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 40 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Ellis v. Buehrer C-160497COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION: In a case for workers' compensation benefits, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer and the Administrator based on collateral estoppel where the issue of the decedent's cause of death had been fully and fairly litigated in a prior R.C. 313.19 proceeding. [See CONCURRENCE: The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the employer and the Administrator on the basis of collateral estoppel where the issue of whether the decedent's workplace injury had contributed to his death had been decided in a prior proceeding.]ZayasHamilton 6/28/2017 6/28/2017 2017-Ohio-5516
State v. Jones C-160735COMPETENCY - EVIDENCE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL: Former R.C. 2945.39, which allowed the trial court to retain jurisdiction over an incompetent defendant where there was not a substantial probability that the defendant would become competent to stand trial within one year was "manifestly civil in its intent." A police officer's testimony about the victim's statements was sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the incompetent defendant had committed three counts of rape and one count of attempted rape, and therefore, the trial court did not err in retaining jurisdiction over the defendant under former R.C. 2945.39. The trial court's reliance on hearsay in determining if clear and convincing evidence showed that the incompetent defendant had committed the charged offenses was not error, because the applicable statute gave the court the discretion to consider all relevant evidence, and because the defendant forfeited any error by failing to object. The trial court's reliance on hearsay did not violate the incompetent defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him: the Ohio Supreme Court has held that because former R.C. 2945.39 was civil in nature, a person committed under that statute need not have been afforded the constitutional rights afforded to a defendant in a criminal prosecution, and the defendant forfeited any error by failing to raise the issue in the trial court.MockHamilton 6/28/2017 6/28/2017 2017-Ohio-5517
State v. Brooks C-160743AUTOS/CRIMINAL - DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION - EVIDENCE: The defendant's conviction for driving under a 12-point suspension in violation of R.C. 4510.037(J) was based upon insufficient evidence where the state failed to prove that the registrar of the bureau of motor vehicles had notified the defendant of the suspension pursuant to R.C. 4510.037(B).MyersHamilton 6/28/2017 6/28/2017 2017-Ohio-5518
State v. Thomas C-150581, C-150555NEW TRIAL - APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL: An appeal purportedly taken from an entry that is not reflected in the record on appeal is subject to dismissal. In defendant's appeal from the overruling of his Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to move for a new trial, the court of appeals has no jurisdiction to address assignments of error challenging his convictions. The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in overruling, without a hearing, defendant's Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial upon a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence: defendant demonstrated that he did not know of, and could not have learned of, the proposed ground for a new trial within the prescribed period; but he delayed more than six years in moving for leave after discovering the evidence supporting that claim, and that delay was not adequately explained or reasonable under the circumstances.MillerHamilton 6/21/2017 6/21/2017 2017-Ohio-4403
R & A Lawn Care, L.L.C. v. Back C-160682CONTRACTS: Where the parties testified that they had entered into an oral agreement for the plaintiff to perform lawn care services for the defendant at a rate of $25 an hour, and where the agreement was demonstrated by the parties' course of conduct, the trial court erred in finding that the parties had not entered into an oral contract.MyersHamilton 6/21/2017 6/21/2017 2017-Ohio-4404
State v. Billups C-150500SEARCH AND SEIZURE - TRAFFIC STOP - TERRY PAT-DOWN: In a prosecution for trafficking in heroin, the trial court properly overruled the defendant's motion to motion to suppress evidence recovered from his person and his vehicle during a traffic stop, because the police officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry pat-down of the defendant, the pat-down did not exceed the permissible scope, the officer did not excessively detain the defendant to await the arrival of a drug-sniffing canine, and the officer's plain-feel discovery of the heroin on the defendant during the pat-down search gave police probable cause to arrest him.DetersHamilton 6/16/2017 6/16/2017 2017-Ohio-4309
State v. Valdez C-160437CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - COUNSEL - APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL: The municipal court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to misdemeanor domestic violence on the ground that his plea had been the unintelligent product of his trial counsel's ineffectiveness in advising him concerning the immigration consequences of his conviction: the motion was reviewable under Crim.R. 32.1; and counsel had a duty under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), to accurately advise defendant that, with his conviction, his removal was presumptively mandatory; but the record cannot be said to demonstrate that withdrawal was necessary to correct manifest injustice, when the municipal court, in deciding the motion, did not have before it a transcript of the plea hearing. [But see DISSENT: Manifest injustice can be established on facts supplied through the affidavit attached to the motion. Since the trial court did not consider whether defendant was prejudiced, this court should not address merits for the first time on appeal and instead should remand the case to the trial court for consideration of this issue.]MockHamilton 6/14/2017 6/14/2017 2017-Ohio-4260
In re D.G. C-160515-518DELINQUENCY - JUVENILE - ARREST - PROBABLE CAUSE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - CURFEW - MENACING: The trial court did not err in denying the juvenile's motion to suppress his arrest for violating the city of Norwood's daytime-curfew ordinance, because, under the totality of the circumstances, the arrest was supported by probable cause: where traveling to and from school was an exception to the daytime-curfew ordinance, the juvenile's statement that he was on his way to school was to be evaluated along with all other circumstances to determine whether he had violated the curfew. Where the juvenile had continually shouted profanities at the arresting officer, spit on the officer, and threatened to kill the officer, the officer's belief that the juvenile would cause him harm was reasonable, and the juvenile's adjudication for menacing was supported by sufficient evidence.MyersHamilton 6/14/2017 6/14/2017 2017-Ohio-4261
State v. Newell C-160453, C-160454, C-160455, C-160456CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - MIRANDA: In a prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol, the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence where defendant failed to sustain her initial burden of proof to demonstrate that her stop and seizure were warrantless and that her statements were the result of custodial interrogation.DetersHamilton 6/7/2017 6/7/2017 2017-Ohio-4143
State v. Martin C-160507NO-ERROR BRIEF - SENTENCING: 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 the appellate court determines that the appeal is wholly frivolous, the court may decide the appeal on its merits without appointing new counsel. Where the trial court announced the statutory findings for consecutive sentences in open court, but omitted the consecutive-sentencing findings from the sentencing entry, the court did not commit error prejudicial to defendant: the omission is a clerical error that may be corrected on remand by a nunc pro tunc entry.MillerHamilton 6/7/2017 6/7/2017 2017-Ohio-4144