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 608 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Lloyd v. Roosevelt Properties, Ltd. 105721Breach of warranty of habitability; constructive eviction; breach of contract; R.C. 5321.04; R.C. 5321.16; R.C. 5321.07; security deposit; damages; attorney fees; manifest weight. The trial court’s findings in favor of tenant for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, breach of contract, and constructive eviction were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Landlord violated R.C. 5321.16(B) by withholding tenant’s security deposit. Further, the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded excessive attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 5321.07 and in awarding compensatory damages to tenant. CELEBREZZECuyahoga 8/9/2018 8/9/2018 2018-Ohio-3163
Tiggs c/o Indian hills Healthcare Group, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 106022R.C. 5101.35; R.C. 119.12; R.C. Chapter 5163; medicaid eligibility requirements; administrative appeal; 42 C.F.R. 435.923; Ohio Adm.Code 5160-1-33; authorized representative; standing. The trial court did not err in its statutory interpretation when it found an authorized representative had standing to appeal the denial of an individual’s medicaid eligibility to the trial court. The administrative agency lacked statutory authority pursuant to R.C. 119.12 to bring its appeal, and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the agency’s appeal. CelebrezzeCuyahoga 8/9/2018 8/9/2018 2018-Ohio-3164
UBS Fin. servs., Inc. v. Lacava 106256Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; charging order; R.C. 1705.19; fraudulent transfer; venue; statute of limitations; R.C. 1336.09; R.C. 1336.04; R.C. 1336.07; standing; R.C. 1336.08; transferee; operating agreement; attorney fees; R.C. 1705.18; R.C. 1705.081; Civ.R. 3; Civ.R. 12; waiver; interested party; due process. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee. The trial court did not err in ordering appellant to comply with the charging order. Appellant lacks standing to assert the rights of third parties or to challenge the trial court’s judgment in order to protect their rights. Because appellant was not the prevailing party, the trial court did not err in determining that appellee was not required to pay appellant’s attorney fees. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to transfer venue because the record reflects that appellant waived the defense of improper venue. Appellant was an interested party in the trial court proceedings, and thus, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to be removed as a defendant. The trial court’s orders on summary judgment did not violate appellant’s due process rights.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 8/9/2018 8/9/2018 2018-Ohio-3165
Parma v. Treanor 106275Aggravated menacing, domestic violence, threats, self-defense, Castle Doctrine. Trial court erred in refusing to give the jury an instruction on self-defense and the Castle Doctrine. Both defenses are affirmative defenses to offenses where the threat of harm is an element of the offense. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the instructions because the defendant, who was inside his own home, had a reasonable belief of great bodily harm, and that he used a reasonable threat of force to repel what he perceived to be an imminent threat. KeoughCuyahoga 8/9/2018 8/9/2018 2018-Ohio-3166
State v. McCaughey 106311Indictment delay; Crim.R. 5(B); motion to dismiss; speedy trial; R.C. 2945.71(C)(2). Trial court did not err by dismissing indictment on speedy trial grounds. The statutory time for defendant’s subsequent felony indictment began to run on the date of defendant’s arrest, and the subsequent indictment 13 months after the date of arrest, with no other additional facts, violated defendant’s speedy trial rights. CelebrezzeCuyahoga 8/9/2018 8/9/2018 2018-Ohio-3167
State v. Henderson 106340,107334Jail-time credit; R.C. 2967.191; confinement; community-based correctional facility; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2953.08; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court erred by failing to award appellant jail-time credit for the time he spent in the community-based correctional facility. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences because the court complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and made the requisite consecutive sentence findings. CelebrezzeCuyahoga 8/9/2018 8/9/2018 2018-Ohio-3168
Cleveland MetroParks v. Sferra 106341R.C. 1547.41, operating a watercraft after sunset, R.C. 2921.29, failure to produce identification, Fifth Amendment right to travel, law enforcement jurisdiction on Lake Erie, R.C. 4705.01, R.C. 2301.33, judicial practice of law, code of judicial conduct, Crim.R. 11(A), R.C. 1901.20, municipal court jurisdiction, manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Interstate travel is a fundamental right but the right to intrastate travel, whether by motor vehicle or watercraft, is a privilege. The CMRD Unit has authority to enforce the law on Lake Erie within Cuyahoga County extending to the international boundary line between the United States and Canada. Crim.R. 11(A) allows a trial court to enter a not guilty plea on behalf of a defendant that refuses to plead. Appellant’s convictions are supported by the manifest weight of the evidence, subsuming the sufficiency challenge. MaysCuyahoga 8/9/2018 8/9/2018 2018-Ohio-3169
Pantages v. Becker 106407Arbitration; motion; compel; stay; de novo; contract; whole; context; language; intent; arbitration clause; placement; subsection; fee disputes; Rules of Professional Conduct; Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(f). Affirmed trial court’s decision that denied defendants-appellants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.03, to stay proceedings pursuant to R.C. 2711.02 and/or for order of dismissal. Upon examining the contract as a whole and reading the words of the arbitration clause in context, it was determined that the clear intent of the contracting parties was to limit the arbitration clause to disputes involving the division of attorney fees after termination of the employment agreement. The arbitration clause was placed within a subsection to the section of the agreement pertaining to the division of attorney fees, and the language referenced the Rules of Professional Conduct and any other requirements mandated by the Ohio Supreme Court for resolution of disputes between attorneys, which is consistent with arbitrating fee disputes pursuant to Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(f). Parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate a dispute they have not agreed to submit to arbitration.GallagherCuyahoga 8/9/2018 8/9/2018 2018-Ohio-3170
State v. McGee 106423Megan’s Law; Adam Walsh Act; de novo; resentencing; limited; classification; sexual predator; void; plea; stipulation; automatic; remedial; jurisdiction. When a defendant stipulates as part of his plea bargain that he is to be classified as a sexual predator, such classification is automatic and there is no need for the trial court to conduct a hearing. The trial court had jurisdiction to automatically impose the civil and remedial classification based on the defendant’s stipulation at the time of his plea.GallagherCuyahoga 8/9/2018 8/9/2018 2018-Ohio-3171
In re: C.W. 106465R.C. 2923.13(A)(2); having weapons while under disability; juvenile adjudication; motion to dismiss. The trial court did not err in denying a juvenile’s motion to dismiss. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Hand does not ban the use of a prior juvenile adjudication as the disability element of the offense of having weapons while under disability. CelebrezzeCuyahoga 8/9/2018 8/9/2018 2018-Ohio-3172