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 110 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Fries v. Greg G. Wright & Sons, L.L.C. C-160818APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL – ARBITRATION – CONTRACTS – JURISDICTION – PROCEDURE/RULES: The denial of a motion for a more definite statement is not a final, appealable order. The appellate court’s standard for reviewing the trial court’s determination of whether a party has waived a contractual right to arbitrate a dispute is an abuse of discretion. Defendants-appellants did not waive their right to arbitrate when they filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration within 93 days of the commencement of the litigation and, in the time prior to filing the motion, had filed only a few pleadings and conducted only one deposition. The appellate court’s standard of review for determining whether a claim falls within the subject matter of a contractual arbitration provision is de novo. When determining whether a claim falls within the subject matter of a contractual arbitration provision, the trial court must consider the allegations made within each cause of action and determine whether the claim could be maintained without reference to the contract or relationship at issue. Plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and conversion arose from his status as a member of defendant company, his claimed ownership interest in the company and the rights resulting from his membership; therefore, those claims were subject to the arbitration clause in the company’s operating agreement. Plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy did not arise from defendant company’s operating agreement or from plaintiff’s status as a member of the company, and could be maintained without reference to the operating agreement or plaintiff’s status as a member of the company; therefore, those claims were not subject to arbitration. An entry by the trial court compelling a party to produce discovery is not a final, appealable order.MockHamilton 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3785
State v. Gordon C-170660CRIMINAL DAMAGING – RESTITUTION – R.C. 2929.28(A)(1): In ordering restitution under R.C. 2929.28(A)(1) for criminal damaging, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the economic loss to the victim was the cost of repairing her vehicle where the victim produced repair estimates from three qualified collision repair companies and defendant produced evidence only of the car model’s trade-in value, but not its retail value.MyersHamilton 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3786
Mezher v. Schrand C-180071CONTRACTS – REAL PROPERTY: In an action for specific performance of a real-estate agreement allegedly formed by the parties through an email exchange, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants-sellers on statute-of-frauds grounds, because the email exchange contained the essential terms of the sale, and because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the parties had a present intention to be bound at the time they exchanged emails, or whether the parties did not intend to be bound until the anticipated execution of a formal document.DetersHamilton 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3787
State v. Hendrix C-160887POSTCONVICTION—APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL: Petitioner’s postconviction ineffective-counsel claim was not barred under the doctrine of res judicata, because it depended for its resolution upon evidence outside the trial record. The court of appeals must presume the regularity of, and thus affirm, the common pleas court’s judgment dismissing petitioner’s postconviction petition without a hearing, when in the absence of the defense exhibits, the record on appeal did not include a complete transcript of the proceedings necessary to the resolution of the challenge advanced on appeal.DetersHamilton 9/19/2018 9/19/2018 2018-Ohio-3754
Barger v. Elite Mgt. Servs., Inc. C-70322CIV.R. 12(B)(6) – CONTRACTS – OHIO PLANNED COMMUNITY LAW – OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT – UNJUST ENRICHMENT: The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff homeowner’s breach-of-contract claim under Civ.R. 12(B)6) where plaintiff’s complaint did not set forth facts demonstrating that she was a party to the contract between the homeowners’ association and defendant management company, or an intended beneficiary of it; and even if plaintiff was an intended beneficiary, the contract did not require that a certification letter be provided to plaintiff at a reasonable cost. The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim under the Ohio Planned Community Law, because that law applies only to homeowner associations and those with an ownership or possessory interest in a planned community, and defendant management company was neither. The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, because that act does not apply to collateral services that are solely associated with the sale of real estate. The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment where plaintiff pled sufficient facts to support it. [But see DISSENT: Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege facts sufficient to support a claim for unjust enrichment.]MillerHamilton 9/19/2018 9/19/2018 2018-Ohio-3755
State v. Bryant C-170569, C170570AUTOS/CRIMINAL – R.C. 4549.02: Defendant’s conviction under R.C. 4549.02 for failure to stop after an accident was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant left the scene of a motor vehicle accident before giving his name and address to the police officer who responded to the scene of the accident. [But see DISSENT: Where defendant gave his name and address to the operator of the other vehicle, and that operator did not call the police until after defendant had left the scene of the collision an hour later, there was no officer at the scene and defendant did not violate R.C. 4549.02 by not providing him with the information.]MyersHamilton 9/19/2018 9/19/2018 2018-Ohio-3756
State v. Schwegmann C-180053DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – EVIDENCE/WITNESS/TRIAL – EVID.R. 608(B) – COHABITATION : An alleged prior threat by the victim to make a false accusation of domestic violence was not clearly probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness where the alleged threat was not made to defendant, and the victim testified that she had never made a false accusation of domestic violence against anyone; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in preventing defense counsel from cross-examining the victim about the alleged threat. [But see CONCURRENCE: The trial court erred in not allowing defense counsel to cross-examine the victim as to whether she had threatened to falsely accuse anyone of domestic violence, because a threat to make a false accusation of domestic violence is probative to truthfulness or untruthfulness in a domestic-violence case; but the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against defendant.] Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state established cohabitation through the victim’s testimony that she had been dating the defendant for six months and had been living with him for a month when the altercation occurred.ZayasHamilton 9/19/2018 9/19/2018 2018-Ohio-3757
State v. Howard C-170453VIOLATING A CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER – EVIDENCE – AUTHENTICATION – SUFFICIENCY: Testimony that a Facebook messenger screenshot fairly and accurately depicts the messages received is sufficient evidence to support the document’s authenticity, and the burden shifts to the opponent to present evidence to rebut the testimony. Defendant’s conviction for violating a civil protection order was supported by sufficient evidence where the state presented unrefuted evidence that defendant attempted to contact the victim through Facebook messenger.ZayasHamilton 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3692
Johnson v. Hisle C-170717CIV.R. 3(A) – PROCEDURE/RULES – JURISDICTION: The trial court erred in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over the case where plaintiff instructed the clerk of court to attempt service of the complaint outside the one-year period in Civ.R. 3(A), because the instruction for service functioned as a notice of dismissal of plaintiff’s claims.MillerHamilton 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3693
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Smith C-170654PROCEDURE/RULES — FORECLOSURE — DEFAULT JUDGMENT – CIV.R. 55: The trial court properly denied defendants-mortgagors’ motion to dismiss the complaint in an in rem foreclosure action where plaintiff mortgagee had attached to its complaint a valid copy of the assignment of the mortgage and a note that referenced the mortgage and had alleged that it was seeking only to enforce its security interest against the property; it was entitled to enforce the promissory note, which contained a blank indorsement in its name; and it was the assignee of the mortgage at the time of the foreclosure action. The trial court erred under Civ.R. 55 by adopting the magistrate’s decision and granting a default judgment in favor of plaintiff where defendants had appeared and “otherwise defended” against the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint by filing a timely motion and an amended motion to dismiss the complaint and by removing the case to federal court; the magistrate had failed to give defendants 14 days to file a responsive pleading after ruling on their motion to dismiss, in violation of Civ.R. 12(A)(2); and the magistrate had applied the Civ.R. 56 summary-judgment standard instead of the Civ.R. 55 default-judgment standard.DetersHamilton 9/12/2018 9/12/2018 2018-Ohio-3638
12345678910...>>