56(C)/summary judgment; reversible error; statute of limitations; authenticated evidence; manifest weight; piercing the corporate veil; Civ.R. 19/joinder of indispensable party; Civ.R. 65/permanent injunction; R.C. 3745.31 and 6111.09(A)/civil penalties; contempt of court; R.C. 2307.381(A)/long arm statute. Appellant's environmental violations fell within the five-year statute of limitations and the imposition of civil penalties was proper; and although appellant had ceased doing business in the state, the state maintained personal jurisdiction over appellant by the long arm statute. The evidence submitted to the court established that appellants were the owners, operators, or generators of the hazardous waste at the property location and was sufficient for a grant of summary judgment. Grounds for piercing the corporate veil were set forth because it was demonstrated that appellant was in complete control of the defendant companies where the violations took place and appellant assumed personal liability for environmental corrective actions. Appellants were determined to be the owner, operators of hazardous waste at the property, and it was therefore not necessary to join the current property owner as a party to the case. A trial court lacks discretion whether to impose a penalty where there has been a violation of environmental law. Appellant functioned as the managing corporate actor and assumed personal liability for the violations of the corporate defendants. The trial court did not err in finding him in civil contempt.JonesCuyahoga 4/30/2015 4/30/2015 2015-Ohio-1638
Arnold v. Burger King 101465Arbitration Clause; Employment Contract; Proof of Unconscionability. Trial court properly denied appellant's motion to either stay the proceedings or compel arbitration because appellee proved that the arbitration clause contained in her employment contract with appellant was procedurally unconscionable and that the clause also was substantively unconscionable if it sought to include a claim of rape within its broad scope.Laster MaysCuyahoga 4/30/2015 4/30/2015 2015-Ohio-1639
State v. Doumbouya 101482Manifest weight of the evidence; sufficiency of the evidence. Defendant's conviction for aggravated robbery was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although defendant testified that she was not the perpetrator, the jury was free to disregard her testimony. We cannot say that the jury lost its way simply because it believed state's witnesses over defendant's testimony. State satisfied its burden of production to overcome a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.BoyleCuyahoga 4/30/2015 4/30/2015 2015-Ohio-1640
State v. Spann 101595Crim.R. 32.1; motion to withdraw plea; transmission of the record; postrelease control; res judicata; competency. Defendant's competency evaluation cannot be collaterally attacked through a Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw a plea, and the trial court notified the defendant of the imposition of postrelease control at sentencing, but imperfectly incorporated that into the final sentencing entry. A remand is necessary to allow the trial court to correct the oversight through a nunc pro tunc entry.GallagherCuyahoga 4/30/2015 4/30/2015 2015-Ohio-1641
State v. Ellis 101603Correction of sentence; Crim.R. 43; Mandate. The trial court's order denying appellant's Crim.R. 43 motion is affirmed, because the trial court's correction of the journal entry of appellant's sentence to vacate one of appellant's convictions, which did not affect the total prison term imposed, was a ministerial act performed under mandate from this court, rather than a "critical stage of the proceedings."Laster MaysCuyahoga 4/30/2015 4/30/2015 2015-Ohio-1642
State v. Taylor 101609Crim.R. 11(C); guilty plea; knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily; substantial compliance; maximum fine; maximum penalty; nature of the charges. The record demonstrates that the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C) in accepting the defendant's guilty plea, the defendant understood the nature of the charges and the maximum penalties involved, and the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.McCormackCuyahoga 4/30/2015 4/30/2015 2015-Ohio-1643
State v. Nia 101725R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); App.R. 16(A)(7). Defendant did not comply with App.R. 16(A)(7) by arguing why the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences when his argument consisted solely of asking the appellate court to "look at the entire record and decide if the consecutive sentences are supported by the record."StewartCuyahoga 4/30/2015 4/30/2015 2015-Ohio-1644
Sinclair v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 101747R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a); just cause; unemployment compensation; credibility determination; factual determination; absenteeism abuse policy. Where unemployment commission's decision was not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, trial court erred in reversing the commission's decision finding that claimant was not entitled to unemployment compensation because he was terminated for just cause; reviewing courts must defer to the commission's factual findings and credibility determinations; trial court improperly substituted its findings of fact for those of the commission.KeoughCuyahoga 4/30/2015 4/30/2015 2015-Ohio-1645
12345678910...>>