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 218 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. L.L. 2016-CA-74Defendant-appellant filed an application, under R.C. 2953.32, to seal the record of a conviction. The trial court, without conducting the hearing required by R.C. 2953.32(B), overruled the application. The failure to conduct the mandatory hearing, as conceded by the State of Ohio, requires reversal of the trial court's judgment. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerClark 6/23/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5489
State v. Bryant 2016-CA-23The trial court did not commit plain error by allowing a firefighter to testify about his investigation of a fire without the State first proffering him as an expert; Defendant-Appellant's right to an impartial jury was not violated where no change of venue motion was filed and the trial court conducted voir dire of the jury pool to determine whether the potential jurors knew or heard anything about Defendant prior to the trial; trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to request a competency hearing where the record did not contain sufficient indicia of incompetence to warrant such a request. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMiami 6/23/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5490
Guehl v. Carillon House Assn., Inc. 27438The trial court did not err in dismissing Appellant's claim for legal malpractice pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Appellant did not have an attorney-client relationship with Appellee, nor was Appellant in privity with Appellee's client. As a result, Appellee was not liable to Appellant for any alleged legal malpractice. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/23/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5491
State v. Duhl 2016-CA-30The trial court did not punish Appellant in violation of his right to remain silent during the sentencing hearing. Although Appellant had the right to remain silent during sentencing, the trial court could consider the defendant's failure to speak in the context of lack of remorse. This is an appropriate sentencing consideration under R.C. 2929.12(D)(5) and (E)(5). Affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 6/23/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5492
Taylor v. Gazall 27305In this medical negligence case, the trial court sustained Defendant-appellee's summary judgment motion. The trial court correctly concluded that Plaintiff-appellant's Civ.R. 10(D)(2) affidavit of merit could not be considered when evaluating whether Plaintiff-appellant had met her reciprocal burden to establish a genuine issue of fact concerning the issues of negligence and causation. The trial court also correctly concluded that Plaintiff-appellant's deposition testimony did not establish a genuine issue of fact regarding either negligence or causation. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 6/23/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5493
Gilliam v. Crowe 27352The trial court erred by overruling Appellant's motion to amend his complaint against the defendant tow truck company on the ground that the amendments would be futile. The amendments satisfied Civ. R. 8 and we cannot say "beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery" on his alleged claim for negligence. The court did not err by dismissing the claims against Appellees Montgomery County Sheriff's Department employees under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The employees are immune from liability under R.C. Chapter 2744. Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part and remanded.HallMontgomery 6/23/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5494
State v. Hurt 2016-CA-11The trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas since the motion was not the proper vehicle to challenge the alleged misuse of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority's guidelines or the alleged unconstitutional application of the guidelines. The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas without a hearing since it was clear that denial of the motion was warranted. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMiami 6/23/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5495
Paul v. I-Force, L.L.C. 2016-CA-25The trial court erred in denying an employer's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because the employee-claimant was precluded from refiling her complaint under R.C. 4123.512(D), the trial court should have granted the employer's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Reversed and remanded.WelbaumChampaign 6/23/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5496
Jenkins v. Northeastern Local Bd. of Education 2016-CA-72Jenkins failed to perfect her appeal of the school board's decision to terminate her employment, and the trial court accordingly lacked jurisdiction over her complaint. The November 3, 2016 decision of the trial court awarding Jenkins damages is accordingly vacated. (Tucker, J., concurring). DonovanClark 6/23/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5497
State v. Johnson 26961Defendant was convicted of kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and two counts of felonious assault. The State presented sufficient evidence of the stealth element of aggravated burglary. For purposes of felonious assault, the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant used a deadly weapon against his former girlfriend when he used a handgun as a bludgeon. The trial court did not err in failing to merge the two felonious assault convictions, which involved different victims. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 6/23/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5498