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 364 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Kibble 104136Sentence Consistency; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Restitution. Defendant's sentence did not violate R.C. 2929.11(B)'s consistency provision. Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. Trial court erred in imposing restitution in defendant's sentencing entry that was not addressed or imposed at the sentencing hearing.GallagherCuyahoga 5/25/2017 5/25/2017 2017-Ohio-2978
Parma v. Odolecki 104160Parma Codified Ordinances 606.14, 648.08, and 684.04, obstructing official business, disorderly conduct, misconduct at an emergency. Appellant's conviction for obstructing justice by warning individuals of an upcoming OVI checkpoint is reversed, and is not supported by the evidence. Appellant's conviction for misconduct at an emergency is affirmed. Appellant approached a scene with five police vehicles, emergency lights activated, and several officers. Police were attempting to diffuse an attempted suicide situation involving an autistic teen whose mother and young sisters were also present. Appellant left his initial video recording location across the street and moved directly adjacent to the scene, aggravating the situation and causing interference with official activities. Appellant's conviction for disorderly conduct is also affirmed.Laster MaysCuyahoga 5/25/2017 5/25/2017 2017-Ohio-2979
State v. Wilson 104333Motion to Sever; Expert Testimony regarding Cell Phone Data Analysis; Sufficiency; Speedy Trial; Consecutive Sentences. Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to sever where a statement made by his co-defendant did not violate the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed. 2d 476 (1968). Trial court did not err in allowing an expert to testify regarding cell phone location analysis. Defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated where he entered a valid waiver after he was provided with the alleged Bruton statement. Trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences.GallagherCuyahoga 5/25/2017 5/25/2017 2017-Ohio-2980
Patterson v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos. 104371Civ.R. 56/summary judgment; motion for extension; discovery. The trial court's grant of summary judgment for appellee as to appellant's employer intentional tort claim was proper. The record does not show any evidence to support the claim of intentional tort. The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for summary judgment where a genuine issue of material fact existed as to appellee's duty to indemnify under appellant's negligence and product liability claims. Additionally, appellant should have been permitted to conduct further discovery.JonesCuyahoga 5/25/2017 5/25/2017 2017-Ohio-2981
Watson v. Cleveland 104374R.C. 2506.04; standard of review; common pleas court; limited appellate review. Case reversed and remanded where trial court's judgment entry affirming the board of zoning appeals failed to identify any evidence whatsoever from the record and did not provide any analysis applying the law to such evidence; appellate court could therefore not perform its limited review of the trial court's decision.KeoughCuyahoga 5/25/2017 5/25/2017 2017-Ohio-2982
Beverage Holdings, L.L.C. v. 5701 Lombardo, L.L.C. 104559Motion for summary judgment; declaratory judgment; contract; plain and ordinary meaning; ambiguous; parol evidence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly granted partial summary judgment when the plain language of the contract clearly provides buyer a credit for rents received by seller, and allows for the final month's rent credit to be prorated according to the date of closing.KilbaneCuyahoga 5/25/2017 5/25/2017 2017-Ohio-2983
State v. Shabazz 104635Resentencing; consecutive sentences. The trial court did not err in re-imposing consecutive sentences following a remand for resentencing where one of the unaffected terms ordered to be counted consecutively had been completed during the pendency of the appellate process.GallagherCuyahoga 5/25/2017 5/25/2017 2017-Ohio-2984
State v. Harris 104833Bench trial; joinder; Crim.R. 13; other acts evidence; Evid.R. 404(B); sufficiency; manifest weight; circumstantial evidence; manifest injustice; App.R. 16(A)(7). Defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice with the joinder of two criminal cases in a bench trial and that the conviction for murder was against the sufficiency or manifest weight of the evidence.GallagherCuyahoga 5/25/2017 5/25/2017 2017-Ohio-2985
State v. Gross 104851Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); reasons. There is no requirement that a trial court provide reasons in support of the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, and there is no argument that the findings were not supported by the record.GallagherCuyahoga 5/25/2017 5/25/2017 2017-Ohio-2986
State v. Foster 104883Motion to vacate void judgment, postconviction relief. The appellant's sentence was not void because the trial court made the necessary findings on the record in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(D)(2). Because the appellant's sentence is not void, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's motion for postconviction relief.Laster MaysCuyahoga 5/25/2017 5/25/2017 2017-Ohio-2987