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?
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.?
Citation:
   What is Citation?
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.
This search returned 342 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Parker 115039Participating in a criminal gang; R.C. 2923.42(A); sufficiency; active participation; jury instructions; ineffective assistance of counsel. Affirmed appellant’s conviction for participating in a criminal gang in violation of R.C. 2923.42(A), which was supported by sufficient evidence in the case. The testimony and evidence established more than a passive or nominal association with the gang, the State presented substantial evidence demonstrating appellant’s active participation in the criminal gang, and the other elements of the offense were met. Appellant failed to demonstrate any plain error occurred with the jury instructions or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a jury instruction on active participation.S. GallagherCuyahoga 6/11/2026 6/11/2026 2026-Ohio-2178
Aurora Smile Ctr., L.L.C. v. Schmidt 115072Breach of contract; telecommunications harassment; attorney fees; dispute of attorney fees; summary judgment; requests for admission; service; injunction; weight of the evidence. - Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment and a two-year injunction in favor of plaintiffs-appellees and did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees. Defendant-appellant’s arguments that he did not receive any filings other than the complaint are contradicted by the record and therefore unavailing.KeoughCuyahoga 6/11/2026 6/11/2026 2026-Ohio-2179
Cuyahoga Cty. Treasurer v. LaRossa Property Affiliates, Ltd. 115424Moot. The appellant’s claims are moot. An appeal is moot if the appellate court can grant no relief.Laster MaysCuyahoga 6/11/2026 6/11/2026 2026-Ohio-2181
In re D.H. 115510Juvenile court; shared parenting; child support; refresh recollection; Evid.R. 801(C); hearsay evidence; Evid.R. 612; harmless error; supervised parenting time; voluntarily underemployed; voluntarily unemployed; imputed income; bootstrapping; abuse of discretion. The trial court erred when it allowed paternal grandmother to testify to the contents of several police reports. The error, however, was harmless because there was no evidence that the trial court considered the reports in rendering its decision. The trial court considered the proper factors in ordering supervised parenting time. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Father to pay child support by finding that Father was voluntarily underemployed or voluntarily unemployed. The proper parties were joined to the case. The issue of the children’s surnames is not properly before this court because Father failed to timely appeal the issue.RyanCuyahoga 6/11/2026 6/11/2026 2026-Ohio-2182
State v. Wade 115581Murder; self-defense; manifest weight; credibility; jury instructions; hearsay; Confrontation Clause. Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State met its burden of rebutting appellant’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court also did not err in admitting witness testimony regarding decedent’s plan to end her relationship with appellant. While hearsay, these statements fell into a recognized exception to hearsay under Evid.R. 803(3). Further, the statements did not violate appellant’s due process rights under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution because they were nontestimonial statements. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to include the definitions of “residence” or “dwelling” in the jury instructions because it was undisputed that the altercation took place in appellant and decedent’s shared residence making these definitions irrelevant to any dispositive issues in the case.SheehanCuyahoga 6/11/2026 6/11/2026 2026-Ohio-2183
12345678910...>>