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 310 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Braddy L-17-1302, L-17-1303Motion for new trial. Credibility. Strong probability does not exist that new evidence will change result if new trial is granted.SingerLucas 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4904
State v. Williamson OT-18-010Trial court does not abuse its discretion in imposing maximum six-month jail sentence on appellant for stealing a $6 sponge where appellant’s criminal history supports the conclusion that the longest jail term was necessary to deter her from committing future crimes.PietrykowskiOttawa 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4905
State v. George OT-18-004sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight; denial of motion for acquittal PietrykowskiOttawa 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4906
In re N.F. S-18-007Appellant’s arguments concerning the trial court’s journalization of certain case plan requirements in conjunction with its determination of dependency and award of temporary custody are not subject to appellate review prior to a final judgment, as the case plan may be modified at any time pursuant to R.C. 2151.412(F)(2)(a).JensenSandusky 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4907
State v. Nettles S-17-053In a drug-trafficking case, the judge who issued the interception warrant in the county where the cell phone was located had jurisdiction, the application for the interception warrant complied with R.C. 2933.53, and the warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause of criminal activity. Motion to suppress; evidentiary hearing; consecutive sentences; maximum sentence; judicial fact-finding. PietrykowskiSandusky 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4908
State v. Nicholson L-17-1187Appellant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.OsowikLucas 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4909
State v. Bryant L-17-1211Statements by prosecutor at sentencing that multiple officers raided the house and were yelling at the time that appellant fired several shots in their direction were sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that there were multiple victims of appellant’s act of felonious assault, and thus the two counts should not merge.PietrykowskiLucas 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4910
In re L.S. OT-17-021; OT-17-025R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied. State presented sufficient evidence that juvenile knew or should have known that victim’s ability to resist or consent to sexual conduct was substantially impaired by voluntary intoxication. Counsel was not ineffective for stipulating to the admission of BCI reports and failing to object to purported hearsay statements. Juvenile court was required to comply with Juv.R. 29 and 35(B) when it imposed suspended DYS commitment.MayleOttawa 11/30/2018 11/30/2018 2018-Ohio-4758
State v. Clark L-17-1256Failure to preserve video depicting time when appellant allegedly made retaliatory threats does not violate due process where the video was not materially exculpatory because it did not contain audio and the state’s failure to preserve was the result of negligence, not bad faith.PietrykowskiLucas 11/30/2018 11/30/2018 2018-Ohio-4759
State v. Patterson WD-17-045; WD-17-046Trial counsel was not so ineffective as to deprive appellant of meaningful representation because no error in the record resulted in prejudice or precluded appellant from entering a knowing, voluntary plea. R.C. 2941.401 time limits were not violated. SingerWood 11/20/2018 11/20/2018 2018-Ohio-4672
12345678910...>>