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 93 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Brewer 26153The trial court did not err in using Appellant's ILC eligibility report as the PSI report at sentencing. The ILC eligibility report contained all the information that is required to be in a PSI report, and using the ILC eligibility report in place of the PSI report did not prejudice the Appellant. Additionally, the trial court did not err in finding Appellant ineligible for ILC, as Appellant failed to satisfy all ten criteria under R.C. 2951.041(B). It was also not erroneous for the trial court to order Appellant to pay court-appointed attorney fees as a condition of community control. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 2/27/2015 2/27/2015 2015-Ohio-693
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Fredericks 26230The trial court did not err in applying the economic loss doctrine, which generally prevents recovery in tort of damages for purely economic loss. Appellants were also not entitled to recover under an exception to this doctrine, because they were not in privity with the subcontractor who caused the damage, nor were there facts establishing a substitute for privity between Appellants and the subcontractor. Furthermore, Appellants were not third-party beneficiaries to the subcontract. The subcontract identifies another entity as the owner of the damaged property, and extends indemnification for damages only to the owner, not Appellants. Moreover, a negligence theory which permits recovery for indirect economic damages where losses arise from property damage does not apply, because there was no direct causal nexus between Appellants' losses and the tangible damage to the property. Finally, the trial court did not err by failing to consider whether Appellants' collateral and consequential damages should be covered under the subcontractor's policy of insurance. The insurer's duty to pay was conditioned upon its insured having been found legally liable to pay damages. However, the subcontractor was not liable for any consequential damages of Appellants, and the insurer would have no duty to pay for those damages. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 2/27/2015 2/27/2015 2015-Ohio-694
Hardy v. Hardy 26140In ruling on Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate's Decision regarding the equalization of Plaintiff's pension from the State Teachers Retirement System ("STRS") and Defendant's Social Security benefits, the trial court failed to equalize the parties' incomes from 2005 until 2012. Judgment reversed and vacated and matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.DonovanMontgomery 2/27/2015 2/27/2015 2015-Ohio-695
Braum v. Kinderdine 26298The trial court erred in refusing to consider evidence regarding the residual diminution in value of Appellant's automobile after a collision, and in precluding Appellant from potentially recovering damages for this loss. Where a plaintiff can prove that the value of a damaged vehicle after repair is less than the vehicle's worth before the injury, the plaintiff may recover both the reasonable cost of repair and the residual diminution in value after repair, provided that the award does not exceed the gross diminution in value. Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings.WelbaumMontgomery 2/27/2015 2/27/2015 2015-Ohio-696
State v. Martin 2014-CA-69No non-frivolous issues for appellate review. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 2/27/2015 2/27/2015 2015-Ohio-697
State v. Payne 2014-CA-21The trial court erred in awarding restitution to reimburse law-enforcement authorities for money spent on controlled drug buys in the absence of an agreement by the appellant to pay such restitution. The trial court's judgment is modified by vacating the requirement that the appellant pay restitution. As modified, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.HallClark 2/27/2015 2/27/2015 2015-Ohio-698
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Pittman 26330The trial court erred by engaging in conjecture and by construing the facts in favor of the moving party, contrary to summary judgment requirements. The trial court also erred in excluding the plaintiff's causation evidence as a sanction for alleged spoliation. The evidence in question was available for inspection by the defendant and was not damaged by the plaintiff during testing. More importantly, even if the defendant established the initial elements of spoliation, the plaintiff met its burden of showing lack of prejudice to the defendant. Specifically, the defendant's defense was that he never repaired or had any contact with the product that caused the injury. Therefore, the cause of the injury would have been irrelevant to his defense. Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings.WelbaumMontgomery 2/27/2015 2/27/2015 2015-Ohio-699
State v. Smith 26217The trial court's failure to include appellant's statutorily mandated driver's license suspensions in his judgment entry of conviction rendered his sentence void in part. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing limited to imposition of the mandatory driver's license suspensions and their journalization in the judgment entry of conviction. Judgment reversed in part and remanded to trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. DonovanMontgomery 2/27/2015 2/27/2015 2015-Ohio-700
Taylor v. Taylor 2014-CA-21The magistrate's decision holding Appellant in contempt was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and was properly adopted by the trial court, as the record contained clear and convincing evidence that Appellant failed to pay spousal support as ordered. The court also did not err in concluding that no substantial change in circumstances existed that would warrant modification or termination of spousal support. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Appellee. R.C. 3105.18(G) specifically requires reasonable attorney fees to be awarded where a party is found in contempt for failure to pay spousal support. Appellant had both actual and statutory notice that reasonable attorney fees could be imposed. In addition, trial courts are permitted to award nominal attorney fees where they appear manifestly reasonable from the record. Affirmed.WelbaumMiami 2/27/2015 2/27/2015 2015-Ohio-701
State v. Cokes 26223The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for rape of a child under ten years of age. Appellant's conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 2/20/2015 2/20/2015 2015-Ohio-619