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 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:   What is Year Decided?
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 90 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Barton v. Barton 2016-CA-12The trial court had jurisdiction to consider a contempt hearing for failure to pay attorney fees, a motion for a withholding order for spousal support, and requests for attorney fees, even though Appellant's appeal from denial of his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment was currently on appeal. The order to pay attorney fees was a valid order while in effect, and Appellant was clearly in contempt for refusing to pay fees as ordered. Contempt is also a collateral measure that may be considered unless a stay is issued. However, no stay was issued. In addition, the trial court had jurisdiction over the motion for a withholding order because the divorce decree did not reserve jurisdiction over spousal support. Trial courts lack jurisdiction to vacate or modify spousal support awards where a decree of divorce or dissolution fails to contain a reservation of jurisdiction to modify the award pursuant to R.C. 3105.18(E). Thus, while Civ.R. 60(B) allows motions for relief from judgment, Civ.R. 60(B) is a procedural rule and cannot supersede substantive law that controls whether trial courts have the ability to modify a periodic payment of spousal support. The trial court's decision on the motion for a withholding order, therefore, could not have possibly interfered with appellate consideration of Appellant's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the divorce judgment. Finally, requests for attorney fees were intertwined with these matters and the trial court did not lack jurisdiction to award attorney fees for bringing the motions. Regarding the remaining issues, res judicata bars most of Appellant's claims, and those that are not barred are without merit. The contempt order was well supported by the evidence. Appellant also was not entitled to have counsel appointed for the contempt hearing and was not deprived of due process. Appellant was advised of his rights, never contended in the trial court that he was indigent, and never asked to have counsel appointed. Appellant was given all process to which he was due. Affirmed.WelbaumGreene 3/17/2017 3/17/2017 2017-Ohio-980
State v. Baum 27190Anders appeal. Potential assignments of error are wholly frivolous, and there are no non-frivolous issues for review. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/17/2017 3/17/2017 2017-Ohio-981
State v. Clark 27055Pursuant to Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iv), Appellant waived his ability to assign error on appeal, other than plain error, from the trial court's decision adopting the magistrate's decision finding him guilty of failing to yield at a stop sign and causing an accident. As Appellant did not file any objections to the magistrate's decision and his appellate brief raises no claims, let alone a claim of plain error, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/17/2017 3/17/2017 2017-Ohio-982
State v. Cochran 2016-CA-11Appellant's 60-month sentence for gross sexual imposition is affirmed; there is no basis to conclude that the record does not support the court's findings, or that the sentence imposed is contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. (Hall, P.J., concurring).DonovanChampaign 3/17/2017 3/17/2017 2017-Ohio-983
State v. Moore 2016-CA-35The trial court erred on remand in purporting to overrule a new-trial motion without making the motion part of the record in compliance with this court's prior order. Judgment vacated insofar as the trial court ruled on a non-existent motion and cause remanded with instructions to add the motion to the record and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.HallClark 3/17/2017 3/17/2017 2017-Ohio-984
Mosley v. Dayton Power & Light Co. 27301The common pleas court is without subject matter jurisdiction to decide plaintiff's service complaint that the Dayton Power & Light Company overcharged him for electric service. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 3/17/2017 3/17/2017 2017-Ohio-985
State v. Purk 27227; 27228The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences after Appellant violated community control sanctions. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 3/17/2017 3/17/2017 2017-Ohio-986
State v. Sells 2016-CA-15The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's post-conviction application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71, et seq. where he failed to establish that an "exclusion result" would be "outcome determinative." Judgment affirmed.HallMiami 3/17/2017 3/17/2017 2017-Ohio-987
In re A.K.C 2016-CA-16The trial court erred in denying the appellant parenting time with his minor child based on a blanket policy of not ordering parenting time when a parent is incarcerated. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.HallChampaign 3/10/2017 3/10/2017 2017-Ohio-847
State v. Casey 27210Appellant's conviction for obstructing official business and resisting arrest are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 3/10/2017 3/10/2017 2017-Ohio-848