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 316 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Baskin v. Baskin 27373The trial court did not err in awarding spousal support following a 25-year marriage, or in the amount of the award, where there was a significant difference in the parties' incomes. Judgment affirmed. FroelichMontgomery 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7632
State v. Clark 27365Appellant's convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance. The trial court did not err by not merging the offenses of having weapons under disability and felonious assault under R.C. 2941.25. Nor did the trial court fail to consider the consecutive-sentence factors in R.C. 2929.14. The trial court did not err by preventing Appellant from impeaching the victim's testimony where a foundation for impeachment had not been laid. Finally, the trial court did not err by denying Appellant a continuance. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)HallMontgomery 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7633
Smith v. Gilbert 2016-CA-52Plaintiff-appellant received a notice informing him of the scheduled trial date. The notice informed Plaintiff-appellant that his failure to appear at the scheduled trial would result in dismissal of his complaint. Plaintiff-appellant, albeit incarcerated, did not appear on the scheduled trial date nor did he request a continuance. The trial court, accordingly, did not err by granting Defendant-appellee judgment on her counterclaim and by dismissing Plaintiff-appellant's complaint based upon a failure to prosecute. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7634
State v. Hardy 27158The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant's motion to suppress. Appellant's waiver of her Miranda rights was made in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner. The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant's motion to dismiss pursuant to R.C. 1.51 because none of the charged offenses are irreconcilable to one another. The trial court did not err when, pursuant to Evid.R 404(B), it permitted the State to introduce evidence of two prior attacks by appellant's dog in order to establish that appellant had knowledge of her dog's aggressive nature. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the prior acts evidence adduced by the State, as well as statements made by appellant that dog was "vicious." The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support appellant's convictions for the charged offenses, and her convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. DonovanMontgomery 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7635
State v. Hiler 27364The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's combined motion for leave to seek a new trial and motion for a new trial under Crim.R. 33. The trial court acted within its discretion in concluding that the appellant was not unavoidably prevented from timely filing a new-trial motion. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring).HallMontgomery 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7636
State v. Isaacs 27414The trial court ordered Defendant-appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $2,210.00 with $1,000.00 allocated for damage to the victim's household goods and fixtures, $1,000.00 allocated for damage to the victim's automobile, and $210.00 allocated for lodging costs the victim incurred. We cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that the restitution order regarding the household items and fixtures or the lodging costs is contrary to law. However, given the absence of testimony regarding the cost to repair the automobile damage, we find by clear and convincing evidence that this portion of the restitution order is contrary to law. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the restitution order is modified to $1,210.00.TuckerMontgomery 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7637
State v. MacConnell 27292; 27293The record does not support MacConnell's argument that the trial court "in principle, denied his right to retain alternate counsel" before trial, and the argument is further waived by his guilty pleas. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying MacConnell's pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas; the record does not support his assertion that he was not present for voir dire and that he did not learn that he pled guilty to one count of communications fraud until he met with the PSI investigator. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring).DonovanMontgomery 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7638
State v. Miles 2016-CA-38The trial court overruled Defendant-appellant's motion, filed under R.C. 2951.041, for intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC) without considering the ILC eligibility requirements set forth by R.C. 2951.041(B) and without conducting a hearing. The trial court, since it did not consider the ILC eligibility requirements, was not required to conduct a hearing before overruling the ILC motion. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., dissenting).TuckerGreene 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7639
State v. Rigel 2016-CA-90The trial court did not err by overruling Appellant's motions to suppress. The warrantless use of a pole camera did not violate the Fourth Amendment, because the camera did not impinge on any reasonable expectations of privacy. The camera had the same view of the property as a passerby. The GPS tracking device warrant did not preclude extensions of time to use the device. Each of the other challenged warrants is supported by an affidavit that provides a substantial basis for finding probable cause. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7640
State v. Tscheiner 2016-CA-36Appellant's assignment of error relating to denial of a motion to suppress evidence cannot be considered because Appellant failed to file a transcript of the suppression hearing. In addition, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the credibility of a police officer. The court provided general instructions on witness credibility, and courts may not single out particular witnesses or groups of witnesses when instructing on credibility. Finally, Appellant's convictions for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Affirmed.WelbaumGreene 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 2017-Ohio-7641
12345678910...>>