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 749 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Ayers v. Cleveland 105074R.C. 2744.07(A)(2); standing; indemnification; summary judgment; reverse; remand; enforce; judgment; federal; jurisdiction; bankruptcy; conflict; debt; employee; harmless; political subdivision; liability; duty; rights; good faith; scope of employment; private cause of action; legislative intent; zone of interest; judgment creditor; third party; statutory interpretation. R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) does not provide judgment creditors with a private cause of action against a political subdivision to enforce its statutory obligation to indemnify its employee. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the judgment creditor.GallagherCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8571
State v. Stuart 105050Anders brief, withdraw, dismissed. Appointed counsel's motion to withdraw granted and appeal dismissed where appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting there were no legal points of arguable merit to raise on appeal, and this court agreed after conducting an independent review of the record.KeoughCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8572
State v. Chandler 105246Evid.R. 404(B); impeachment; Evid.R. 608(B); excessive sentence; firearm specifications; self-defense of another; castle doctrine; R.C. 2901.05(B); jury instructions; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the state's motion to admit Evid.R. 404(B) evidence but allowed the state to impeach the defendant at trial under Evid.R. 608(B), and therefore defendant's argument regarding the admission of Evid.R. 404(B) evidence is without merit. Defendant's claim that his sentence is excessive cannot be entertained when the trial court imposed the statutory minimum. There is no error in requiring the parties to refer to firearm specifications without reference to the ultimate sentence in front of the jury. Defendant failed to identify evidence demonstrating the need to instruct the jury on defense of another and the castle doctrine under R.C. 2901.05(B). There is sufficient evidence underlying the defendant's conviction, which is also not against the manifest weight of the evidence.GallagherCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8573
State v. Hammond 105297Murder; felonious assault; having a weapon while under disability; competency; R.C. 2945.37(G); amnesia; short-term memory; impairment; assist in defense; ineffective assistance; dying declaration; Evid.R. 804(B)(2); circumstantial evidence; reasonable inference; sufficiency; manifest weight. Trial court's determination that appellant was competent to stand trial was supported by reliable and credible evidence. Although appellant suffered amnesia and short term memory impairment, the experts agreed he was able to understand the proceedings against him, and one of the experts opined that appellant could make reasonable decisions and would be able to assist in his own defense with certain accommodations being provided. Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance for failing to object to dying declaration where reasonable inferences could be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the victim's death. There was sufficient evidence supporting appellant's convictions for murder, two counts of felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability, and his convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.GallagherCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8574
Dickson v. Dickson 105318Civ.R. 60(B); motion for relief from judgment; motion to stay execution of judgment; post-trial discovery; entitlement to discovery; operative facts. Appellant failed to support a motion for relief from judgment with any operative facts or conclusions of law. Where the motion failed to satisfy any of the requirements of Civ.R. 60(B), the trial court did not err in not allowing discovery, failing to hold a hearing, and denying the motion.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8576
Fourtounis v. Verginis 105349Default judgment; answer; Civ.R. 55(A); Civ.R. 6(B)(2); abuse of discretion; excusable neglect; summary judgment; statute of limitations; cognizable event; malicious civil prosecution; third-party legal malpractice; vicarious liability; malice; reasonable inference; speculative. Trial court's decision to deny default judgment under Civ.R. 55(A) was affirmed upon finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by deeming the answer timely in accordance with Civ.R. 6(B)(2) when considering all the surrounding facts and circumstances, excusable neglect in filing the answer late was demonstrated. Trial court's decision to grant summary judgment on claims of malicious civil prosecution, third-party legal malpractice, and vicarious liability was affirmed because appellants failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether attorney knew of a settlement agreement prior to filing a replevin action, evidence relied upon by appellants failed to support any reasonable inference of malice, and their argument was purely speculative.GallagherCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8577
State v. Pierce 105389Escape; R.C. 2921.34; harassment by inmate; R.C. 2921.38; jury verdict form; R.C. 2945.75; due process; Batson challenge; sufficiency; jury instruction; plain error; Crim.R. 52. The jury's verdict form for the escape offense did not state the degree of the offense nor state that an aggravating element - the most serious offense for which appellant was under detention when he committed the escape offense - was found; thus, the verdict form failed to comply with R.C. 2945.75. Appellant's escape conviction is reduced from a third-degree felony to a fifth-degree felony. The trial court's denial of defense counsel's Batson challenge was not clearly erroneous. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to provide an intoxication instruction, sua sponte, to the jury. Appellant's convictions for harassment by inmate are supported by sufficient evidence. CelebrezzeCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8578
State v. Bridges 105547Consecutive sentences; findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); robbery; having a weapon under disability; allied offenses of similar import; merger; waiver; forfeiture; plain error. Trial court's findings supporting the imposition of consecutive sentencing were not clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. Defendant waived allied offense issue because transcript demonstrated that the state and defense counsel had agreed that offenses were not allied. Even if Bridges had not waived the allied offense issue, because no objection was raised regarding the merger of these offenses below, he forfeited all but plain error. There was no plain error in trial court' failure to merge robbery and having weapons under disability offenses for sentencing purposes.GallagherCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8579
In re M.W. 105565Permanent custody; clear and convincing; manifest weight; domestic violence; special needs; best wishes; relevant factors; guardian ad litem; R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Affirmed the trial court's decisions awarding permanent custody of children to CCDCFS and terminating parental rights where mother failed to attend all but one of the children's appointments for special needs over a two-year period, concerns remained, and witnesses opined that mother was not ready to reunify with the children. The trial court considered all relevant factors, and its best-interest determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence in the record.GallagherCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8580
State v. Ellis 105705Murder; involuntary manslaughter; pro se; res judicata; law of the case. The trial court properly denied defendant-appellant's pro se postconviction motion to correct his sentence. Defendant-appellant's arguments attacking his convictions for murder and involuntary manslaughter, which this court affirmed in his direct appeal, were both unpersuasive and were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and the law of the case.KilbaneCuyahoga 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 2017-Ohio-8581
12345678910...>>