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

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
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 244 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Byrd 27340The trial court erred in overruling Appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of her residence. The police officers who searched her residence did not have a reasonable belief, based upon articulable facts and rational inferences from those facts, that other persons were in the home and that these persons posed a danger to the officers or needed assistance. Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings.WelbaumMontgomery 7/21/2017 7/21/2017 2017-Ohio-6903
State v. Davis 2016-CA-22The trial court's decision to sentence Defendant-appellant to the maximum term of imprisonment on both counts is not contrary to law and is supported by the record. Any argument concerning the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the burglary count was eliminated by Defendant-appellant's guilty plea to the burglary count. Finally, the record does not support a conclusion that counsel was ineffective. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 7/21/2017 7/21/2017 2017-Ohio-6904
State v. McFadden 2016-CA-28The trial court did not err in imposing maximum and consecutive sentences following the appellant's negotiated guilty plea to two counts of felony domestic violence, one count of obstructing official business, and one count of resisting arrest. Viewed individually or in the aggregate, the appellant's sentences are not contrary to law. The trial court considered the proper statutory factors and made the necessary findings, which the record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support. Judgment affirmed.HallChampaign 7/21/2017 7/21/2017 2017-Ohio-6905
State v. Rigel 2016-CA-50The trial court did not deny appellant a Franks hearing on his motion to suppress. Rather, the record establishes that the decision to not pursue a Franks evidentiary hearing was made by defense counsel. The trial court did not err when it denied appellant's motion to suppress with respect to the thermal imaging search warrant issued on May 5, 2015, the G.P.S. tracking search warrant issued on June 2, 2015, and the search warrant for 826 Sylvan Shores Drive and 1028 Wheel Street. The record establishes that the aforementioned search warrants were all supported by probable cause. Lastly, appellant's sentence was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 7/21/2017 7/21/2017 2017-Ohio-6906
LaMusga v. Summit Square Rehab, L.L.C. 27186Plaintiff-appellant appeals from the trial court's decision granting Defendants-appellees summary judgment. The trial court correctly determined that security guard training provided by a sole proprietorship owned by Defendants-appellees to security guards involved in the death of Plaintiff-appellant's decedent did not create a special relationship between Defendants-appellees and the security guards. Therefore, Defendants-appellees, acting through the sole proprietorship, had no duty to control the security guards' actions. Further, the record, assuming a special relationship, does not create a factual issue that the sole proprietorship provided negligent training to the security guards. The trial court also correctly concluded there was not a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the limited liability company (LLC) owned by Defendants-appellees and which employed the security guards was, in fact, a sole proprietorship owned by Defendants-appellees. The trial court also correctly concluded there was not a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the LLC's corporate veil should be pierced. It is, finally, concluded that the Rule 56 record does not create a genuine issue of fact concerning Ivan Burke's personal liability for his corporate supervision of the security guards. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 7/21/2017 7/21/2017 2017-Ohio-6907
State v. Winton 27043Defendant-appellant was convicted of felony murder and felonious assault (serious physical harm) with the trial court, after merger of the counts and the State's election to proceed to sentencing on the felony murder count, sentencing Defendant-appellant accordingly. Defendant-appellant's conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, and it is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by overruling Defendant-appellant's motion to suppress statements or by concluding that Defendant-appellant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search of his home. The trial court, finally, did not err in ordering Defendant-appellant to pay restitution. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 7/21/2017 7/21/2017 2017-Ohio-6908
State v. Brooks 2016-CA-17Trial court erred in disapproving intensive program prison (IPP) in its judgment entry without making the findings required by R.C. 2929.19(D). Trial court did not err in failing to approve IPP as part of its sentence; the parties' plea agreement did not include IPP. Trial court erred in disapproving transitional control. Judgment reversed as to the disapproval of IPP and transitional control, and case remanded. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.FroelichGreene 7/14/2017 7/14/2017 2017-Ohio-5825
Dorsey v. Dorsey 27338The trial court erred in calculating how a Mercedes automobile was credited in equalizing the parties' property division. The court did not err in any other respects. Reversed in part, only as to said allocation. On remand, the court will order that the total amount required to equalize the property division, as of September 24, 2015, is $275,804.50. Affirmed in all other respects.WelbaumMontgomery 7/14/2017 7/14/2017 2017-Ohio-5826
State v. Jordan 2016-CA-17Trial court did not err in failing to merge multiple counts of gross sexual imposition based on defendant's touching different parts of the victim's body. Trial court did not err in imposing a prison sentence, rather than community control. Judgment affirmed.FroelichChampaign 7/14/2017 7/14/2017 2017-Ohio-5827
State v. Henley 27326Trial court erred in imposing post-release control for Counts I-V (kidnapping and rape) at the resentencing hearing; we infer from the record that appellant completed that portion of his sentence for kidnapping and rape prior to the resentencing. Appellant's post-release control for his kidnapping and rape convictions is vacated; in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. All of appellant's remaining arguments are barred by res judicata. Case remanded for the sole purpose of issuing an amended judgment entry reflecting the vacation of post-release control for the kidnapping and rape convictions. (Hall, P.J., concurring in judgment only).DonovanMontgomery 7/14/2017 7/14/2017 2017-Ohio-5828
12345678910...>>