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 175 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Barger 27257The trial court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress. The arresting police officer had probable cause to arrest Defendant after a fatal accident with a motorcyclist. The Defendant's blood samples were drawn and stored in compliance with the Ohio Administrative Code. The drawing of Defendant's blood approximately three and one-half hours after the accident did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).WelbaumMontgomery 5/26/2017 5/26/2017 2017-Ohio-4008
Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd. v. Busch 2016-CA-32The trial court's judgment that a lender did not prove justifiable reliance to support a claim for fraudulent representation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court also did not apply an incorrect legal standard in assessing a claim brought against the borrower's attorney for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the judgment finding that the attorney was entitled to qualified immunity was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The judgment in the attorney's favor also relieved his law firm from liability on the basis of respondeat superior. Finally, because the judgment is being affirmed, all assignments of error asserted by Appellees/Cross-Appellants are moot. Affirmed.WelbaumGreene 5/26/2017 5/26/2017 2017-Ohio-4009
State v. McComb 26884The trial court erred in sentencing Appellant to mandatory prison terms for his aggravated robbery and felonious assault offenses because in doing so, the trial court treated Appellant's prior juvenile adjudication for aggravated robbery as an adult conviction, which has been deemed unconstitutional. State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94, applied. Appellant's convictions for having a weapon under disability on the basis of a prior juvenile adjudication are not, however, precluded by State v. Hand. The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to suppress the eyewitness pretrial photographic identification of him as the offender. In addition, the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion for separate trials on charges arising from events that occurred on different dates. Appellant's conviction for his various offenses is also not against the manifest weight of the evidence and is supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.WelbaumMontgomery 5/26/2017 5/26/2017 2017-Ohio-4010
PS Commercial Play, L.L.C. v. Harp Contrs., Inc. 27253The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion for stay pending arbitration, since Appellant was in default in proceeding with arbitration. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 5/26/2017 5/26/2017 2017-Ohio-4011
In re R.H. 2016-CA-68The record supports the trial court's determination that the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services made reasonable and diligent efforts to assist Appellant in meeting his case plan requirements, and that Appellant failed to comply with such requirements for a period of six or more months. Further, the trial court appropriately considered the best interests of the child using the factors set forth at R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)-(5). The trial court's judgment is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 5/26/2017 5/26/2017 2017-Ohio-4012
State v. Wheeler 27282Trial court's error in stating, in the judgment entry of conviction, that the appellant's conviction was the result of a guilty plea, rather than a no contest plea, may be corrected in a nunc pro tunc entry. Trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence. Officer had reasonable articulable suspicion that appellant may be armed and dangerous after hearing a gunshot in the appellant's immediate vicinity. Gel capsule felt in appellant's right pants pocket during pat down were recognized by the officer as probable contraband. Upon remand, the trial court may issue a nunc pro tunc order and entry with imposition of sentence that properly identifies the no contest plea. In all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. DonovanMontgomery 5/26/2017 5/26/2017 2017-Ohio-4013
Blessing v. Blessing 27353The trial court, in response to each party's motion to terminate the parties' shared parenting plan and request for sole custody, terminated the shared parenting plan and designated the Defendant-appellant as the sole residential and legal custodial parent. The trial court, however, maintained the week-to-week parenting time, with Defendant-appellant appealing the parenting time determination. The trial court, upon review of the facts of this case and the R.C. 3109.051(D) parenting time factors, did not abuse its discretion in maintaining the equal week-to-week parenting time. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 5/19/2017 5/19/2017 2017-Ohio-2878
State v. Bowen 2016-CA-4Trial court did not err in convicting defendant for felony murder when the predicate offense was felonious assault. State v. Mays, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24168, 2012-Ohio-838, and State v. Slaughter, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25215, 2014-Ohio-862, followed. Judgment affirmed. FroelichMiami 5/19/2017 5/19/2017 2017-Ohio-2879
State v. Brown 27377The trial court erred in suppressing drug evidence found following a sobriety-checkpoint stop of the appellee's car. During the stop, officers smelled burnt marijuana in the car, the appellee exited the car at an officer's direction, and the appellee then fled on foot before being caught, arrested, and found in possession of cocaine. The officers' detection of the odor of marijuana authorized them to order the appellee out of the car. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.HallMontgomery 5/19/2017 5/19/2017 2017-Ohio-2880
State v. Coppock 2016-CA-17Defendant-appellant asserts that because of mental and physical illnesses her guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, and, as such, the trial court erred in accepting her plea. The trial court, upon review of the plea colloquy, complied with Crim.R. 11, and further, Defendant-appellant understood the nature of the charge against her, the consequences of pleading guilty, and the constitutional rights she was waiving. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMiami 5/19/2017 5/19/2017 2017-Ohio-2881