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 214 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Mongo 100926Hybrid Representation: It is well established that although a defendant has the right to counsel or the right to act pro se, a defendant does not have any right to "hybrid representation." The right to counsel and the right to act pro se "are independent of each other and may not be asserted simultaneously." BlackmonCuyahoga 3/26/2015 3/26/2015 2015-Ohio-1139
Internatl. Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 v. Norris Bros. Co., Inc. 101353Arbitration; collective bargaining agreement; Civ.R. 12(B)(1); subject matter jurisdiction; federal preemption. Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly granted plaintiff's petition to enforce arbitration. The matter was not preempted by federal law as the dispute was not within the purview of Section 8 of the Taft Hartley Act and the labor dispute was covered in the collective bargaining agreement.KilbaneCuyahoga 3/26/2015 3/26/2015 2015-Ohio-1140
Stamatopoulos v. All Seasons Contracting, Inc. 101439Final appealable order; R.C. 2505.02, Civ.R. 54(B). The trial court's orders were inadequate to dispose of all of the claims among all of the parties to the action; therefore, the appeal is dismissed.MaysCuyahoga 3/26/2015 3/26/2015 2015-Ohio-1141
Dorsey v. Cleveland 101467Summary judgment; political subdivision immunity; emergency vehicles; R.C. 4511.03. The trial court properly denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the city of Cleveland claiming immunity in an action filed by a motorist who was injured by the City's ambulance. The evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the ambulance driver complied with R.C. 4511.03 and proceeded cautiously past a stop sign with due regard for the safety of others using the street.McCormackCuyahoga 3/26/2015 3/26/2015 2015-Ohio-1142
State v. Sheppard 101497Attempted robbery; third degree felony; offense of violence; mandatory postrelease control. Trial court properly imposed mandatory postrelease control for a third degree felony offense of violence; there is no requirement that the trial court make a finding and advise the defendant at sentencing that he caused or threatened to cause physical harm during the offense and make such a finding in the journal entry of conviction.KeoughCuyahoga 3/26/2015 3/26/2015 2015-Ohio-1143
State v. Davis 101502Motion to suppress; waive; guilty plea; identification; R.C. 2933.83; live lineup; show up; suggestive procedures; reliability; totality of the circumstances. Defendant has waived his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress by entering a guilty plea. In any event, R.C. 2933.83 did not apply where the identification was not made through a live lineup. Appellant's motion to suppress the victim's show up identification was properly denied where there was nothing in the record indicating the identification procedure was unduly suggestive, and in the totality of the circumstances, the victim's identification was reliable.McCormackCuyahoga 3/26/2015 3/26/2015 2015-Ohio-1144
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Wiggins 101510Party to an Action: It is a generally accepted principle that a decedent may not be a party to an action. A deceased's estate is not required to be named as a party when the estate had no interest in the foreclosure action.BlackmonCuyahoga 3/26/2015 3/26/2015 2015-Ohio-1145
State v. Mitchell 101542Clerical error; nunc pro tunc; consecutive sentence; misdemeanor; felony; R.C. 2929.41; allied offenses; theft; receiving stolen property. Where the record clearly reflected the correct charge, the case is remanded for the trial court to correct the clerical errors contained in its journal entries nunc pro tunc. The trial court did not err when it ordered defendant's misdemeanor sentence to be served consecutive to his felony sentence. Where the allied offense issue was not addressed at sentencing, and the record contained sufficient facts from which this court could determine defendant's convictions for theft and receiving stolen property were not allied offenses, a remand is not warranted.McCormackCuyahoga 3/26/2015 3/26/2015 2015-Ohio-1146
State v. Skipworth 101564Postrelease control notification; Sentencing entry. The trial court's failure in the original journal entry of sentence to comply with postrelease control notification requirements requires that the case be remanded to correct the journal entry nunc pro tunc.MaysCuyahoga 3/26/2015 3/26/2015 2015-Ohio-1147
State v. Turner 101578Child endangering; plea; knowing and intelligent; R.C. 2929.141; R.C. 2929.14(C)(3); consecutive sentences; advisement. A court does not need to advise a defendant at his or her plea hearing of the possibility of consecutive sentences, nor must the court advise of its ability to impose a prison term under R.C. 2929.141 if the defendant commits a new felony conviction while on postrelease control. A resentencing hearing is not necessary in the event that a court properly imposes consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing but fails to incorporate the statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in the sentencing entry. Rather, the proper remedy is to remand to the trial court to correct the mistake through a nunc pro tunc entry.StewartCuyahoga 3/26/2015 3/26/2015 2015-Ohio-1148
12345678910...>>