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 675 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Robinson 104686R.C. 2953.08(G); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; not contrary to law. Appellant's sentence was not contrary to law as the trial court sentenced her within the statutory range for each of her convictions and the trial court's sentencing entry stated that it had "considered all required factors of the law."KilbaneCuyahoga 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8162
Piazza v. Cuyahoga Cty. 104724R.C. 2744.02, political subdivision immunity, summary judgment, R.C. 2744.09, employment relationship, employee. Plaintiff's claims arose out of her employment relationship with the county, and the county is not immune from liability pursuant to the exception in R.C. 2744.09(B).KeoughCuyahoga 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8163
State v. Agee 104915R.C. 2913.46(B), illegal use of food stamps, R.C. 2913.42(A)(1), tampering with records, Evid.R. 602, lack of personal knowledge. The evidence was insufficient to support appellant's convictions for knowingly using food stamps illegally, and tampering with or falsifying records arising from an alleged overpayment of food stamp benefits due to appellant's failure to report income changes. The state's sole witness had no personal knowledge of the case, never talked with the appellant, did not know whether appellant had been informed of reporting requirements, but admitted that the income change did not render appellant ineligible to receive food stamps. At least one of the reports referenced in the agency's evidence, which supported that appellant had informed the agency of an income change, was missing, and the submitted reports supported appellant's position. The income amounts inserted in the reports were calculated by the agency. Appellant timely reported the income in issue in her income tax records. The agency did not contact appellant to discuss the matter except to request copies of the tax filings which she promptly provided.Laster MaysCuyahoga 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8164
Martin v. Lamrite West, Inc. 105395Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act; R.C. 1345.09; class action; actual damages; restitution; Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-12; motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs-appellants' claim that defendant-retailer's advertisments violated the CSPA, specifically R.C. 1345.02(B)(8), could not survive as a class action claim because plaintiffs did not adequately plead actual damages as required to maintain a CSPA class action claim under R.C. 1345.09(B). The trial court properly granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the class action claim.KilbaneCuyahoga 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8170
Zacharias v. Medicore Transport Inc. 105413Settlement; motion to enforce settlement; jurisdiction; mediation. The trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant defendants' motion to enforce settlement agreement. The trial court had dismissed the case with prejudice and failed to either incorporate the terms of the settlement agreement in the dismissal entry or expressly state that it was retaining jurisdiction.McCormackCuyahoga 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8171
State v. Goines 105436Guilty plea; drug possession; Crim.R. 11; community control sanction; Crim.R. 32.3; postrelease control; final order; court costs; Crim.R. 43. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 and appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered the guilty plea. The trial court's imposition of community control sanctions was not a final judgment of sentence, and thus, could not have been revoked. The trial court's sentencing journal entry is inconsistent with the imposition of court costs in open court during the sentencing hearing; the sentencing journal entry should be corrected in this respect through a nunc pro tunc entry. The trial court failed to properly impose postrelease control at sentencing; the imposition of postrelease control is reversed and the matter is remanded for the proper imposition of postrelease control. The trial court erred by imposing a sentence on Count 6 in its sentencing journal entry because the court did not sentence appellant on this count during the sentencing hearing; the matter is remanded for clarification of the sentence on this count.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8172
Carlo v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc. 105725Summary judgment; slip and fall; open and obvious; constructive knowledge. Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's slip and fall negligence claim because Plaintiff could offer no evidence to demonstrate that Defendants caused the hazard, had knowledge of it or that it had existed for a sufficient period of time to establish constructive knowledge.GallagherCuyahoga 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8173
State v. Musleh 105305No contest plea; knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea; Crim.R. 11(B)(2); Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b); effect-of-plea requirement; presentence motion to withdraw plea; abuse of discretion; substantial compliance; partial compliance; presumption; prejudice; ineffective assistance of counsel; failure to pursue motion to suppress; legitimate expectation of privacy in premises searched. Trial court did not err in accepting defendant's no contest plea and did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's presentence motion to withdraw his plea. Where defendant was advised of the essence and negative effects of his no contest plea and presumption that defendant understood the effect of his plea applied, trial court partially complied with the effect-of-plea requirement under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b). Defendant did not establish that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the trial court's failure to fully comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b). Defendant did not establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's recommendation that he enter a plea that allegedly offered no benefit or trial counsel's failure to pursue a motion to suppress evidence that was not likely to have been successful.GallagherCuyahoga 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8166
Leon v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 105306Summary judgment, ambiguous contract terms. The trial court did not err in denying appellants' motion for summary judgment because the terms of the insurance policy were not ambiguous.Laster MaysCuyahoga 10/12/2017 10/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8168
In re Guardianship of Shear 105330Guardianship; termination; abuse of discretion; R.C. 2111.47; satisfactory proof. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the ward's motion to terminate the guardianship where she failed to provide, under R.C. 2111.47, satisfactory proof the necessity for guardianship no longer exists.McCormackCuyahoga 10/5/2017 10/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8169
12345678910...>>