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 597 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re C.T-T. 107059Emergency temporary custody; temporary order; R.C. 3127.15(A)(1); jurisdiction; shared parenting plan; fraud; duress; undue influence. Appellant’s arguments related to a temporary order are moot because that order is merged into the trial court’s final decree. The shared parenting plan is a binding settlement agreement. Appellant presented no evidence of fraud, duress, or undue influence in her assent to the shared parenting plan.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 8/22/2019 8/22/2019 2019-Ohio-3362
Firefighters Community Credit Union v. Woodside Mtge. Servs., Inc. 107134Enforceable contract; summary judgment. An enforceable contract exists based on the disputed fact that the parties operated under the terms of an unsigned agreement for nearly a decade, and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. S. GallagherCuyahoga 8/22/2019 8/22/2019 2019-Ohio-3363
Palnik v. Crane 107400Temporary; spousal support; child support; civil contempt; modification; service; hearing; defense; impossibility; comply; purge; good faith; local rules; tax return; income; motion to dismiss. Because the trial court has yet to enter a final divorce decree, the validity of the temporary order is not subject to appellate review at this time. The trial court committed reversible error by considering the merits of a motion to show cause absent proper service. The motion was mistakenly delivered to an inaccurate address. The trial court did not commit reversible error by denying Husband’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Loc.R. 20 of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Domestic Relations Division. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Husband in contempt for failing to comply with court’s temporary support order. The purge conditions of the contempt judgment are not unreasonable or impossible for Husband to meet.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 8/22/2019 8/22/2019 2019-Ohio-3364
State v. Nelson 107823Ineffective assistance of counsel; sentence; allied offense; merger; separate harm; plea; guilty; knowingly; intelligently; voluntary; substantial compliance; prejudice; maximum penalty. Defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Defense counsel’s mistaken prediction about the likelihood of a particular sentence was insufficient to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not err by failing to merge the offenses and imposing separate concurrent sentences. Defendant’s offenses were not allied offenses of similar import.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 8/22/2019 8/22/2019 2019-Ohio-3365
State v. Poole 107829Sufficiency; manifest weight; rape; kidnapping. Sufficiency was established where there was a finding that the manifest weight of the evidence supported appellant’s convictions. Scientific evidence supported appellant’s rape conviction.JonesCuyahoga 8/22/2019 8/22/2019 2019-Ohio-3366
State v. Taylor 107881Sentence; recidivism; factors; clearly; convincingly; considerations; finding; seriousness; contrary to law; deferential; felony; principles; purposes. The sentence was not contrary to law, the trial court considered the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the sentence was supported by the record.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 8/22/2019 8/22/2019 2019-Ohio-3367
Diemert v. Binstock 107893Civ.R. 41(B)(2)/motion for dismissal; manifest weight. Although the property was sold “as is,” appellant had the opportunity to hire a private home inspector but failed to do so. Further, appellant failed to submit any evidence that appellee knowingly knew of and withheld knowledge of a preexisting condition. No fraud was established. The trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint with prejudice was proper. The dismissal was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.JonesCuyahoga 8/22/2019 8/22/2019 2019-Ohio-3368
Chisholm v. Cleveland Clinic Found. 107901Racial discrimination; disparate treatment; disparate impact; statistical evidence; pretext. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s disparate-treatment-discrimination claim where the undisputed evidence showed that plaintiff was replaced by an individual from the same class, and plaintiff failed to show that a similarly situated comparator from a nonprotected class was treated more favorably. Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s disparate-impact-discrimination claim where plaintiff failed to present significant statistical evidence of disparate effects caused by the adverse-employment action.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 8/22/2019 8/22/2019 2019-Ohio-3369
State v. Metz 107945R.C. 2981.11(A)(1); motion for return of property. Under R.C. 2981.11(A)(1), any property that has been seized pursuant to a search warrant, or otherwise lawfully seized and that is in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall be kept safely by the agency, pending the time it no longer is needed as evidence or for another lawful purpose. Based on the above statute, if an item is potentially needed for evidence or for some other lawful purpose, it may be held. Alternatively, if the item is no longer needed, it may be returned or otherwise disposed. Metz’s direct appeal remains pending in this court and the cell phone is potential evidence should a new trial be ordered. As a result, Metz’s cell phone, which is a piece of evidence that could be used during a potential retrial, may be held under R.C. 2981.11(A). Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Metz’s motion for the return of his cell phone.KilbaneCuyahoga 8/22/2019 8/22/2019 2019-Ohio-3370
Baon v. Fairview Hosp. 107946Civ.R. 60(B), motion for relief from judgment, nonattorney, pro se litigant, R.C. 4705.01, statute of limitations, savings statute. The trial court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion for relief from judgment because he did not have a meritorious claim. The appellant, a nonattorney, impermissibly filed a complaint for wrongful death on behalf of the decedent’s next of kin in violation of R.C. 4705.01. Because of this, appellant’s complaint was a nullity — it was as if he never filed a complaint. Therefore, the appellant failed to commence or attempt to commence an action for wrongful death within the statute of limitations, and his claim for wrongful death is time-barred. BoyleCuyahoga 8/22/2019 8/22/2019 2019-Ohio-3371
12345678910...>>