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 238 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Caldwell 2013-CA-76The jury's verdict, finding Appellant guilty of drug possession and drug trafficking, is supported by sufficient evidence, and is also not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In addition, trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by withdrawing a motion to suppress statements Appellant made after service of a search warrant. The record is devoid of evidence that the motion would have succeeded, and the evidence of Appellant's guilt was sufficient. Affirmed.WelbaumGreene 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2551
W. Carrollton v. Camel 26554The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal because the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish that she was guilty of criminal damaging. As the individual in possession of the motor vehicle at the time it was vandalized, the victim's testimony that she did not consent to the damage was sufficient to support appellant's conviction for criminal damaging. Judgment affirmed. DonovanMontgomery 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2552
State v. Conley 26359The State adduced sufficient evidence to sustain appellant's conviction for felonious assault with a deadly weapon. The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to warrant the trial court's flight instruction to the jury. The trial court did not err when it failed to sua sponte instruct the jury on either the inferior degree offense of aggravated assault and/or the lesser included offense of simple assault. Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. The record establishes that the trial court considered appellant's ability to pay when it ordered restitution. However, the trial court erred when it ordered restitution in the amount of $600.00 without a hearing. The order of restitution is reversed, and this cause is remanded for a hearing on the issue of restitution. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. DonovanMontgomery 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2553
State v. Cunningham 2014-CA-99; 2014-CA-100Anders appeal. No non-frivolous arguments that the trial court erred in revoking Cunningham's community control and imposing consecutive prison sentences for his two cases. Judgment affirmed.FroelichClark 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2554
Gold Key Realty/Senior Village Apts. v. Phillips 26450Trial court did not err in overruling the magistrate and denying writ of restitution to landlord of senior federally-subsidized housing community. The basis for the proposed termination of tenancy must be specified in the notice of termination; where the notice of termination identifies only a single incident as the basis for the proposed termination, the landlord cannot rely on a course of conduct not included in the notice. The magistrate did not err in disallowing landlord from presenting additional evidence of tenant's "continuous disruptive behavior" at a hearing on the amount of bond tenant needed to post to effectuate a stay of the writ of restitution. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2555
State v. McComb 26481The trial court did not err in dismissing Appellant's petition for relief from judgment, because Appellant failed to satisfy the requirements for obtaining relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2556
State v. Oglesby 26251Trial court did not err in overruling pre-sentence motion to withdraw plea, after a hearing. Although the evidence was conflicting, there was evidence from which the trial court could find that the defendant understood the charges to which he was pleading guilty, that the defendant understood the possible sentences, and that his plea was not the product of ineffective assistance of counsel. Affirmed.FainMontgomery 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2557
State v. Pugh 26448Appeal from re-sentencing pursuant to mandate from court of appeals after previous appeal. Anders brief filed. No potential assignments of error having arguable merit found. Affirmed.FainMontgomery 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2558
Trebein Limited ADK, L.L.C. v. Fairborn 2014-CA-23The trial court did not err in finding that appellee City of Fairborn properly processed and approved appellee Vectren's application to convert a private natural-gas fueling station to a public facility. The trial court correctly found that certain zoning provisions did not apply because they involved "major modifications," whereas Vectren's application sought a "minor modification." Judgment affirmed.HallGreene 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2559
Reid v. Daniel 26494The trial court did not err in concluding that certified mail service on Appellant was proper. In addition, the trial court did not err in refusing to apply equitable estoppel, because the record is devoid of any misrepresentation made by the administrator of the decedent's estate. Finally, Appellant provided evidence only of potential fraud in the inducement of a prenuptial agreement, which does not provide a basis for avoiding the bar of the limitations period in R.C. 2106.22. Because Appellant failed to file an action within the time period outlined in R.C. 2106.22, she is bound by the terms of the prenuptial agreement, which governs the issue of any recovery from the decedent's estate. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/19/2015 6/19/2015 2015-Ohio-2423
12345678910...>>