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 171 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Salahuddin 2017-CA-50Appellant's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance. The record establishes that appellant's guilty pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, and there is no evidence in the record that his counsel was in any way ineffective for advising him to enter guilty pleas to any of the charged offenses, specifically Count IX, aggravated possession of drugs. Judgment affirmed.DonovanGreene 5/18/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1943
State v. Reed 27707The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's motion to stay the execution of court costs. The trial court rationally determined that Appellant's ability to pay court costs was limited, but not completely absent given that Appellant had been making installment payments toward the court costs owed. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 5/18/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1944
Poirier v. Tipp City Process Equip. Co. 27697The trial court lacked jurisdiction over Appellant's action after Appellant filed a notice of dismissal under Civ.R. 41(A)(1). While the trial court had filed a summary judgment decision, the decision was interlocutory and not a final order, because the issue of attorney fees had not been resolved and the trial court had not included a Civ.R. 54(B) certification in its decision. Because the decision was interlocutory, Appellant had the ability to file a notice of dismissal. Once the notice of dismissal was filed, the action was if it had never been filed, and the trial court erred in striking the notice of dismissal. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. (Hall, J., dissenting.)WelbaumMontgomery 5/18/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1945
State v. Payson 27608The trial court prematurely determined that Huber Heights Code Section 505.11 is unconstitutionally vague. This conclusion is reached because it is possible the City can establish that Defendant-appellee violated Huber Heights Section 505.01(a) without reference to, or reliance upon, any presumption created by Section 505.11. Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings.TuckerMontgomery 5/18/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1946
State v. Melms 27685The trial court did not err in by denying a motion to dismiss Melms' indictment for possession of fentanyl. R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b), which grants immunity from prosecution for minor drug possession offenses if certain conditions are met, is not unconstitutional as applied to Melms. Melms failed to demonstrate the deprivation of a protected liberty interest, the statute does not involve a suspect class or a fundamental constitutional right, and Melms' due process and equal protection arguments accordingly fail. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.)DonovanMontgomery 5/18/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1947
State v. Maston 27567Trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion to suppress. The officer diligently performed tasks needed to complete the traffic stop until back-up arrived, at which time he conducted a free-air sniff by his canine partner; the stop was not unreasonably extended to conduct the canine sniff. Defendant was not in custody when he made incriminating statements. Trial court erred in allowing the State to use at trial the laboratory report of the drug analysis, pursuant to R.C. 2925.51. The State's service of a copy of the lab report on an attorney at the Public Defender's Office did not satisfy R.C. 2925.51(A) when that attorney was no longer defendant's attorney of record at the time of service. Defendant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to renew at trial the motion to suppress defendant's statements. Judgment reversed as to possession of a controlled substance, and case remanded for further proceedings on that charge. Judgment affirmed as to possession of marijuana. (Tucker, J., concurring.)FroelichMontgomery 5/18/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1948
State v. Lumford 2017-CA-71; 2017-CA-72The trial court's imposition of three consecutive one-year prison sentences, and an additional nine-month agreed sentence, after revoking the appellant's community control is neither contrary to law nor clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 5/18/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1949
State v. Harwell 27658The trial court properly imposed a five-year mandatory term of post-release control for Appellant's first-degree felony kidnapping convictions. Although the trial court failed to impose the applicable three-year mandatory term of post-release control for Appellant's felonious assault conviction, that term of post-release control is subsumed by the five-year term imposed for Appellant's kidnapping convictions, as "the period of post-release control for all of the sentences shall be the period of post-release control that expires last[.]" R.C. 2967.28(F)(4)(c). In addition, Appellant's claim that the trial court failed to merge allied offenses of similar import at sentencing was waived for appeal and barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 5/18/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1950
State v. Coleman 27666Defendant was involved in an altercation with a store security officer; when the officer attempted to bring defendant back into the store to discuss the behavior that the officer found to be suspicious, the defendant hit the officer multiple times. Trial court's finding that defendant had committed assault, and its rejection of the argument that he had acted in self-defense, were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 5/18/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1951
State v. Wolfe 27785Because appellant's arguments were barred by res judicata, the trial court did not err when it overruled his Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds without considering the merits of his motion. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 5/18/2018 5/18/2018 2018-Ohio-1952
12345678910...>>