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 261 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Kingston of Miamisburg v. Maute 27877Trial court properly granted summary judgment to heir and his wife on facility’s fraud, civil conspiracy, and estoppel claims. Facility did not, as a matter of law, reasonably rely on wife’s statements regarding the opening of an estate or payment of the facility’s bill when the facility failed to open an estate for decedent and procure the appointment of an executor or administrator so that it could timely present its claim; heir did not receive assets of the estate by fraud or unjust enrichment. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 7/20/2018 7/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2855
State v. Remy 2017-CA-6Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of rape of a child under the age of 13 (less than 10 years old; force or threat of force), gross sexual imposition, intimidation, domestic violence, and endangering children; the victims were defendant’s three young stepdaughters. Defendant’s rape convictions based on vaginal or anal penetration were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant’s stepdaughters were competent to testify at trial. Defendant did not demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct based on the State’s use of the term “monster” during closing argument. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to (1) the girls’ recorded statements to their grandfather’s girlfriend, (2) the recorded forensic interviews, (3) one girl’s statements to her stepgrandfather and a police officer, and (4) certain opinion testimony by the State’s expert. Judgment affirmed.FroelichClark 7/20/2018 7/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2856
State v. Remy 2017-CA-7Trial counsel failed to object to admission of recorded video interviews of child abuse victims. However, even if admission of the interviews or parts of the interviews had been objectionable, any error was harmless, and additionally could have reasonably been part of trial counsel’s strategy, which was to cast doubt on the children’s credibility. The trial court also did nor err in allowing one victim to testify via closed circuit television. Trial counsel did not object, but even if counsel had objected, there was no error. The State showed good cause for failing to file its motion within the time requirements in R.C. 2945.481(C). Moreover, the State established that the child would suffer serious emotional trauma, as required by R.C. 2945.481(E), if she had to testify in the courtroom in front of her mother and stepfather, both of whom had been accused of sexually abusing her. In addition, the trial court did not err in finding the three abuse victims competent to testify. Trial counsel also did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to hearsay testimony, by failing to object to the court’s decision to let the minor child testify outside the courtroom, by failing to object to improper expert testimony, or by failing to object to admission of an audio recording of the children’s abuse allegations. Admission of the challenged hearsay and audio recordings was essential for Appellant to prove her theories of the case, which included that the children told inconsistent stories and that their interviews were improperly conducted and were suggestive. The State’s expert also did not vouch for the children’s credibility; he merely explained child abuse generally and how children typically disclose sexual abuse, the reasons why disclosure is often delayed and gradual, and how reactions to a child’s allegations can affect future disclosures. Finally, Appellant’s convictions for rape and complicity to rape were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 7/20/2018 7/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2857
State v. Taylor 27700The trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay a $130 court-appointed counsel fee. Defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a waiver of the supervision fee and court costs. Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the matter is remanded for the filing of an amended judgment entry that omits the imposition of court-appointed counsel fees. (Welbaum, J., dissenting.)FroelichMontgomery 7/20/2018 7/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2858
State v. Tucker 27693Appellant’s convictions for felonious assault (deadly weapon), improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation, and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 7/20/2018 7/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2859
State v. Turner 2017-CA-15Trial court properly concluded that restitution could be awarded to a law enforcement agency where the agency’s property, a cruiser, was damaged in the course of defendant’s criminal activity. However, the trial court erred in awarding restitution in the amount of the replacement value of the vehicle, which was “at its end of life,” because that amount exceeded the agency’s economic loss. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on restitution.FroelichChampaign 7/20/2018 7/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2860
Vectren Energy Deliver of Oh., Inc. v. Bansal Construction, Inc. 27815The affidavit on which plaintiff-utility company relied in support of its motion for summary judgment did not demonstrate the affiant’s personal knowledge of the matters addressed, nor did it demonstrate that the attached documents were business records of which the affiant was the custodian. Moreover, the black-and-white photographic exhibits attached to the affidavit, which were the sole basis for plaintiff’s assertion that defendant negligently excavated in the vicinity of a gas line, did not establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to negligence; the yellow markings allegedly made by plaintiff to demonstrate the location of its utility lines prior to excavation were not clearly visible in the photographs and do not show markings prior to the damage to the gas line. Judgment reversed and remanded. (Hall, J., dissenting.) (Welbaum, P.J., concurring in judgment only.)FroelichMontgomery 7/20/2018 7/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2861
Weinberg v. Weinberg 27834The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Appellant’s cause of action under R.C. 2111.04(D). The trial court, however, erred by granting summary judgment to the Appellant on Appellee’s testamentary capacity cause of action because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the parties’ father’s testamentary capacity. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court.TuckerMontgomery 7/20/2018 7/20/2018 2018-Ohio-2862
Dayton v. International Assoc. of Firefighters, Local 136 27600The litigants, a municipality and a union, are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which, among other things, governs union members’ overtime compensation. The parties, as required by the CBA, submitted an overtime dispute to binding arbitration with the arbitrator ruling in the union’s favor. The trial court vacated the arbitration award finding that the arbitrator, by ignoring unambiguous contractual language, exceeded his authority. The arbitrator’s decision is consistent with a reasonable, appropriate interpretation of the contested contractual language; thus, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2746
State v. Clemmons 27769Defendant appeals from a judgment following resentencing for the sole purpose of properly imposing post-release control. Defendant’s assignments of error, all of which relate to pretrial or trial matters, are barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 7/13/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2747