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 454 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Young 15AP-1144Judgment affirmed. Appellant's convictions for aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, robbery with a firearm specification, felonious assault with a firearm specification, and having a weapon under a disability are affirmed. Sufficient evidence exists to support the guilty verdicts as to the firearm specifications. There was no plain error or obvious defect in the trial proceedings, and the admission of a Cellular Review prepared by an expert witness detective based on AT&T's records did not affect the outcome of the trial, or cause a manifest miscarriage of justice. In addition, there was no prosecutor misconduct, plain error in the photo lineup, nor ineffective assistance of counsel.HortonFranklin 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 2017-Ohio-9028
Walker v. Hughes 16AP-671Where the record does not indicate that the magistrate or trial court committed plain error, and appellant's brief did not provide legal errors for review nor a transcript that would support any conclusion otherwise, an appellate court must presume the regularity of the trial court's proceedings and affirm its decision. Judgment affirmed.BrunnerFranklin 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 2017-Ohio-9029
B.H. v. Dept. of Admin. Servs. 16AP-747Portion of judgment granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of insurance plan administrator was not a final, appealable order because judgment was without prejudice and claims could potentially be refiled in the court of common pleas. Portion of judgment granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Department of Administrative Services was a final, appealable order. The trial court did not err by concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against DAS, because the essence of appellants' claim for financial compensation sounded in law and, therefore, was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.DorrianFranklin 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 2017-Ohio-9030
Johncol, Inc. v. Cardinal Concession Servs. L.L.C. 17AP-337Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on a claim for an action on an accounting. The trial court abused its discretion by utilizing a certain accrual date in awarding prejudgment interest without making specific factual determination as to when the debt should have been paid. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings relating only to the issue of prejudgment interest.DorrianFranklin 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 2017-Ohio-9031
HDV Cleveland, L.L.C. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. 17AP-362Because the protections afforded expressive conduct under Art. I, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution are no greater than those guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Ohio Adm.Code 4301:1-1-52(B)(2), otherwise known as Rule 52, does not violate appellant's right to freedom of expression under Art. I, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that substantial, reliable, and probative evidence supported the Liquor Control Commission's order requiring appellant to pay a $100,000 forfeiture in lieu of revoking appellant's liquor permit and that the order was in accordance with law. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 2017-Ohio-9032
Ron Christopher Co., Inc. v. Borruso 17AP-369The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for relief from judgment. Because appellant did not allege any special or unusual circumstances caused him to improperly calendar the filing deadline, he failed to establish excusable neglect.KlattFranklin 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 2017-Ohio-9033
State ex rel. Pacheco v. Indus. Comm. 15AP-1033Magistrate's findings of fact adopted in their entirety, and the conclusions of law as to relator's first and second objections adopted except as stated herein. Where, as a matter of law, there is no evidence in the record that the light-duty job provided to the injured worker was a legitimate good-faith job under Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-32(A)(6), the commission abuses its discretion in denying the injured worker a new period of temporary total disability. Consequently, injured worker's third objection to the magistrate's decision is sustained. Writ of mandamus granted; the commission is ordered to vacate its order denying reconsideration of the SHO order for the hearing held July 15, 2015 and mailed August 6, 2015. Because the commission maintains continuing jurisdiction over the claim, it is within the commission's discretion whether to grant TTD or to order a new hearing.BrunnerFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8971
State ex rel. Honda of Am., Mfg., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. 16AP-19Magistrate's decision adopted. The magistrate properly stated the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law to find that relator had demonstrated that the doctor's report on which the Industrial Commission's hearing officer had relied exclusively in awarding permanent total disability benefits was so internally inconsistent as to whether the injured worker was capable of sustained remunerative employment or was permanently and totally disabled that it did not constitute some evidence to support the PTD award. Limited writ of mandamus granted, ordering the commission to vacate its decision denying reconsideration and, in a manner consistent with this decision, to hold a new hearing and enter a new order that adjudicates the PTD application having corrected the deficiencies described in the decision.BrunnerFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8972
State ex rel. Coseno v. Indus. Comm. 16AP-151Coseno is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus as there is some evidence in the record to support the commission's denial of Coseno's TTD compensation request.Luper SchusterFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8973
Jennings v. Jennings 16AP-711Trial court did not err when it considered appellant's VA disability benefits as a source of income in determining a spousal support award pursuant to R.C. 3105.18. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay appellee attorney fees, expenses and costs related to the trial. Judgment affirmed.Dorrian, J.Franklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8974
12345678910...>>