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 154 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Martin 100753Rape; statute of limitations; preindictment delay; prejudice; R.C. 2901.13(G); tolling; out-of-state. Rape conviction vacated. Indictment was filed after the 20-year statute of limitations had expired. The statute of limitations was not tolled because defendant rebutted presumption that he left the state to avoid prosecution. Defendant also demonstrated he was prejudiced by preindictment delay where there was proof that Job Corps, where defendant was living at time of rape, conducted an internal investigation of the rape, but did not discipline defendant for any offense. The investigative file was subsequently shredded when Cleveland police failed to follow-up on any investigation until BCI obtained a CODIS hit.GallagherCuyahoga 3/5/2015 3/5/2015 2015-Ohio-761
State v. Batie 101234Domestic violence; manifest weight; improper testimony; self-defense; initial aggressor. While police officer gave improper testimony at trial when he opined on the ultimate issue in a domestic violence case, the court's failure to omit the testimony was harmless error. The jury verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence as the testimony and evidence presented adequately supported the jury verdict.StewartCuyahoga 3/5/2015 3/5/2015 2015-Ohio-762
State v. Floyd 101301Consecutive sentences; contrary to law; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); psychiatric report; reversible error; R.C. 2947.06(B). The trial court made the requisite findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Further, the trial court did not commit reversible error when it failed to explicitly mention defendant-appellant's psychiatric report during sentencing.GallagherCuyahoga 3/5/2015 3/5/2015 2015-Ohio-763
State v. Carswell 101313; 101314R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)/sentencing/findings. Appellant was sentenced to community control sanctions in one case and prison in another case, not multiple or consecutive prison terms. The trial court, therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), was not required to make findings.CarswellCuyahoga 3/5/2015 3/5/2015 2015-Ohio-764
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Lavette 101348Affidavit; specific averments; foreclosure; summary judgment. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment based on the plaintiff's evidentiary submissions demonstrating it possessed the note and mortgage, the chain of assignments and transfers, the mortgagor defaulted, all conditions precedent were met, and the amount due.GallagherCuyahoga 3/5/2015 3/5/2015 2015-Ohio-765
State v. Youssef 101362Prosecutorial misconduct; closing argument plain error; unauthenticated medical records; interpreters; ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed. The prosecutors references to victim and defendant's Arabic culture did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct when some of the references defendant complains of were developed on the state's redirect of the victim in response to questions asked by defense counsel on cross-examination. Furthermore, defense counsel did not object to most of these references. Defendant cannot demonstrate plain error regarding the state's reference to victim's medical records during close when defendant did not object to the records and the trial court instructed the jury that closing argument does not constitute evidence. Defendant could not demonstrate plain error with respect to the court's use of interpreters as the court complied with Sup.R. 88(D). Defense counsel's trial strategy's did not result in ineffective assistance of counsel.KilbaneCuyahoga 3/5/2015 3/5/2015 2015-Ohio-766
State v. Williams 101385Motion for final, appealable order; R.C. 2505.02(B)(1); appellate jurisdiction. An order denying motion for a final, appealable order was not a final order under R.C. 205.02(B)(1) because it did not determine the action.StewartCuyahoga 3/5/2015 3/5/2015 2015-Ohio-767
Chinnock v. Renaissance Ctr. 101442Summary judgment; judgment on the pleadings; pretrial schedule; C.P.Sup.R. 6(A); timely prosecution; expert report; medical malpractice. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment where the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action failed to timely file an expert report. The inappropriate filing of an interlocutory appeal did not excuse the plaintiff from timely filing an expert report once the case was returned to the trial court docket.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/5/2015 3/5/2015 2015-Ohio-768
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Unger 101598Summary judgment; no genuine issue of material fact; foreclosure; standing; accelerated due date; statute of limitations; res judicata. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the bank upon its claim for foreclosure because the defendant homeowners did not demonstrate any genuine issues of material fact.GallagherCuyahoga 3/5/2015 3/5/2015 2015-Ohio-769
Sunpace Property, L.L.C. v. Cleveland 101821R.C. 2505.07/timely appeal. The controlling date for determining appellant's tolling time to appeal is the date the Building Standards and Building Appeals filed its adoption of the resolution in the city record.JonesCuyahoga 3/5/2015 3/5/2015 2015-Ohio-770