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 606 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Penn 101982Speedy trial; R.C. 2945.71(C)(2); motion to dismiss; additional criminal charges; multiple indictments; different facts; knowledge. Trial court erred in granting motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds where the additional criminal charges arose from facts different from the original charges and the state lacked knowledge of these facts at the time of the initial charge.GallagherCuyahoga 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3473
State v. Taslitz 102084Assault; R.C. 2903.13(A), manifest weight. Defendant's convictions for assault were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.KilbaneCuyahoga 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3474
C4 Polymers, Inc. v. Huntington Natl. Bank 102142Civ.R 56(C)/summary judgment; motion for directed verdict; wire transfer agreement; motion for new trial; jury instructions; spoliation of evidence; closing argument; abuse of discovery process; motion for prejudgment interest. Between the two separate agreements, ambiguity existed, thus creating a genuine issue of material fact. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motions for summary judgment and directed verdicts. Questions of law are determined by the court and any violation of the law is determined by a jury. After determining the reasonableness of the agreements, it was proper for the trial court to appropriate to the jury to determine whether there was any violation of any terms of the agreements. There was no evidence that appellee intentionally or negligently destroyed or altered the computer in question without providing appellant an opportunity for inspection. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request for a spoliation instruction. Appellant failed to object to the showing of the movie clip during appellee's closing argument and, therefore, waived all but plain error, and on the record there was no plain error. The trial court's reinstatement of the case did not cause a delay in the proceedings or prejudice appellant and was not an abuse of discretion. It was an abuse of discretion where the trial court awarded prejudgment interest to appellee where there were times that delays in the case were attributable to appellee.JonesCuyahoga 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3475
State v. Colegrove 102173Robbery; R.C. 2911.02; manifest weight; sufficiency; other acts evidence; Evid.R. 404(B); Crim.R. 29; consciousness of guilt. Appellant's robbery conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Evidence of the actions of appellant and his family related to the attempted interference with the testimony of witnesses was proper evidence of consciousness of guilt, not improper other acts evidence.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3476
In re C.J.R. 102253Rape; manifest weight. The adjudication of delinquency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record shows the victim repeatedly struggled and told the appellant to stop, she appeared visibly upset and scared upon leaving appellant's home, she reported the rape to the police the following day, and she presented herself to the hospital for a sexual assault examination.McCormackCuyahoga 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3477
Panzica Constr. Co. v. Bridgeview Crossing, L.L.C. 102233Open-end mortgage; construction mortgage; modifications; relation back; mechanic's lien; validity; priority; waiver; notice of furnishing; notice of commencement. The grant of summary judgment was in error when genuine issues of material fact remained outstanding in a lien validity and lien priority dispute involving a commercial shopping center. On remand, the trial court must consider how certain lien waivers affect the validity of the construction manager's mechanic's lien and determine whether the bank's mortgage modifications were valid construction mortgages on the property.StewartCuyahoga 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3478
State v. Gibson 102391Resentencing; ineffective assistance of counsel; nature of defendant. Defense counsel was not ineffective at resentencing where counsel's attempt to secure community control for the remaining term of defendant's sentence was rejected and the trial court imposed the same minimum three-year prison term as imposed at the original sentencing. The trial court considered the nature of the defendant at the time of resentencing where the record shows the court considered all relevant sentencing factors and the court heard statements from defendant and his attorney at resentencing.McCormackCuyahoga 8/27/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3479
State ex rel. Ikladious v. Celebrezze 103129writ of prohibition, pending appeal, moot. The relator's complaint for a writ of prohibition is moot. The underlying appeal, which formed the basis of the complaint for a writ of prohibition, was dismissed by this court. No appeal remains pending, that would divest the trial court of jurisdiction.BoyleCuyahoga 8/26/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3482
State v. Rogers 100248App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, motion for delayed appeal denied, no appellate judgment that reviewed the applicant's conviction and sentence, untimely filed. App.R. 26(B) is not applicable to the facts pertinent to this appeal. No appellate judgment, which reviewed the applicant's plea of guilty and sentence, was announced and journalized by this court. This court denied the applicant's motion for a delayed appeal, thus preventing the filing of an application for reopening. Even if the applicant were permitted to file an application for reopening, the application is untimely and the applicant failed to establish good cause for the untimely filing of the application for reopening.JonesCuyahoga 8/25/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3472
State ex rel. Keith v. Gaul 102875pending motion for leave to file delayed motion for new trial, vain act, law of the case. Relator's request for a writ of mandamus, in order to compel the trial court to render a ruling with regard to a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial, is denied. To require the trial court to render a ruling with regard to the motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial would constitute a vain act, because the basis for granting the motion has already been reviewed by the trial court and found not to establish valid grounds for a new trial. In addition, the doctrine of law of the case prevents this court from issuing a writ of mandamus. The issue of the denial of the relator's motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial has been reviewed numerous times by this court and found to be without merit.GallagherCuyahoga 8/25/2015 8/27/2015 2015-Ohio-3480