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 64 rows. Rows per page: 
1234567
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In Re: V.B. C-170063CHILDREN – CUSTODY: Where neither parent in a custody dispute, which proceeded under R.C. 3109.04, filed a pleading or motion requesting the court to grant both parents shared parental rights and responsibilities for the care of their minor child, shared parenting was not an issue before the trial court; in the absence of a shared-parenting pleading or motion, the court was required to allocate the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the child to one of the parents in accordance with R.C. 3109.04(A)(1). Under R.C. 3109.04(A)(1), the trial court was required to decide to whom the parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the child should be awarded, giving paramount consideration to the best interests of the child; the appellate court reviews the court’s ruling on the objections, and its decision to adopt the magistrate’s custody decision for an abuse of discretion. Under the R.C. 3109.04 best-interests test, no single factor is controlling; the weight to be given to any single factor lies within the trial court’s discretion and thus the court is not bound to follow the recommendations of the guardian ad litem.CunninghamHamilton 6/19/2018 6/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2375
State v. Giuggio C-170133GUILTY PLEA – CRIM.R. 11 – APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – COUNSEL – SENTENCING: Before a trial court accepts a guilty plea in a felony case, Crim.R. 11(C)(2) requires the court to personally address the defendant, ascertain that the plea is voluntary, and entered with an understanding of the effect of the plea, the nature of the charges, and the maximum penalty that may be imposed. In addition, the court must inform the defendant, and determine that the defendant understands, that by pleading guilty, the defendant is waiving her or his constitutional rights (1) to a jury trial, (2) to confront witnesses against her or him, (3) to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, (4) to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and (5) to the privilege against self-incrimination. An appellate court is unable to determine on appeal whether ineffective assistance of trial counsel occurred where the allegations of ineffectiveness are based on facts outside the record. The trial court’s imposition of a maximum prison term was not contrary to law where the record reflected that the court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the factors in R.C. 2929.12, and the sentence fell within the permissible range.MyersHamilton 6/19/2018 6/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2376
State v. Wilson C-170408APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE: Where the trial court specifically found that a marijuana cigarette in defendant’s vehicle had been in the plain view of an officer, a search of the vehicle was supported by both the automobile and plain-view exceptions to the warrant requirement, and the trial court erred in suppressing all items found during the search of the vehicle. The trial court erred in suppressing money given by defendant to, and seized by police from, a third party where the money was recovered based on information received from a source independent of a statement made by defendant to police.MyersHamilton 6/19/2018 6/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2377
Boehm v. Black Diamond Casino Events, LLC C-170339TRADE SECRETS – MISAPPROPRIATION: A company’s client list and financial data are trade secrets where the client list and financial data derive independent value from not being generally known, and where the company has made efforts to maintain their secrecy. The unauthorized sharing of a company’s trade secrets with an accountant, even for the purposes of due diligence for an investment in the company, and the disapproved retention of trade secrets, even for the purposes of preparing for litigation, are misappropriations under Ohio’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. A claim for misappropriation of trade secrets does not require proof of damages.MillerHamilton 6/19/2018 6/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2379
State v. Green C-170477APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – NO-ERROR BRIEF: Where counsel has filed a no-error brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and where the record indicates that, in accepting the defendant’s guilty pleas, the trial court failed to notify the defendant of his constitutional right to confront his accusers, the appellate court must appoint new counsel to address legal points arguable on the merits with respect to the validity of the guilty pleas and any other issues counsel may wish to raise.MyersHamilton 6/19/2018 6/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2378
State v. Durgan C-170148CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – MIRANDA – APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – BATSON – COUNSEL: Where police believed defendant to be a witness to a murder and drove him to the police station in an unmarked car without restraints, defendant appeared eager to help and provided information voluntarily, and police drove him back to the scene of the crime to pick up his truck, defendant was not in custody, and no Miranda warnings were required. Where defendant was interviewed several days after the murder, came voluntarily in his own truck to the police station, was not handcuffed or searched, and provided more information on who may have wished to harm the victim, defendant was not in custody, and no Miranda warnings were required even though the police had suspicions about defendant and used the opportunity to put a GPS device on his car. The totality of the circumstances showed that defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and made statements to the police where, even though the interrogation was lengthy, defendant was allowed to use the restroom and was given food, and defendant never stated that he did not wish to talk to the police, that he wanted to leave, or that he wanted a lawyer, and he never confessed to killing the victim. In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, the appellate court may only consider evidence presented at the suppression hearing. The trial court’s acceptance of the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons to excuse two African-American prospective jurors was not clearly erroneous where the first prospective juror stated that he had a pending theft charge and did not feel be was being treated fairly by the justice system and the second prospective juror said his religion would not permit him to sign a guilty verdict and that he worked at the same company as defense counsel’s wife. Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel where his counsel did not present expert testimony on police interrogation techniques and false confessions, because the decision not to call an expert witness is a matter of trial strategy, and counsel extensively cross-examined the lead detective about interrogation techniques.DetersHamilton 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2310
Village of Evendale v. Lindsey C-170455CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS – JURISDICTION – R.C. 1905.032: Where the mayor’s court failed to certify the case upon transfer to the municipal court as required by R.C. 1905.032(B)(1), the municipal court lacked jurisdiction over it.DetersHamilton 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2311
Dixon v. Anderson C-170418REAL PROPERTY/LANDLORD AND TENANT – FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER: In a forcible-entry-and-detainer action, the trial court erred in issuing a writ of restitution where the tenant had vacated the leased premises prior to issuance of the writ.DetersHamilton 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2312
State v. Embry C-170101SEX OFFENSES – CLASSIFICATION – REGISTRATION – NOTIFICATION: Where the trial court correctly classified defendant as a Tier II sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act, but the notice form given to defendant was blank where it indicates whether defendant is a sex offender or child-victim offender, the boxes on the form that indicate defendant’s tier classification were left blank, and the boxes that indicate the duration and frequency of defendant’s registration duties were left blank, and where the trial court did not inform defendant that she had to register with the sheriff or orally provide any of the R.C. 2950.03(B) notifications, the trial court failed to provide defendant with the required notice of her registration duties, and the cause must be remanded for the trial court to correctly notify defendant of her Tier II registration and verification duties and their duration. [See CONCURRENCE: The only error committed by the trial court was failing to check the appropriate boxes on the notification form.]MillerHamilton 6/8/2018 6/8/2018 2018-Ohio-2204
State v. Furr C-170046CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – RIGHT TO COUNSEL – WAIVER – DUE PROCESS – JAIL CLOTHES: Defendant’s waiver of trial counsel was valid where the trial court made a sufficient inquiry to determine whether defendant fully understood and intelligently relinquished his constitutional right to counsel with respect to a prosecution for burglary and possessing criminal tools, defendant clearly and unequivocally asserted his right to represent himself on multiple occasion, and the court warned of the disadvantages of proceeding without counsel, explained that defendant would be required to follow the rules of procedure and evidence, and thoroughly explained the nature and elements of the charges, possible defenses to the charges, and the potential sentences that defendant faced. Defendant failed to demonstrate that his constitutional right to due process was violated when he stood trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable jail clothes where the trial court informed defendant of the option of wearing civilian clothes, defendant failed to object to being tried in jail clothes, and the court told the jurors to disregard the fact that defendant was wearing jail clothes.MyersHamilton 6/8/2018 6/8/2018 2018-Ohio-2205
1234567