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 539 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Doumbas 100777Bribery convictions based on complicity were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where, on each count, the state presented evidence that would allow the jury to reasonably infer that appellant shared the criminal intent of the principals, who offered money with the purpose to corrupt rape victims by asking them to say something nice about offender at sentencing or indicate that offender should not be sentenced to a jail term.DorrianCuyahoga 7/30/2015 7/30/2015 2015-Ohio-3026
State v. Clark 101863R.C. 2907.02(A)(2); R.C. 2907.05(A)(1); R.C. 2905.01(A); R.C. 2941.25; force; sufficiency; manifest weight; counselor testimony; social worker testimony; allied offenses. Convictions for rape, gross sexual imposition and kidnapping were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Force instruction was proper, and the testimony from counselor and social worker was not improper opinion as to the child victim's veracity. Offenses from same date were not allied offenses as one transaction but were supported by separate conduct.KilbaneCuyahoga 7/30/2015 7/30/2015 2015-Ohio-3027
Sonis v. Rasner 101929Immigration bond; obligor; standing; injury; ownership interest; civil theft; fraud; conversion; unjust enrichment; manifest weight of the evidence; statute of limitations; waiver. Plaintiff, as attorney-in-fact for immigrant, had standing to assert claims arising out of defendant's wrongful receipt and retention of proceeds from a $5,000 immigration bond immigrant had posted through defendant, where plaintiff presented evidence that immigrant caused his friends and family to deliver $5,000 to defendant for defendant to use to post the bond. Trial court's finding that the entire $5,000 posted as security for the immigration bond was provided by immigrant's friends and family on his behalf and not by defendant personally and decision in favor of plaintiff were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant waived defense that civil theft claim was barred by the statute of limitations.GallagherCuyahoga 7/30/2015 7/30/2015 2015-Ohio-3028
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Kassouf Co. 101970R.C. 153.64; actual notice; contractor's liability; public utility: Civ.R. 50(B); jury instructions; negligence; comparative negligence; mootness. Because R.C. 153.64 does not define the phrase "actual notice," this court construes the phrase in favor of the contractor as the non-moving party in the context of ruling upon a Civ.R. 50(B) motion. The evidence presented in this case demonstrated that the contractor at a public improvement project relied upon the sewer district's plans, which inaccurately showed the telephone lines far above the location of the excavation. On these facts, the contractor that struck the lines was not negligent as a matter of law. Therefore, the trial court properly denied the public utility's motion for JNOV on that issue. The jury found that the contractor was "not negligent"; consequently, the utility's argument that the trial court improperly provided a jury instruction on comparative negligence was moot.Laster MaysCuyahoga 7/30/2015 7/30/2015 2015-Ohio-3030
State v. Stanton 102021Sufficient evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; robbery; R.C. 2911.02(A)(2); assault; R.C. 2903.13(A). Defendant's robbery and assault convictions were affirmed on appeal as they were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.BoyleCuyahoga 7/30/2015 7/30/2015 2015-Ohio-3031
State v. Evans 102069Robbery, Sufficient evidence, Theft Because the state did not present sufficient evidence to support appellants conviction for robbery, this court reverses the conviction and remands to the trial court to enter a conviction for theft, the lesser included offense that is supported by sufficient evidence.Laster MaysCuyahoga 7/30/2015 7/30/2015 2015-Ohio-3032
Drew-Mansfield v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr. 102254Medical malpractice; Proximate cause; Res Ipsa Loquitur; Summary judgment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment to appellees on appellants' claims for medical malpractice when appellants failed to produce evidence to demonstrate proximate cause. In the face of defendant's expert evidence to the contrary, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not relieve a plaintiff from producing expert evidence that defendant's acts or omissions proximately caused plaintiff's injuries.Laster MaysCuyahoga 7/30/2015 7/30/2015 2015-Ohio-3033
State v. Mason 102343R.C. 2901.13(A)(3)(a); R.C. 2901.13(G); statute of limitations; rape; toll; purposely avoids; burden; dismiss. Trial court properly dismissed an indictment for rape and related charges where the 20-year statute of limitations had expired and the state failed to sustain its burden of showing the defendant had "purposely avoided" prosecution so as to toll the statute of limitations in the action.GallagherCuyahoga 7/30/2015 7/30/2015 2015-Ohio-3034
State v. Hendricks 102365Sexual predator hearing; sexual predator; R.C. 2950.09(B)(3); likely to offend; clear and convincing evidence. Trial court's classification of defendant as a sexual predator is affirmed. Multiple factors support the trial court's classification, including the information contained in the presentence investigation report and the court psychiatric clinic report, defendant's Static-99 score, defendant's prior convictions, and defendant's manipulation of test scores.KilbaneCuyahoga 7/30/2015 7/30/2015 2015-Ohio-3035
Arch Bay Holdings, L.L.C-Series 2008B v. Goler 102455Magistrate's decision; objections; timely; final, appealable order; dismissed. Case dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order where the trial court did not rule on timely filed objections to the magistrate's decision.KeoughCuyahoga 7/30/2015 7/30/2015 2015-Ohio-3036
12345678910...>>