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

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

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:   What is Year Decided?
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 123 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Hall OT-16-026The trial court's decision that R.C. 2941.401 time limits had been met was not contrary to law. Trial counsel was not so ineffective as to deprive appellant of meaningful representation because no error on record resulted in prejudice or precluded him from entering a knowing, voluntary plea.SingerOttawa 4/28/2017 4/28/2017 2017-Ohio-2577
State v. Arrington E-16-050Due to the state's unexplained delay in providing discovery, the trial court did not err when it granted defendant's motion to dismiss based upon a speedy trial violation. R.C. 2945.71; R.C. 2945.72.PietrykowskiErie 4/28/2017 4/28/2017 2017-Ohio-2578
State v. Holcomb L-16-1112Appellant's sentence was not contrary to law, disproportionate, or inconsistent where the trial court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors and guidelines pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. JensenLucas 4/28/2017 4/28/2017 2017-Ohio-2579
Johnson v. Komisarek L-16-1040Domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion in granting a domestic relations civil protection order against appellant where the evidence demonstrated that appellant pointed a firearm at appellee, smashed her telephone, and pushed her into a toolbox, bruising her elbow and forearm in the process.JensenLucas 4/28/2017 4/28/2017 2017-Ohio-2580
State v. Holliday L-15-1264Physical-harm robbery; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; jury instruction which included an instruction relating to the victim's "fear and apprehension" was not an abuse of discretion.PietrykowskiLucas 4/28/2017 4/28/2017 2017-Ohio-2581
State ex rel. Muscioni v. Binette E-17-018Sua sponte dismissal of application for a writ of mandamus because the issue of jail time credit must be raised in a direct appeal.SingerErie 4/24/2017 4/25/2017 2017-Ohio-1522
Howard v. Hawkins L-16-1087A trial court abuses its discretion when it allows a defendant to file an answer out of time absent a showing of excusable neglect. A contract is not lawfully binding on a party when there is fraud or forgery in procuring the party's signature. The judgment of the trial court was amply supported by competent, credible evidence where appellant failed to meet her burden of proving the existence of a lawful contract. SingerLucas 4/21/2017 4/21/2017 2017-Ohio-1473
Martin v. Block Communications, Inc. L-16-1213Trial court did not err in: finding that appellant did not have a right to amend his complaint because he failed to file an amended complaint within the time allowed under Civ.R. 15(A); denying appellant's motion for leave to amend because the proposed amended complaint did not cure the pleading deficiencies; or considering appellees' Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the original complaint because it was the only pleading before the trial court. Judgment affirmed.MayleLucas 4/21/2017 4/21/2017 2017-Ohio-1474
Pike-Delta-York Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Pike-Delta-York Edn. Assn. F-16-006Arbitration. Arbitrator exceeded his powers and imperfectly executed his powers so that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. R.C. 2711.10(D). Trial court did not err in vacating arbitrator's award. No evidence of material mistake or extensive impropriety by trial court.SingerFulton 4/21/2017 4/21/2017 2017-Ohio-1476
Pittman v. Parillo L-16-1140Trial court properly granted summary judgment to appellees. Judgment affirmed.OsowikLucas 4/21/2017 4/21/2017 2017-Ohio-1477