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 23 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Esterman v. Speedway, L.L.C. C-140287NEGLIGENCE/SLIP/FALL: The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant gas station on plaintiff's negligence action where plaintiff tripped and fell over a portion of a parking barrier in the parking lot of the gas station, because the parking barrier was an open and obvious condition, which negated any duty on the part of the gas station to warn the plaintiff of the barrier, and the dim lighting in the parking area, the store merchandise blocking the sidewalk, the color and type of the barrier, the rainy weather, and the crime level in the neighborhood did not amount to attendant circumstances.FischerHamilton 2/25/2015 2/24/2015 2015-Ohio-659
State v. Nelson C-140352JURISDICTION/VENUE - ASSAULT: The defendant's appeal is not moot where the record demonstrates that the defendant was imprisoned pending the outcome of the proceedings on the charges for which the defendant was held, the trial court sentenced the defendant to time served, and the defendant did not otherwise voluntarily complete any other part of the sentence. The defendant's conviction for assault was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where a security guard testified that the defendant walked into the guard's body and struck the guard in the arm.FischerHamilton 2/25/2015 2/25/2015 2015-Ohio-660
Colegrove v. Fred A. Nemann Co. C-140171TORT MISCELLANEOUS - DAMAGES - JURY INSTRUCTIONS: The trial court properly directed a verdict on homeowners' claims against a construction company for negligence, nuisance, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, punitive damages, and attorney fees where the homeowners failed to show that the construction company had acted negligently in its construction of a sewer pump station behind their home. Where homeowners alleged that a construction company had indirectly trespassed upon their property by way of vibrations from its construction of a sewer pump station behind their home, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that it could award the homeowners damages for loss of use and for annoyance and discomfort where the homeowners failed to show that their damages were substantial.CunninghamHamilton 2/13/2015 2/13/2015 2015-Ohio-533
State v. Dawson C-130765JURISDICTION - BINDOVER - JURIES: Pursuant to R.C. 2151.12(B), the juvenile court did not err in transferring jurisdiction of the defendant's case to the general division of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, because the defendant was 15 years old at the time of the offense, probable cause existed that the defendant had committed the offense, and the record showed that the defendant was not amenable to care or rehabilitation in the juvenile system. Pursuant to R.C. 2961.01 and 2967.16, a convicted felon may have the right to serve on a jury restored by either obtaining a pardon or by complying with R.C. 2967.16(C). The trial court did not err in excusing for cause two jurors who had prior felony convictions, because neither of the jurors had obtained a pardon and the record failed to demonstrate that the jurors had had their rights restored pursuant to R.C. 2967.16(C).HendonHamilton 2/11/2015 2/11/2015 2015-Ohio-488
In re A.W. C-140142CHILDREN - CUSTODY: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal custody of two minor boys to their great aunt and great uncle where the evidence showed that the great aunt and great uncle were appropriate custodians, having served as prior foster and adoptive parents, had stable employment, had visited with the boys consistently throughout the pendency of the juvenile court proceedings, and were willing to maintain a relationship between the boys and their mother. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that returning legal custody to mother would not be in the minor boys' best interest where mother had not completed significant portions of her case-plan services, had been terminated from her mental-health services and substance-abuse treatment for missing appointments, had self-reported using marijuana and alcohol, had been convicted of assaulting her nephew, had failed to take drug screens in connection with drug charges, and had refused to acknowledge the boys' behavioral problems.FischerHamilton 2/11/2015 2/11/2015 2015-Ohio-489
State v. Jones C-140241ASSAULT - SELF-DEFENSE - LESSER INCLUDED - JURY INSTRUCTIONS - SENTENCING: To prevail on his non-deadly-force affirmative defense of self-defense, defendant had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he was not at fault in creating the violent situation; (2) he reasonably believed that some force was necessary to defend himself against the imminent use of unlawful force; and (3) the force used was not likely to cause death or great bodily harm. On the state of the record, the jury was entitled to believe that defendant had attacked his victim without provocation, and to reject his claim that he had acted in self-defense. In a prosecution for assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), the trial court did not err in instructing the jury, over defendant's objection, on the lesser-included offense of disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(1) where, under a reasonable view of the evidence, it was possible for the jury to find defendant not guilty of assault and guilty of disorderly conduct. Where the jury found defendant guilty of misdemeanor assault, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to 100 days' incarceration where the sentence fell within the statutory range, and where defendant, without provocation, had violently knocked the victim unconscious and then kicked him in the head.HendonHamilton 2/11/2015 2/11/2015 2015-Ohio-490
Kingrey v. Duke Energy Corp. C-140308CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS - PROCEDURE/RULES : The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) after plaintiff failed to timely respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment, resulting in judgment for defendant: the record showed that plaintiff had been represented by two attorneys in the action, defendant had served both attorneys by email with the summary-judgment motion, and plaintiff had failed to come forth with any facts or evidence to support the bare allegation that plaintiff's local counsel never received service of defendant's motion.FischerHamilton 2/11/2015 2/11/2015 2015-Ohio-491
Martin v. Kings Ford, Inc. C-140252CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS - NEGLIGENCE - SUMMARY JUDGMENT: In an action brought by purchasers of a new vehicle against a car dealership, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the dealership on the purchasers' claims for negligence, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act: the evidence showed that the vehicle manufacturer offered a warranty, not the dealer; the dealer could not proceed to repair or service the vehicle under the warranty without the permission of the manufacturer; and the purchasers never requested that the dealer provide any service or repair outside the warranty.FischerHamilton 2/6/2015 2/6/2015 2015-Ohio-409
State v. Carnes C-140188AUTOS/CRIMINAL: The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's administrative-license-suspension appeal, because evidence that the defendant had committed a traffic violation, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, smelled of alcohol, denied drinking, was driving with privileges under a prior administrative license suspension, and refused to submit to field-sobriety or chemical testing provided sufficient grounds to impose an administrative license suspension.DeWineHamilton 2/4/2015 2/4/2015 2015-Ohio-379
State v. Miller C-130774EVIDENCE/WITNESS/TRIAL - SENTENCING: No plain error was demonstrated where the trial court allowed the state to ask leading questions on direct examination, because the defendant did not show that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the court's allegedly improper actions. There was no plain error in the trial court's admission of text messages sent to and from the defendant, because the cell phone records were properly admitted as business records, the content of most of the messages was not hearsay, and to the extent that some of the messages were hearsay, they were not prejudicial to the defendant. The trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences without first having made the requisite findings, and therefore, the consecutive sentences must be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing in accordance with State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659.DeWineHamilton 1/30/2015 1/30/2015 2015-Ohio-330