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 320 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Dilley 106468Postconviction relief; subject matter jurisdiction; probate; general division; R.C. 2931.03; R.C. 2931.01. Court of Common Pleas, General Division, had subject matter jurisdiction to convict defendant of theft and other offenses where he served as financial advisor for a person who was incompetent and executed amended trust which named himself as beneficiary; interpleader action involving trust proceeds did not vest all jurisdiction over defendant's conduct in the probate division.BlackmonCuyahoga 4/19/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1504
Houston v. Morales 106086Motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; fellow employee immunity; R.C. 4123.471; injury occurring in the course of and arising out of the plaintiff's employment. - Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly determined that the fellow employee immunity statute applied to the instant case. First, the injury was caused by another employee. There is no dispute that both plaintiff and defendant were employees at Hose Master, and plaintiff was injured as a result of the accident. Second, the injury occurred in the course of and arising out of plaintiff's employment. There is no dispute that plaintiff was awarded workers' compensation benefits for the injuries he sustained from the accident with the defendant.KilbaneCuyahoga 4/19/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1505
State v. Copley 106053Presentence motion to withdraw no contest plea; motion to disqualify counsel; ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not err when it denied Copley's presentence motion to withdraw his no contest pleas and his motion to disqualify appointed counsel; counsel was not ineffective for advising Copley to plead no contest in light of the compelling evidence obtained by the state and given that this strategy resulted in a sentence that was shorter than the state's best offer.BlackmonCuyahoga 4/19/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1506
State v. Colon 106031Felonious assault, aggravated assault, self-defense, R.C. 2907.05. The United States Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) did not render Ohio's self-defense statute, R.C. 2907.05, unconstitutional. The jury's decision to reject appellant's affirmative defense of self-defense was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.GallagherCuyahoga 4/19/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1507
Woodmere v. Young 106011Ineffective assistance of counsel; failure to object. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony presented in the state's case-in-chief. It is within the court's discretion whether to admit leading questions on direct examination, and, because this case was tried to the bench, we presume the court did not rely on inadmissible hearsay.BlackmonCuyahoga 4/19/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1508
State v. May 106003Sufficiency, aggravated vehicular assault, R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a), R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).BoyleCuyahoga 4/19/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1510
State v. Duncan 105978Crim.R. 11; Crim.R. 32; guilty plea; judicial release; substantial compliance. Court substantially complies with Crim.R. 11 when defendant does not claim prejudice, and under totality of circumstances, it is clear that defendant understood judicial release ineligibility was term of guilty plea. It is harmless error when the court fails to inform defendant of right to appeal where defendant is appointed counsel for appeal.StewartCuyahoga 4/19/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1511
Collins v. Collins 105945Marital property; contempt of court; show cause; jail; imprisonment for debt; constitutional; inability to pay defense. Trial court acted within its discretion in finding husband in contempt of court for failure to pay settlement amount representing wife's share of marital property where husband admitted failure to make payment and failed to demonstrate an inability to pay.GallagherCuyahoga 4/19/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1512
State v. Nagy 105935Restitution; amount; R.C. 2929.18(A)(1); plea agreement; payments; account; vacate; reversed; remanded; instructions; modify. The trial court erred by imposing restitution in an amount that was not consistent with the plea agreement and failed to credit appellant for payments that had been made to the victim. Appellant was not entitled to vacate her plea; rather, the case was reversed as to the order of restitution only, remanded to the trial court with instructions to modify the restitution order, and affirmed in all other respects.GallagherCuyahoga 4/19/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1513
State v. Jung 105928R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; violation of community control sanctions; maximum sentences; postrelease control; R.C. 2967.28; unclassified felony. When sentencing defendant on felony convictions after he violated community control sanctions, it was presumed that trial court considered principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and relevant sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12 where defendant did not affirmatively show otherwise. Defendant's sentences on felony convictions were not clearly and convincingly contrary to law and the record did not otherwise clearly and convincingly fail support his sentences. Portion of sentence that imposed postrelease control for violation of R.C. 3734.03, an unclassified felony, was contrary to law and is, therefore, vacated.GallagherCuyahoga 4/19/2018 4/19/2018 2018-Ohio-1514