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 318 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re T.S. L-15-1158Juvenile court's termination of mother's parental rights was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and is affirmed.JensenLucas 11/24/2015 11/24/2015 2015-Ohio-4885
State v. Holbrook H-14-003We affirm the judgment of the trial court convicting appellant of complicity to commit felonious assault, complicity to commit tampering with evidence, and obstructing justice.JensenHuron 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4780
In re Estate of Williams S-14-018Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to intervene by attorney who had represented plaintiffs in related civil action where motion was untimely and attorney failed to file the pleading required by Civ.R. 24(C). PietrykowskiSandusky 11/20/2015 11/20/2015 2015-Ohio-4781
Savoy Hospitality, L.L.C. v. 5839 Monore St. Assocs., L.L.C. L-14-1144The trial court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the settlement agreement because the defendant-appellant did not satisfy its burden of proving that the plaintiffs-appellees breached the settlement agreement. The trial court did not err by ordering the defendant-appellant to return the plaintiffs-appellees' security deposit because there is clear evidence that the parties did not intend to be bound by the mutual release until they executed the "Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice," which the parties have not yet filed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant-appellant's motion for attorney fees.PrestonLucas 11/13/2015 11/24/2015 2015-Ohio-4879
State v. Penque L-14-1110, L-14-1111Evidence presented by the prosecution was legally sufficient to support appellant's convictions when the state presented credible evidence as to each and every essential element of each charge. The convictions for assault, and the court's determination that a toothbrush with its bristles removed and one end sharpened to a point is a deadly weapon, are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.YarbroughLucas 11/13/2015 11/24/2015 2015-Ohio-4880
Bienyk v. Ogbonna L-15-1051The trial court properly concluded that plaintiff breached the land installment contract despite reaching this conclusion for the wrong reason. The trial court did not err in refusing to consider damages never presented to it, but on remand, it must recalculate the offset against the amount owed to defendant.JensenLucas 11/6/2015 11/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4625
In re K.M.-B. L-15-1037Reversed trial court's finding that R.C. 3109.051(B)(1) is unconstitutional as applied because the statue was not applicable to the facts of this case. R.C. 3109.12 as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as applied to this case. Trial court abused its discretion by awarding grandparent visitation without giving adequate deference and weight to the mother's wishes and when little or no evidence was presented regarding the other factors listed in R.C. 3109.051(D).SingerLucas 11/6/2015 11/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4626
In re S.M. WM-15-005An incarcerated appellant's due process rights were not violated as he was: 1) represented at the hearing by counsel, 2) a full record of the hearing was made, and 3) any testimony could have been presented in the form of a deposition. Counsel was not ineffective as he offered his incarcerated client an opportunity to participate through a written statement and appellant did not respond to the letter, or follow through with any part of his case plan.YarbroughWilliams 11/6/2015 11/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4627
Kasper Invest. Properties, L.L.C. v. Put-in-Bay Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals OT-14-037Trial court did not err in finding that a preponderance of evidence supported denial of a conditional use permit to property owner seeking permit for occasional rental of its home.JensenOttawa 11/6/2015 11/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4628
State v. Lewis WD-14-082Appellant's prison sentence for a fifth degree felony was not contrary to law.PietrykowskiWood 11/6/2015 11/9/2015 2015-Ohio-4629