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 191 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Huntington Natl. Bank v. Payson 26396The trial court erred when it rendered a summary judgment of foreclosure. The borrowers' allegations that certain conditions precedent were not met, while erroneously placed in the portion of their answer denominated as a counterclaim, were nevertheless sufficiently pled to require the bank to prove, for summary judgment purposes, that those conditions precedent were met.FainMontgomery 5/22/2015 5/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1976
Jackson v. McKinney 26288Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to attorney on former client's legal malpractice claim. Attorney failed to meet his initial summary judgment burden to establish the absence of genuine issues of material fact and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judgment reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.FroelichMontgomery 5/22/2015 5/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1977
State v. Kirkland 26272Trial court did not err when it overruled appellant's motion to suppress. The evidence adduced at the suppression established that the police officer had probable cause to arrest appellant for failure to provide for a functionally impaired person. Accordingly, the contraband later discovered hidden on her person during a search at the jail was not subject to the exclusionary rule. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 5/22/2015 5/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1978
State v. Lehman 2014-CA-17The claims raised in Appellant's Anders brief lack arguable merit. Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacks merit because it relies on facts outside the record and is based on alleged conduct that does not amount to ineffective assistance. In addition, Appellant's claim that the trial court was not authorized to impose a sanction for his post-release control violation lacks merit because the claim is based on the possibility that the imposition of post-release control was void, and that issue was never raised before the trial court and cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, determining whether the imposition of post-release control was void requires the review of evidence outside the record of this appeal. Affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 5/22/2015 5/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1979
State v. Overholser 2014-CA-42Trial court erred, following Overholser's guilty pleas, in ordering that Overholser's sentences of four years each on five counts of gross sexual imposition be served consecutively, since the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court's findings that consecutive service is necessary to protect the public and punish Overholser and is not disproportionate to the seriousness of his conduct and to the danger he poses to the public. The record further does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court's finding that the harm caused by two or more of the offenses was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses adequately reflects the seriousness of Overholser's conduct. The record does not demonstrate that 20 years in prison is the minimum sanction to accomplish the overriding purposes of felony sentencing without imposing an unnecessary burden on the State. Judgment reversed and remanded for resentencing. (Hall, J., concurs in judgment only.) (Welbaum, J., dissenting.) DonovanClark 5/22/2015 5/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1980
Schoenlein v. Price 26377An intermediate appellate court cannot correct alleged errors made by the Ohio Supreme Court in assigning a case to a visiting judge. The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss one of the two plaintiffs from the lawsuit against him. The trial court did not err in entering judgment against the appellant as a sanction for unexplained and repeated discovery violations or in dismissing his counterclaim and ordering him to pay attorney fees. The trial court acted within its discretion in declining to reconsider these sanctions based on the appellant's alleged incapacitation with medical problems. The trial court reasonably concluded that the appellant did not provide a justifiable excuse for disregarding the case and discovery issues. The appellant's argument about not receiving service of various filings is not properly before us because he first raised the issue on the record below in a post-judgment affidavit. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 5/22/2015 5/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1981
Rodefer v. Colbert 2014-CA-3The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) was not required to apply methodology found in Ohio Adm. Code 5101:1-39-32(F) to value a life estate that the appellant sold to her son. This regulation could not be applied as written, and ODJFS properly assessed the value of the life estate using methodology that appears in a State Medicaid Manual. Although the trial court applied different reasoning, it too arrived at the same life estate value. ODJFS's order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion or make an error of law in upholding the administrative decision. Judgment affirmed.HallDarke 5/22/2015 5/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1982
Springfield Venture, L.L.C. v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 2014-CA-74The trial court erred in rendering summary judgment in Appellee's favor on the basis of res judicata, but did not err in rendering summary judgment in Appellee's favor under the waiver doctrine. Appellant voluntarily relinquished a known right in a prior action involving the same parties, and waiver may be enforced by the entity - in this case, Appellee - who had a duty to perform and who changed its position as a result of the waiver. In view of the resolution of the waiver issue, the assignment of error concerning whether the contractual language in a note and mortgage supported Appellant's claim for attorney fees in the prior action, are moot. Finally, the Appellant waived its right to appeal the factual basis of the order granting attorney fees to Appellee in the current action, because when Appellant objected to the Magistrate's decision it did not provide the trial court with a transcript. Affirmed.WelbaumClark 5/22/2015 5/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1983
State v. Thompson 26364Appellant's assertion that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2947.23 in imposing sentence is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 5/22/2015 5/22/2015 2015-Ohio-1984
State v. Bays 2014-CA-24The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's May 16, 2013 motion to withdraw a November 9, 2007 notice of voluntary dismissal of a post-conviction relief petition based on Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), and State v. Lott, 97 Ohio St.3d 303, 2002-Ohio-6625, 779 N.E.2d 1011. The trial court also did not err in overruling the appellant's motion to amend or supplement the voluntarily-dismissed petition and his motion for Civ.R. 60(B) relief from the voluntarily-dismissed petition. The trial court did not recognize, however, that in addition to the motion to amend or supplement the voluntarily-dismissed petition, in the May 16, 2013 filing the appellant also alternatively filed a new petition for post-conviction relief and a motion for an evidentiary hearing thereon. Judgment affirmed and cause remanded for disposition of pending new petition and motion for evidentiary hearing. (Donovan, J., dissenting); (Froelich, P.J., concurring in judgment).HallGreene 5/15/2015 5/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1935