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 343 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Erby 27799Appellant’s conviction after a bench trial of reckless homicide with a firearm specification was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where undisputed evidence showed that Appellant unintentionally shot and killed his girlfriend while excitedly “waving” loaded handgun in her vicinity with his finger on the trigger. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3695
State v. Gary 27829The trial court did not erroneously apply the plain view doctrine when overruling Appellant’s motion to suppress. The detective who discovered Appellant’s drugs in plain view was lawfully located in an area from which he could observe the drugs because he had a legitimate purpose for entering the area in question and the area in question was substantially open to public view and part of a premises that had a reduced expectation of privacy. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.)WelbaumMontgomery 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3696
State v. Jenkins 27701Defendant-appellant, following a jury trial, was convicted of domestic violence. Evidence of Defendant-appellant’s pre-arrest silence admitted during the State’s case-in-chief violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, but this error, based upon the overwhelming evidence of guilt, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Defendant-appellant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, and it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3697
State v. Webster 27871The appellant’s first-degree misdemeanor conviction for gross neglect of a patient in violation of R.C. 2903.34(A)(2) is based on legally insufficient evidence. Although Appellant’s gross neglect is supported by the evidence because he did not periodically check on the patient as required, the State did not present evidence to establish the causation element of the definition of “gross neglect,” R.C. 2903.33(C)(1), which required proof that the appellant not only knowingly failed to provide treatment, care, goods or service to a “care facility” patient but also that the failure “resulted in” physical harm. Although the evidence demonstrates appellant failed to provide treatment or care, the record contains no evidence that this failure itself resulted in the physical harm at issue. Judgment reversed.HallMontgomery 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3698
State v. Pierce 27953The record establishes that appellant’s no contest plea to one count of violating a protection order was made in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent fashion. Further, the court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea. Appellant’s change of heart with respect to his plea was not a sufficient basis to permit withdrawal. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3699
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Herman 27854In mortgage foreclosure action, trial court did not err by granting default judgment against homeowner who was served by publication in accordance with R.C. 2703.141. Appellant waived constitutional challenge to R.C. 2703.141 by failing to raise that argument in a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the trial court’s judgment, and her constitutional claim lacks substantive merit. In addition, any defect in the proceedings leading to entry of default judgment against Appellant’s heirs was harmless as those parties had no protectable legal interest. Finally, HUD Secretary’s approval to accelerate loan was not required where HUD expressly disclaimed any interest in the subject property. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3700
Booher v. Brace Quest Corp. 27918The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the arbitration provision at issue to be enforceable. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 9/7/2018 9/7/2018 2018-Ohio-3598
State v. Evilsizor 2017-CA-1, 2017-CA-10While on post-release control, defendant committed two separate offenses on different dates and was charged in separate cases for the new offenses. At a joint plea hearing on the new offenses, the trial court erred in informing the defendant that it could terminate defendant’s post-release control in both cases and order prison sentences for the violation in both cases to be served consecutively. However, we find no basis to conclude that defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s erroneous notification. After terminating defendant’s post-release control, the trial court erred in imposing a sentence for violating post-release control based on the amount of time remaining on defendant’s post-release control as of the time of the offense, rather than the amount of time he had remaining on post-release control at sentencing. Judgment affirmed as to the case where the court did not impose a prison sentence for the violation of post-release control. In the case where a prison sentence was imposed for the post-release control violation, the prison sentence for the violation of post-release control is reversed, and the matter is remanded for resentencing on that issue; in all other respects, that judgment is affirmed.FroelichChampaign 9/7/2018 9/7/2018 2018-Ohio-3599
In re K.B. 27982The record does not support Appellant’s contention that the trial court was prejudiced or biased against him, and an appellate court cannot review whether the magistrate or trial judge should have been disqualified. The trial court erred by overruling Appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision prior to expiration of the time for filing a transcript under Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iii). Judgment reversed and case remanded for further proceedings.FroelichMontgomery 9/7/2018 9/7/2018 2018-Ohio-3600
State v. Laster 27762Any error in the certificate of assignment of a visiting judge was voidable, not void. Nonetheless, Appellant waived this procedural error and there is no reason to notice plain error. The trial court also did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. When Appellant was detained and questioned, he was not in custody and the police were not required to administer Miranda warnings. Further, since Appellant’s statements were not obtained during custodial interrogation, statements that he later made after being given Miranda warnings were admissible. Finally, Appellant waived any error with respect to the reliability of an anonymous tip, as he failed to raise the issue in the trial court, and there is no plain error concerning this point. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/7/2018 9/7/2018 2018-Ohio-3601
12345678910...>>