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 467 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Tiedjen 106794Motion for leave; motion for new trial; newly discovered evidence; missing evidence; App.R. 9; sua sponte; Brady violation; expert witness testimony; res judicata. Denial of defendant’s motion for leave to file motion for new trial reversed. Defendant filed a motion based on newly discovered photographs that allegedly show that the police manipulated crime-scene photographs from the 1989 murder and that the police, the prosecutor, or both withheld it from discovery. Court properly found that the evidence was newly discovered, but erred by failing to find that defendant was unavoidably prevented from discovering the photographs. Court also abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony regarding whether the photographs were exculpatory and material. However, the parties concede that the newly discovered photographs are missing from the appellate record. Compliance with App.R. 9 is impossible without the missing photographs or copies of the photographs. Without the missing evidence, this court cannot conduct a meaningful appellate review of whether defendant should receive a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Case remanded under State v. Jones, 71 Ohio St.3d 293, 643 N.E.2d 547 (1994), to determine whether defendant is substantially responsible for the missing evidence.BlackmonCuyahoga 6/20/2019 6/20/2019 2019-Ohio-2430
State v. Burton 107054Drug trafficking, sufficiency of evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; motion to suppress. The state’s evidence showing appellant constructively possessed the drugs found by the police in an attic appellant had keys to was sufficient for his convictions of the drug offenses and his convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance in not filing a motion to suppress the evidence because a motion to suppress would be premised on a legitimate expectation of privacy regarding the premises where the drugs were found and it would be incompatible with appellant’s defense at trial — that he did not live or stay in the attic — should the trial court deny his motion to suppress and the case went to trial.SheehanCuyahoga 6/20/2019 6/20/2019 2019-Ohio-2431
Westlake v. Y.O. 107226Sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; domestic violence; parental discipline; corporal punishment; reasonable and proper; totality of the circumstances; jury instruction; jury interrogatory; hearsay. Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence upheld where the evidence demonstrated that the defendant slapped his ten-year-old son in the face five times, causing injury to the child’s eye. The use of parental discipline was neither reasonable nor proper under the totality of the circumstances. The trial court’s use of a jury interrogatory was not plain error because it ensured the jury was not criminalizing defendant’s conduct that would be reasonable and proper. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the officer to read the defendant’s statement at trial and subsequently admitting the statement into evidence.KeoughCuyahoga 6/20/2019 6/20/2019 2019-Ohio-2432
Cleveland v. Dancy 107241Speedy trial rights; R.C. 2945.71; R.C. 2945.72; hearsay; Evid.R. 803(6); Crim.R. 52(B); plain error; Evid.R. 403(A); ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellant’s speedy trial rights were not violated under R.C. 2945.72 because the number of days between appellant’s arrest and trial were tolled under R.C. 2945.71. The appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial counsel’s lack of filing a motion to dismiss as a result of the appellant’s speedy trial rights being violated was unnecessary. The trial court did not consider inadmissible, hearsay evidence. The evidence and testimony were admissible under Evid.R. 803(6). Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by not objecting to evidence of Dancy’s current driving suspensions because the suspensions were evidence of an element of the crime for which Dancy was charged.Laster MaysCuyahoga 6/20/2019 6/20/2019 2019-Ohio-2433
Howell v. Consol. Rail Corp. 107245FELA; asbestos; negligence; causation; occupational exposure; motion for a directed verdict; Prof.Cond.R. 4.2; witness testimony; conflict; Evid.R. 404(B); OSHA violations; foreseeability; treating physician; expert testimony; Evid.R. 702; closing argument; cumulative error. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict where plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to whether defendant’s negligence played any part in plaintiff’s development of lung cancer. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding a defense witness from testifying where the witness was represented by plaintiff’s counsel in an unrelated action against parties represented by defense counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s OSHA violations in another state because they were relevant, established that defendant had knowledge that it was exposing its employees to asbestos, and the evidence was not substantially more prejudicial than probative. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiff’s treating physician to testify as to the cause of his lung cancer. Counsel’s remarks during closing argument were not improper. Defendant is not entitled to a new trial.HeadenCuyahoga 6/20/2019 6/20/2019 2019-Ohio-2434
Barker Invests., L.L.C. v. Cleveland Plating, L.L.C. 107367Forcible entry and detainer; magistrate’s decision; object; Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b); waive; plain error; App.R. 9(C) statement; Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c). Trial court’s judgment in favor of the defendant on complaint for forcible entry and detainer was affirmed. Because the plaintiff did not timely and specifically object to the magistrate’s decision as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b), it waived the right to appellate review of all but plain error, which was not demonstrated in the matter. The fact that an App.R. 9(C) statement was filed was of no consequence since appellate review of the factual findings to which no objections were filed was precluded.S. GallagherCuyahoga 6/20/2019 6/20/2019 2019-Ohio-2435
State v. Duncan 107397Felonious assault; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The defendant’s sentence was valid where it was within the statutory range and the trial court’s sentencing findings were supported by the record.HeadenCuyahoga 6/20/2019 6/20/2019 2019-Ohio-2436
Gordon v. Geico Ins. Co. 107440Final appealable order, motion to stay discovery, R.C. 2505.02(B)(4).Laster MaysCuyahoga 6/20/2019 6/20/2019 2019-Ohio-2437
State v. Ingram 107587 & 107588Plea; competency evaluation; consecutive sentences; effective assistance of counsel. Sufficient indicia of incompetence did not exist to warrant the trial court to sua sponte order a competency evaluation. The consecutive sentence findings were supported by the record. Counsel cannot be declared ineffective when no error occurred at the plea hearing or during sentencing.KeoughCuyahoga 6/20/2019 6/20/2019 2019-Ohio-2438
In re M.H. 107612 & 107613Guardian ad litem; abuse of discretion; in camera interview; change in circumstances; custody; manifest weight; R.C. 3109.04(E)(1)(a)/modification of parental rights. The guardian ad litem conducted a thorough investigation and Mother had the opportunity to cross-examine the GAL regarding the contents of the GAL’s report and the basis of the GAL’s custody recommendation; the report was filed prior to trial and available to Mother for review. The trial court did not abuse its discretion where it relied on the report. Although Mother made a request for an in camera interview prior to trial, Mother did not renew her request during relevant proceedings or during trial. Mother waived this issue for appeal purposes. A change in circumstances in the time since the issuance of the original order existed. Mother had not lived with the children in the two years prior to trial; she had engaged in drug use; she did not have proper housing and was living in the streets and in and out of institutions and jail. There was sufficient competent, credible evidence to support the trial court’s decision to modify custody.JonesCuyahoga 6/20/2019 6/20/2019 2019-Ohio-2439
12345678910...>>