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 35 rows. Rows per page: 
1234
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
W. & S. Life Ins. Co. v. Owens C-140255The trial court properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction a former employer's complaint against a retired employee alleging common-law claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment related to an alleged breach oCunninghamHamilton 3/31/2015 3/31/2015 2015-Ohio-1188
State v. Jones C-140299SENTENCING: The trial court's imposition of a prison term for a nonviolent fifth-degree felony was clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the record demonstrated that the sentence was contrary to the provisions of R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) and (b), wCunninghamHamilton 3/31/2015 3/31/2015 2015-Ohio-1189
Woodward Const., Inc. v. For 1031 Summit Woods, L.L.C. C-140145TORT MISCELLANEOUS: The trial court erred in denying the defendants' motions for directed verdicts on civil-conspiracy claims, because there was no evidence that the defendants were part of a malicious combination to defraud the purchasers of tenants-in-common interests in a property, and speculation about the defendants' knowledge of the seller's concealment of a secret mortgage on the property was not sufficient as a matter of law to establish a malicious combination.DeWineHamilton 3/18/2015 3/18/2015 2015-Ohio-975
Casciani v. Critchell C140338TORT MISCELLANEOUS: The General Assembly's purposeful inclusion of a discovery rule to trigger commencement of the limitations period for certain actions arising under R.C. 2305.09 implies that the General Assembly intended to exclude other torts arising under the statute from being subject to a discovery rule. For tort actions arising under R.C. 2305.09 not subject to a discovery rule, the limitations period commences at the time that the tortious act was committed. The savings statute in R.C. 2305.19 applies only where the factual allegations in the original action are substantially similar to the factual allegations in the new action, and provide the defendant with notice that the claims raised in the new action could be asserted. Because they were filed outside of the applicable limitations period and were not subject to the R.C. 2305.19 savings statute, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with contracts and tortious interference with business relationships, as those claims related to the plaintiff's contract and relationship with a construction company. The plaintiff abandoned her claim for conspiracy by failing to argue its merits on appeal. Because genuine issues of material fact exist on the plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with contracts and tortious interference with business relationships, as those claims relate to the plaintiff's contract and relationship with the bank financing her construction loan, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on those claims. HendonHamilton 3/18/2015 3/18/2015 2015-Ohio-977
Kahler v. Cincinnati Inc. C-140407PROCEDURE/RULES-CONTRACTS: The trial court erred in entering summary judgment for the employer in a former employee's action seeking a declaratory judgment concerning the calculation of interest under a deferred-compensation agreement: on the issue of whether the agreement provided for simple or compound interest, it was ambiguous, because the meaning of the language could not be determined from the face of the agreement, and each party's interpretation of the agreement was reasonable; therefore, an issue of fact remained as to what the parties had intended with respect to the calculation of interest under the agreement. The trial court properly entered summary judgment for the employer on a former employee's promissory-estoppel claim, when that claim was based upon, and concerned the same subject matter as, the parties' written agreement.HendonHamilton 3/18/2015 3/18/2015 2015-Ohio-979
Swaters v. Lawson C-140270; C-140334; C-140361JURISDICTION-CONTEMPT-PROCEDURE/RULES: The trial court properly declined to vacate the trial court's civil contempt order: the contempt order was subject to being vacated after the appeals court had reversed the judgment that the contemnors had been held in contempt for violating, because reversal of that judgment left no valid judgment with which the contemnors could be compelled to comply; but the contemnors' appeal of the contempt order had divested the trial court of jurisdiction to vacate that order. The trial court violated the appeals court's mandate, when on remand from the appeals court's decision ordering the trial court to reinstate plaintiff's claims, the trial court entered final judgment on the claims.HendonHamilton 3/11/2015 3/11/2015 2015-Ohio-858
Frisch v. Restaurant Mgt., Inc. C-140444REAL PROPERTY/LANDLORD AND TENANT-APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL: The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the tenant on the landlords' breach-of-lease claim and on the tenant's constructive-eviction counterclaim: there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the tenant had been deprived of any beneficial use and enjoyment of the property, when the evidence showed that the landlords had substantially complied with the tenant's demands. The trial court's judgment was not subject to reversal to the extent that it dismissed plaintiffs' claim for damages to their premises over and above ordinary wear and granted summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs' financial-concessions claim, because plaintiffs neither argued nor assigned these matters as error on appeal.FischerHamilton 3/11/2015 3/11/2015 2015-Ohio-859
State v. Robinson C-140043CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - JURIES - EVIDENCE - PROSECUTOR: The trial court did not err in determining that the prosecutor had offered a race-neutral explanation to justify the removal of an African-American prospective juror or in allowing the prosecutor to use a peremptory challenge to remove that prospective juror where the prospective juror had stated that police officers "abuse their powers." The trial court did not err in admitting statements attributable to the defendant that had not been disclosed prior to trial where the state's failure to disclose was not willful, the defendant did not show how foreknowledge of the statements would have assisted in preparation of a defense, and the defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the statements. Comments by the prosecutor during closing argument that the defendant had committed additional robberies were improper where no evidence about other robberies had been presented at trial; but the defendant did not object to the comments, and, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented at trial, they did not constitute plain error.HendonHamilton 3/6/2015 3/6/2015 2015-Ohio-773
State v. Young C-140236APPELLATE REVIEW/POSTCONVICTION - COUNSEL - POSTCONVICTION: The appeal, filed nearly two years after the denial of appellant's postconviction petition, was not subject to dismissal as untimely: the 30-day period for appealing that judgment had yet to begin to run, because the common pleas court did not direct service of notice of the judgment, as required by Civ.R. 58(B), and thus the clerk of courts did not "actually complete[] service" of notice of the judgment, as required by App.R. 4(A)(3). The common pleas court properly denied as unsupported petitioner's postconviction claim that his guilty pleas had been the unknowing and unintelligent product of his trial counsel's ineffectiveness: the record negates petitioner's claim that there was an agreed sentence, and that defense counsel was ineffective in misleading him concerning his plea agreement and in failing to bring the matter to the trial court's attention; and the self-serving statements contained in petitioner's affidavit were insufficient as a matter of law to rebut evidence of record to the contrary.DeWineHamilton 3/6/2015 3/6/2015 2015-Ohio-774
State v. Davis C-140351APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL - SENTENCING : Where the defendant and the state entered into a plea agreement, and jointly recommended a sentence to the trial court, which the trial court then imposed, after making the required findings for the imposition of consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of the imposition of consecutive sentences, except to the extent that the trial court should have included its consecutive-sentencing findings in its sentencing entry in accordance with State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, syllabus. Although R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) does not bar the defendant's appeal on the issue of allied offenses, the offenses of which the defendant was convicted were not allied offenses of similar import subject to merger because the offenses occurred separately.FischerHamilton 3/6/2015 3/6/2015 2015-Ohio-775
1234