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

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

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:   What is Year Decided?
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 298 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Richard C. Alkire Co., L.P.A. v. Alsfelder 104153Legal malpractice; complaint for attorney fees; motion for summary judgment; expert report. Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff-law firm when the defendant failed to produce an expert report. Without any affirmative evidence, the defendant could not establish the elements of his legal malpractice counterclaim.KilbaneCuyahoga 4/27/2017 4/27/2017 2017-Ohio-1547
State v. Pettry 104519R.C. 2901.13(A)(3)(a)/statute of limitations/rape; John Doe/DNA indictment. Dismissal of the indictment against appellee was proper. The statute of limitations expired prior to amendment of the indictment; appellee's identity was known prior to expiration of the statute of limitations, and a DNA match was made prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.JonesCuyahoga 4/27/2017 4/27/2017 2017-Ohio-1548
State v. Mauldin 104540Moot; dismiss; misdemeanor; probation terminated. Appeal dismissed. Appeal is moot because during the pendency of the appeal, the trial court terminated appellant's probation and placed him on postrelease control. The trial court ordered that appellant be released.KilbaneCuyahoga 4/27/2017 4/27/2017 2017-Ohio-1549
Lang v. Beachwood Pointe Care Ctr. 104691Directed verdict; punitive damages; attorney fees; litigation expenses; malice; insufficient evidence. Court erred by denying defendant's motion for directed verdict on issue of punitive damages in nursing home negligence case, because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of malice. Additionally, because punitive damages were improperly awarded, the court also erred by awarding attorney fees and, in part, litigation expenses.BlackmonCuyahoga 4/27/2017 4/27/2017 2017-Ohio-1550
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Brown 104702Foreclosure; Civ.R. 60(B); meritorious claim or defense; lis pendens. The trial court properly denied the motion for relief from judgment where the purported meritorious claim or defense was that the proper party in interest was not included in the suit where a defendant transferred title property that was the subject of a foreclosure action to a third party during the pendency of the action. The doctrine of lis pendens disposed of such a claim.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 4/27/2017 4/27/2017 2017-Ohio-1551
Sanderfer v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. 104720Civ.R. 56/summary judgment. Appellant's counsel failed to follow the trial court's order; the trial court considered the evidence in the case. The trial court's granting of summary judgment was sufficiently supported.JonesCuyahoga 4/27/2017 4/27/2017 2017-Ohio-1552
State v. Jimenez 104735Plain error; preliminary hearing; invited error; violation; community control; sentencing hearing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant expressly conceded at a preliminary hearing that a violation of community control sanctions occurred and, therefore, waived his right to written notice before a revocation hearing, but the trial court erred by imposing a sentencing upon the violation without considering the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12 and 2929.11.GallagherCuyahoga 4/27/2017 4/27/2017 2017-Ohio-1553
State v. Miller 104747Sexual predator; clear and convincing evidence; due process; equal protection; sex offender; sexual battery; R.C. 2907.03(A)(1); Megan's Law; former R.C. Chapter 2950; manifest weight; plain error; Crim.R. 52. The trial court conducted an adequate sex offender classification hearing. The trial court's sexual predator classification is not against the manifest weight of the evidence and does not violate appellant's constitutional rights to due process or equal protection.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 4/27/2017 4/27/2017 2017-Ohio-1554
Love v. Crestmont Cadillac 104807Stay; arbitration; vehicle; purchase; Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act; CSPA; negligent misrepresentation; Magnusson Moss Warranty Act; unconscionable; procedural; substantive; adhesion; unequal bargaining; public policy; due process protocol; R.C. 2711.02; hearing; discretion. Trial court's decision to stay case pending arbitration was upheld. All claims surrounding the purchase of a vehicle fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, which was neither procedurally or substantively unconscionable. A trial court has discretion to hold a hearing on the motion to stay pursuant to R.C. 2711.02, and the court did not abuse that discretion where it ordered supplemental briefing and had an adequate record upon which to make a determination without a hearing.GallagherCuyahoga 4/27/2017 4/27/2017 2017-Ohio-1555
Sheerer v. Billak 104879R.C. 2903.214; civil stalking protection order; motion for relief from judgment; Civ.R. 60(B); modification; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the parties' joint motion for relief from judgment, or motion to modify or terminate the civil stalking protection order, where the court relied upon evidence from the full protection order hearing that demonstrated the respondent engaged in menacing behavior that caused the petitioner mental distress.McCormackCuyahoga 4/27/2017 4/27/2017 2017-Ohio-1556