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 86 rows. Rows per page: 
123456789
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Bentz 1-16-17The defendant-appellant's rape conviction under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and sexual battery conviction under R.C. 2907.03(A)(2) are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant appellant's kidnapping conviction under R.C. 2905.01(A)(2) is based on insufficient evidence. The trial court erred in finding Bentz guilty of sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) in light of the Supreme Court of Ohio's determination in State v. Mole that R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) is unconstitutional. 149 Ohio St.3d 215, 2016-Ohio-5124. The trial court did not consider irrelevant evidence when determining Bentz's credibility. The admission of evidence related to the elements of the now unconstitutional R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) does not warrant Bentz a new trial because that evidence was probative of whether Bentz was guilty of the other crimes for which he was on trial. Bentz's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the State's asking K.A. leading questions during direct examination.PrestonAllen 6/26/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5483
State v. Wilson 1-16-57The trial court did nor err in finding that the property description in the warrant was sufficient. The trial court did not err by denying the motion to exclude oral evidence because the applicable rule does not require the transcription of oral testimony prior to the execution of the warrantPrestonAllen 6/26/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5484
State v. Fisher 2-17-03The trial court did not err in finding that the stop was jusfied by reasonable, articulable suspicion. The facts before the trial court supported a finding that there was probable cause to arrest even if the field sobriety tests were not properly performed.WillamowskiAuglaize 6/26/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5485
Sigler v. Burk 3-16-19The trial court properly granted summary judgment to Appellees on the issue of testamentary capacity but erred in granting summary judgment on Appellant's claim of undue influence by not affording Appellant a presumption of undue influene due to the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the testator and appellees. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and cause remanded. ZimmermanCrawford 6/26/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5486
State v. Featherston 6-16-10Appellant's three convictions for receiving stolen property are not allied offenses of similar import; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not removing Appellant's appointed attorney; any admission of hearsay statements was harmless; and the convictions of Appellant were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.ZimmermanHardin 6/26/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5487
State v. Keith 3-17-01Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence within requisite time period.ShawCrawford 6/26/2017 6/26/2017 2017-Ohio-5488
State v. Howton 1-16-35The crimes of rape and kidnapping are not allied offenses of similar import when committed at different times and in different locations.WillamowskiAllen 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 2017-Ohio-4349
Jalm Marion, L.L.C. v. Fair Park Ents., Inc. 9-16-42Trial court's judgment finding that the original repairs were not performed in a workmanlike manner was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's questioning of the witness did not violate the impartiality standard set forth in Evid.R. 614(B). The calculation of damages was improper when the repairs put the purchaser in a better position than would have existed if the original repairs were done in a workmanlike manner.WillamowskiMarion 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 2017-Ohio-4350
State v. Jones 8-16-18The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the Evid.R. 404(B) evidence.PrestonLogan 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 2017-Ohio-4351
In re L.W. 9-16-55, 9-16-56Trial court did not err in finding that terminating parental rights was in the best interests of the children and granting permanent custody to the Agency.WillamowskiMarion 6/19/2017 6/19/2017 2017-Ohio-4352
123456789