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 300 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. 106937Insurance; duty to defend. Trial court properly applied Ohio law to insurance dispute; trial court could look beyond the allegations of the complaint in determining the duty to defend where insurer obtained extrinsic evidence in discovery that injury/occurrence did not occur during the policy period. BlackmonCuyahoga 4/25/2019 4/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1522
State v. Blanton 107237Merger; allied offenses; R.C. 2941.25; separate victims; discharge of firearm at or near prohibited premises; victim is public at large; consecutive sentence; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.14.(C)(4). Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s convictions for attempted felonious assault and discharging a firearm at or near a prohibited premises do no merge for purposes of sentencing because these offenses were committed against separate victims (the specific victim of the felonious assault and the public at large). Defendant’s consecutive sentence was proper because the trial court encompassed each of the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Furthermore, defendant’s sentence is not contrary to law.KilbaneCuyahoga 4/25/2019 4/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1523
State v. Sanders 107253107253 Speedy trial; R.C. 2945.71; tolling of speedy trial time; R.C. 2945.72(D), (H); failure to respond to demand for discovery; continuance to secure trial attendance of key witness; domestic violence; R.C. 2919.25(D); enhancing element; R.C. 2945.75(A)(2); defect in verdict form; strict compliance; plain error. Defendant’s statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights were not violated. Defendant’s failure to respond to state’s demand for discovery tolled speedy trial time under R.C. 2945.72. Speedy trial time was also tolled where trial court granted reasonable and necessary continuances of the trial date to secure the attendance of the state’s key witness by bench warrant. Where the verdict form did not include a finding that prior conviction for attempted abduction involved a family or household member, the prior conviction did not elevate domestic violence offense to a third-degree felony under R.C. 2919.25(D) and 2945.75(A)(2). Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence reduced from a third-degree felony to a fourth-degree felony to conform to the verdict form; sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing on offense as a fourth-degree felony.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 4/25/2019 4/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1524
Cleveland v. Jones 107257OVI; motion to suppress; probable cause for traffic stop; reasonable suspicion for sobriety tests; probable cause to arrest. The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress because the trooper had probable cause to stop appellant’s vehicle; had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of appellant’s intoxication to subject him to field sobriety tests; and also had probable cause to arrest him.SheehanCuyahoga 4/25/2019 4/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1525
State v. Jones 107338Allied offenses of similar import; R.C. 2941.25; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court did not err when it failed to merge the defendant’s sexual battery and attempted rape convictions because the offenses involved separate acts committed on separate days. The trial court also did not err when it imposed consecutive sentences because it made the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive sentences, and the record supported the findings. BoyleCuyahoga 4/25/2019 4/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1526
State v. Busek 107356Right to speedy trial; R.C. 2945.71(C)(2); 270 days; motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds; subsequent charges; same facts. Judgment affirmed. -- Trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds was proper. Here, defendant was cited and pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia in municipal court. At the time of the traffic stop, the highway patrolman identified the pills as oxycodone (Schedule II) and the defendant admitted that the pills were Percocet. Defendant was subsequently charged in common pleas court with drug possession almost a year later. Because the subsequent drug possession charge arose from facts that related to the original charge, the speedy trial clock for the underlying charges herein arose when the defendant was indicted in municipal court and her statutory speedy trial rights were violated when she was later indicted with drug possession. KilbaneCuyahoga 4/25/2019 4/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1527
Foster v. Benson 107366Notice of service, lack of prosecution, failure to record, manifest weight, sufficiency, lack of transcript, damages award. The trial court did not violate plaintiffs’ due process rights when it proceeded to trial in their absence because the docket reflected that plaintiffs’ attorney received notice of the hearing. The trial court’s failure to make findings regarding plaintiffs’ absence was not error and the trial court did not err in not recording the proceedings because under Civ.R. 53(D)(7) it was plaintiffs’ responsibility to retain a private court reporter if they desired one. Further, plaintiff Foster failed to file a transcript or appropriate substitute, and therefore, we presume regularity of the lower court’s proceedings and find that the trial court’s judgment in favor of Benson was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, the trial court’s damages award to Benson on her counterclaim against Foster was proper, but the trial court erred in awarding damages to Thomas, because he did not file a counterclaim.BoyleCuyahoga 4/25/2019 4/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1528
State v. Tidmore 107369Imposition of consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); contrary to law; complete proportionality finding; consideration of alleged, uncharged criminal conduct during sentencing. Imposition of consecutive sentences was contrary to law where trial court failed to make finding that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the danger defendant poses to the public. Defendant was not deprived of due process or other constitutional rights based on trial court’s alleged consideration of uncharged criminal conduct when imposing maximum sentences. Consecutive sentences vacated; case remanded for trial court to again consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and, if so, to make all of the required findings on the record and incorporate those findings into its sentencing journal entry.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 4/25/2019 4/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1529
Freeman v. Todd Deegan Mgt., Inc. 107443Res Judicata -- Under the doctrine of res judicata, a valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of a previous action. The Ohio Supreme Court has identified four elements necessary to bar a claim under the doctrine of res judicata: (1) there is a final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the second action involves the same parties or their privies as the first; (3) the second action raises claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) the second action arises out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. In Deegan’s second cause of action for money damages, Freeman signed a consent entry agreeing to judgment in Deegan’s favor for $700 to be paid in monthly installments. The consent entry was reduced to a final judgment on March 2, 2016. The record indicates that Freeman made an installment payment on April 11, 2016 in the amount of $35, which is a clear indication that matter had been addressed and resolved. As a result, Freeman is barred from asserting or relitigating this claim in the present action.KilbaneCuyahoga 4/25/2019 4/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1530
State ex rel. OC Lorain Fulton, L.P. v. Cleveland 107481Constitutional law; partial takings claims. The trial court properly determined that the city’s denial of conditional-use approval, though reversed in a prior appeal, did not constitute a compensable partial “taking” under the proper standard.BlackmonCuyahoga 4/25/2019 4/25/2019 2019-Ohio-1531