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 128 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Grevious CA2018-05-093The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to sever where the charges against appellant were all connected and the evidence supporting the various charges was simple and direct. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the underlying premeditated murder because the state was required to show that the murder actually occurred in order to charge appellant with complicity. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that a witness made an identification of appellant from a photographic lineup during the investigation into the victim's murder where the lineup was compliant with R.C. 2933.83. Appellant was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel where counsel's decision to withdraw a motion to suppress was not deficient conduct because appellant lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of evidence from a home in which appellant did not live. R.C. 2929.03 is constitutional, and appellant has not suffered a violation of his equal protection rights, because Ohio has a rational basis for treating the worst felony offenders from other felony offenders when sentencing. PiperButler 5/20/2019 5/20/2019 2019-Ohio-1932
State v. Saunders CA2019-01-001Anders no error.Per CuriamClermont 5/20/2019 5/20/2019 2019-Ohio-1933
State v. Carney CA2018-08-102Trial court reasonably determined that appellant had sufficient understanding of the case and the consequences of self-representation to make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of counsel. RinglandWarren 5/20/2019 5/20/2019 2019-Ohio-1934
Hodge v. Callinan CA2018-07-073Probate court did not inappropriately apply the law-of-the-case doctrine where several relevant issues were affirmed in a prior appeal and the trial court appropriately considered all relevant evidence in granting summary judgment. RinglandWarren 5/13/2019 5/13/2019 2019-Ohio-1836
State v. Williams CA2018-09-069; CA2018-09-070Defendant's postconviction relief petitions were properly denied on the basis of res judicata where defendant did not file a direct appeal.M. PowellClermont 5/13/2019 5/13/2019 2019-Ohio-1835
State v. Trammell CA2018-02-028; CA2018-02-029Anders no error.Per CuriamButler 5/13/2019 5/13/2019 2019-Ohio-1830
State v. Villani CA2018-04-080Criminal law—ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacks merit. Appellant could not demonstrate his trial counsel's actions were deficient or prejudicial when counsel: did not object to statements by the judge, hearsay testimony, or the prosecutor's leading question; did not request jury instructions for lesser included offenses; did not request the court poll the jury; or conceded guilt during opening statement and closing argumentHendricksonButler 5/13/2019 5/13/2019 2019-Ohio-1831
Stewart v. Bear's Tire CA2018-08-162Bureau of Workers' Compensation appeals trial court's decision finding injured worker entitled to participate in compensation fund. Worker was company president. Company provided mobile commercial tire changing services. President injured while traveling to breakfast meeting with company employee, commercial tire changer. At meeting, president intended to direct the employee to work at apartments owned by president's separate company. Trial court affirmed where president's injury was received in the course of and arose out of employment. Evidence indicated tire changing business was slow and president was travelling to meet with the employee for morale-boosting breakfast with hope that tire service call would occur. If no call occurred, president intended to direct the employee to work at the apartments. Retaining highly-skilled employees by ensuring full-time wages was a benefit to the tire changing business when business increased in the spring and summer.M. PowellButler 5/13/2019 5/13/2019 2019-Ohio-1832
In re K.M. CA2019-01-015The juvenile court did not err by granting legal custody of appellant's daughter to a children services agency rather than appellant or the child's paternal aunt and uncle where granting permanent custody was in the child's best interest when considering that removing the child from her foster home would possibly, if not probably, cause the child to suffer additional trauma due to the uncertainty she had faced while in foster care for what was now one-third of her young life.S. PowellButler 5/13/2019 5/13/2019 2019-Ohio-1833
State v. Walston CA2018-04-068Subject-matter jurisdiction exists where the complaint complies with the requirements of Criminal Rule 3. Evidence of conviction was sufficient where the state presented testimony which established each element of R.C. 955.22(C)(1). PiperButler 5/6/2019 5/6/2019 2019-Ohio-1699