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 641 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Newton 107200Child pornography; pandering; illegal use of a minor; motion to suppress; manifest weight. Police officers had reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, that the individuals in the vehicle were engaged in criminal activity, and therefore, the stop was justified. Because the stop was justified, probable cause existed to search the phone found in the vehicle, regardless of ownership of the phones. Newton’s convictions for pandering, illegal use of a minor, and possession of criminal tools was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury could reasonably infer from all of the evidence that Newton was the person responsible for placing the child pornography on his computer and his cell phone.SheehanCuyahoga 9/12/2019 9/12/2019 2019-Ohio-3653
State v Mathis 107365Rape; gross sexual imposition; kidnapping; prosecutorial misconduct; DNA analysis; ineffective assistance of counsel; character witness; opinion testimony; victim impact evidence; harmless error; plain error; cumulative error. It is not misconduct for a prosecutor to refer to the defendant’s specific acts during cross-examination of a character witness after the defendant put his character at issue. Such cross-examination may also include reference to defendant’s prior arrest regardless of whether it lead to a conviction. Where the defendant was previously charged with domestic violence and convicted of disorderly conduct, it is a harmless error for the prosecutor to refer to an associated assault conviction that does not exist where such reference does not cause prejudice. There is no plain error where a court admits evidence of an inconclusive DNA analysis where evidence otherwise establishes defendant’s guilt. The failure to make an objection, alone, is not enough to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Moreover, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel as part of a direct appeal cannot be predicated on evidence that is outside of the record. Lay witness opinion testimony about child-victims of sexual abuse is not improper where the testimony is rationally based on the witness’ experience and is helpful to a determination of a fact in issue. There is no prejudicial error where a court admits evidence that the victim sought counseling after rape where the evidence was brief and not overly emotional or inflammatory. Where the conviction stands absent the testimony regarding counseling, its admission was harmless error. Where multiple harmless errors occurred at trial, but where defendant otherwise received a fair trial and defendant’s guilt was established by overwhelming evidence there is no cumulative error.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 9/12/2019 9/12/2019 2019-Ohio-3654
Johnson-Newberry v. Cuyahoga Cty. Child & Family Servs. 107424Motion for judgment on the pleadings; Civ.R. 12(C); discrimination; R.C. 4112.02(A); R.C. 4112.01(A)(2); R.C. 4112.02(J); individual liability; aid and abet; R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c); motion to amend complaint; change name; final appealable order. The trial court’s order granting plaintiff-appellee’s motion to amend her complaint where the plaintiff-appellee moved to change the name of the party defendant where plaintiff-appellee demonstrated she mistakenly omitted a portion of the party’s name on the complaint is not a final appealable order. We therefore have no jurisdiction to review the second assignment of error. The trial court properly denied the supervisor’s Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings. R.C. 4112.02(J) expressly imposes liability on a political subdivision employee so as to trigger the immunity exception outlined in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c).SheehanCuyahoga 9/12/2019 9/12/2019 2019-Ohio-3655
Yousef v. Yousef 107453Dismissal of counterclaims; harmless error; setoff; unjust enrichment; motion for leave to file answer; enforceable agreement; consideration; App.R. 16(A)(7). Although the trial court erred in dismissing a counterclaim filed on behalf of a corporate entity because of the fact that the principal filed a similar claim in another action, any error was rendered harmless by the trial court’s factual findings that resolved the claims filed on behalf of the principal. The trial court did not err by considering the equity of permitting the defendant to retain a portion of the benefit conferred by plaintiff’s conduct in rendering a verdict in favor of plaintiff for a reduced amount of damages. The trier of fact’s conclusion that the contract failed for want of consideration was not against the weight of the evidence based on the plaintiff’s evidence demonstrating a promise was made.S. GallagherCuyahoga 9/12/2019 9/12/2019 2019-Ohio-3656
State v. Moore 107702, 108596, 108597, 108598, 108599Conceded error; guilty plea; Crim.R. 11(C)(2). The trial court failed to advise appellant of any of the Crim.R. 11(C)(2) constitutional rights. Appellant’s convictions are vacated.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 9/12/2019 9/12/2019 2019-Ohio-3657
Harris v. Certificate of Qualification of Emp. Petition 107828Petition for certificate of qualification for employment; R.C. 2953.25; abuse of discretion. The trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant’s petition for a certificate of qualification for employment without setting forth its findings. BoyleCuyahoga 9/12/2019 9/12/2019 2019-Ohio-3658
Cobbin v. Cleveland Clinic Found. 107852Motion for a new trial; error of law; vicarious liability; standard of care. The trial court’s judgment denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial was affirmed. The trial court’s response to the jury’s question during deliberations that they could not find the hospital negligent if they did not find the doctor negligent was not error. While it is true that hospitals can be vicariously liable for the negligence of its nurses even if the plaintiff did not name the nurses in the complaint, the plaintiff here failed to present evidence at trial establishing that the nurses breached their duty or violated their standard of care when caring for the plaintiff. BoyleCuyahoga 9/12/2019 9/12/2019 2019-Ohio-3659
State v. Lewis 107875Having weapons while under disability; R.C. 2923.13; sufficiency; Crim.R. 29; gunshot residue; manifest weight; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Appellant’s conviction for having weapons while under disability was not based on insufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not make the requisite findings in imposing consecutive sentences.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 9/12/2019 9/12/2019 2019-Ohio-3660
UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Assurance Invest. Mgt., L.L.C. 107954Charging order; creditor’s lien; appointment of receiver; R.C. 2735.01(A)(7); due process; nonparties; record on appeal. Trial court properly appointed receiver over limited liability company to satisfy prior charging order where creditor previously obtained a charging order against debtors’ interests in limited liability company, prior judgments demonstrated that the company was the judgment debtors’ fraudulent transferee of assets, and the limited liability company was a party. BlackmonCuyahoga 9/12/2019 9/12/2019 2019-Ohio-3661
Morgan v Cohen 107955Summary judgment; “as is” sale of condominium unit; fraudulent inducement; fraudulent misrepresentation; disclosures; residential property disclosure form; R.C. 5302.30; justifiable reliance. Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of sellers on buyers’ claims of fraudulent inducement and fraudulent misrepresentation based on sellers’ alleged failure to disclose structural defects affecting multiple units and the potential for future litigation and assessments when selling condominium unit. Buyers presented no evidence that sellers’ statements in their disclosures were false when made or that sellers actively concealed any material information from buyers. There was no genuine issue of material fact that buyers did not justifiably rely on any alleged misrepresentations, nondisclosure or concealment by sellers because the information buyers claimed sellers failed to disclose was equally available to buyers in condominium association meeting minutes buyers had agreed to review.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 9/12/2019 9/12/2019 2019-Ohio-3662