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 41 rows. Rows per page: 
12345
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Roos v. Morrison C-170646WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – EVIDENCE: The trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff injured worker was entitled to participate in the workers’ compensation fund for aggravation of a preexisting condition by a work-related injury where plaintiff presented expert testimony of causation between the workplace injury and the aggravation of the preexisting condition, and that evidence was not clearly rejected by the trial court. [See SEPARATE CONCURRENCE: Plaintiff injured worker’s subjective complaints, coupled with the objective testimony of his expert doctor, sufficiently proved that plaintiff had suffered a substantial aggravation of a preexisting condition caused by his workplace injury.]BergeronHamilton 4/24/2019 4/24/2019 2019-Ohio-1514
In re I. W. C-180095CHILDREN – CUSTODY – APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL: The juvenile court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s decision awarding legal custody of the couple’s child to father where mother failed to timely file with the trial court transcripts of the proceedings before the magistrate: the appellate court is precluded from reviewing the transcripts on appeal, and therefore mother cannot demonstrate the fact-finding errors of which she complains; further, where mother failed to object below to certain exhibits her hearsay challenge was limited on appeal to plain-error review, and she failed to demonstrate prejudice. [See SEPARATE CONCURRENCE: Where mother failed to file with the trial court a transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate, the appellate court must presume the regularity of the proceedings below with respect to any challenged factual findings and with respect to mother’s hearsay challenge to certain exhibits.]BergeronHamilton 4/24/2019 4/24/2019 2019-Ohio-1515
In re Easterling C-180129JURISDICTION – PROBATE COURT: In Ohio, probate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are permitted to exercise only the authority granted to them by Article IV, Section 8, Ohio Constitution and by statutes enacted pursuant to the constitution. R.C. 2101.24(A)(2) provides that the probate court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over a “subject matter” if another section of the Revised Code expressly confers jurisdiction upon the probate court; one such section is R.C. 2717.01(A)(1), which provides that a person desiring a change of name may file an application in the probate court of the county in which he resides. R.C. 2101.24(A)(2) and 3705.15 provide the probate court with jurisdiction over the registration of unrecorded births and the correction of birth records. R.C. 3705.15 provides, in pertinent part, that any person, born in Ohio, whose registration of birth has not been properly and accurately recorded, may file an application with the probate court to correct that birth record, but the application must set forth all of the available facts required on the birth record that is sought to be corrected. Where an applicant seeking to correct a birth record to reflect a change in his nationality or race provided to the probate court a birth record that contains neither classification, the applicant was, in effect, asking the probate court to amend his birth record to add those classifications, rather than to correct required facts already on the record, and the probate court had no authority under R.C. 2101.24(A)(2) and 3705.15 to add the additional facts to the birth record provided.ZayasHamilton 4/24/2019 4/24/2019 2019-Ohio-1516
Bernard v. Cincinnati C-180155SUMMARY JUDGMENT — MUNICIPAL – IMMUNITY — NEGLIGENCE: Plaintiffs-appellees’ claims of negligence, trespass, nuisance, and negligent maintenance, which related to property damage allegedly caused by defendant-appellant city’s sewer system, concerned governmental functions for which the city is immune; further, plaintiffs failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the city negligently caused their damages where there was no material evidence establishing that the harm resulted from maintenance failures rather than basic flaws or other systemic problems with the sewer system. To overcome the defense of governmental immunity in the context of damage caused by the city’s sewer system, plaintiffs had to show negligence in the city’s performance of its proprietary functions, i.e., maintenance, destruction, operation, and upkeep of the sewer system, as immunity attached to governmental functions that concerned the provision or nonprovision, planning or design, construction, or reconstruction of the sewer system. The trial court erred in denying defendant city’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of sovereign immunity where, even though plaintiffs attempted to frame their claims as relating to the city’s propriety functions to avoid the defense of governmental immunity, the bulk of plaintiffs’ claims concerned the city’s governmental functions that were shielded by sovereign immunity.BergeronHamilton 4/24/2019 4/24/2019 2019-Ohio-1517
Maddali v. Haverkamp C-180360REAL PROPERTY – CONTRACTS: In an action between a former couple in which the girlfriend sought to recover money from the sale of real property and other loaned household expenses, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the boyfriend upon finding that the girlfriend’s claims sounded in palimony under Williams v. Ormsby, 131 Ohio St.3d 427, 2012-Ohio-690, 966 N.E.2d 255; however, the trial court properly denied the girlfriend’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the parties’ agreement to split the profits from the sale of the home, because the record is unclear as to what “profits” means.WinklerHamilton 4/24/2019 4/24/2019 2019-Ohio-1518
In re E.-J. Children C-190007CHILDREN – CUSTODY: The juvenile court did not err in awarding permanent custody of the ten-year old child to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where the decision was supported by competent and credible evidence, and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: mother did not comply with the protective orders, the child had been removed from the home four times, and mother previously had her parental rights terminated for the child’s three older siblings. The juvenile court erred by awarding permanent custody of the three-year-old child to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services as the initial disposition following a finding of dependency where the child, who is in a permanent comatose state, had been transferred, with the consent of mother, to a long-term-care nursing facility: a grant of temporary custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services is in the child’s best interest because it gives the department time to determine if it is necessary to terminate mother’s parental rights in order to keep the child in his current placement.MockHamilton 4/24/2019 4/24/2019 2019-Ohio-1519
State v. Brown C-170713; C-170714APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – SENTENCING – AGREED SENTENCE – CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES: When, as part of the entry of a guilty plea on two counts of aggravated assault, defendant and the state agreed to jointly recommend an aggregate prison term between five to 13 years, and the trial court imposed an aggregate prison term within that range, there was an agreed sentence within the meaning of R.C. 2929.08(D)(1), even though defendant did not expressly agree to the specific prison term for each count and the consecutive combination of those terms. State v. Gray, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-030132, 2003-Ohio-5837, overruled. Defendant’s sentences for two felonious assaults were not reviewable on appeal where the sentences were authorized by law and jointly recommended. The consecutive sentencing findings the trial court made at the sentencing hearing in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to support the imposition of consecutive sentences for community-control violations were supported by the record; the trial court’s inadvertent failure to incorporate all of those statutory findings into the sentencing entries must be corrected on remand by nunc pro tunc orders.WinklerHamilton 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1455
State v. Oglesby C-180177; C-180178APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – COMMUNITY CONTROL – SENTENCING: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked defendant’s community control and imposed the suspended jail sentences where defendant not only failed to pay fines and court costs, but also failed to attend a corrective-thinking class, did not complete community service, and incurred new criminal charges. Defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences is moot where defendant challenges only his sentences, and not his convictions, and has completed his sentences.CrouseHamilton 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1456
Davis v. Dungeons of Delhi C-180242PROCEDURE/RULES – CIV.R. 41(A) – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – NEGLIGENCE – CIVIL ASSAULT: Where the plaintiffs in a multi-defendant case voluntarily dismissed all defendants pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A), including those for whom the trial court had already granted summary judgment, the prior interlocutory summary judgment order was rendered a nullity. An action refiled under the saving statute is a new action and does not incorporate the documents filed in the dismissed action, so even if a refiled action is assigned to the same trial judge as the dismissed action, the necessary documents from the dismissed action must be filed in the new action. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of an operator of a haunted house attraction on plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and civil assault where questions of fact remained as to whether the injured plaintiff had entered the confines of the haunted house attraction and whether she could be expected to foresee or accept the attendant risk of injury from being chased by a costumed haunted house worker.MyersHamilton 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1457
In re T/R/E/M Children C-180703CHILDREN — CUSTODY: The juvenile court’s decision to grant permanent custody of eight young children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by sufficient evidence where the record showed that the children could not be placed with either parent, due to Mother’s continual failure to understand the extraordinary needs of her children, and the best interests of the children would be served by placing them in the custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services.BergeronHamilton 4/17/2019 4/17/2019 2019-Ohio-1427
12345