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 211 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Hall 27695The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motions to suppress. The record establishes that the police did not extend appellant’s detention beyond what was reasonably necessary to resolve the issues associated with the traffic stop and to issue a traffic citation. The 19-minute time period between when the officer began writing the citation and when the K-9 unit alerted on appellant’s vehicle was therefore reasonable under the facts presented in the instant case. The record establishes that the park ranger initiated the traffic stop of appellant after observing him run a stop sign located in an area which is adjacent to park grounds. Trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motions to suppress regarding spontaneous statements he made before being arrested, as well as statements he made after waiving his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Trial court did not err when it overruled his motion to dismiss because appellant was unable to provide any evidence of “actual prejudice” based upon a six-month delay between his arrest and the filing of his indictment. Pursuant to R.C. 1545.13(B), a park ranger has jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed on park grounds and on property adjacent to park grounds. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a mandatory fine of $10,000.00 on appellant. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2321
West Carrollton City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision 27679The Board of Tax Appeals did not act unreasonably or unlawfully, nor did it abuse its discretion when it found Appellee’s appraisal to be competent and probative evidence of the market value of the subject property. In addition, the BTA did not improperly consider the subject property’s present use when deciding market value; the BTA considered the present use in conjunction with the highest and best use of the property and did not improperly exclude other factors. The BTA also did not either abuse its discretion or err in accepting the capitalization rate of Appellee’s expert rather than the rate used by Appellant’s expert. Finally, the BTA did not abuse its discretion by recognizing Appellee’s appraiser as an expert witness. All the BTA’s decisions were supported by reliable and probative evidence. Affirmed.HallMontgomery 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2322
Kettering City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. McDonald's USA, L.L.C.; Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision 27684The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) did not act unreasonably or unlawfully, nor did it abuse its discretion when it found Appellee’s appraisal to be competent and probative evidence of the market value of the subject property. In addition, the BTA did not improperly consider the subject property’s present use when deciding market value; the BTA considered the present use in conjunction with the highest and best use of the property and did not improperly exclude other factors. The BTA also did not either abuse its discretion or err in accepting the capitalization rate of Appellee’s expert rather than the rate used by Appellant’s expert. Finally, the BTA did not abuse its discretion by recognizing Appellee’s appraiser as an expert witness. All the BTA’s decisions were supported by reliable and probative evidence. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2323
West Carrollton City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision 27686The Board of Tax Appeals did not act unreasonably or unlawfully, nor did it abuse its discretion when it found Appellee’s appraisal to be competent and probative evidence of the market value of the subject property. In addition, the BTA did not improperly consider the subject property’s present use when deciding market value; the BTA considered the present use in conjunction with the highest and best use of the property and did not improperly exclude other factors. The BTA also did not either abuse its discretion or err in accepting the capitalization rate of Appellee’s expert rather than the rate used by Appellant’s expert. Finally, the BTA did not abuse its discretion by recognizing Appellee’s appraiser as an expert witness. All the BTA’s decisions were supported by reliable and probative evidence. Affirmed.HallMontgomery 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2324
Kettering City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision 27683The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in adopting the evidence of the board of education (BOE) with respect to the valuation of a McDonald’s. The experts’ selections of comparable properties for sales and income capitalization analyses varied significantly. The owner’s valuations were based on restaurants of any type and one which was sold for a non-restaurant use, all of which were located within Montgomery County, whereas the BOE’s expert focused more specifically on fast-food restaurants, which place a higher value on accessibility using a drive-thru, and included properties in a wider geographical area. The BTA did not act unreasonably in concluding that one appraisal more accurately valued the McDonald’s property. Although the BOE’s expert stated that the McDonald’s might have been valued as a special-purpose property, he did not, in fact, value the McDonald’s in this manner. The BTA’s rejection of an appraiser’s valuation in another case did not, in itself, disqualify the expert or impugn his opinions in this case. Decision and Order of the BTA affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2325
State v. Glenn 27639In pretrial motions, the defendant alleged that the person he was charged with murdering had raped his young daughter. He sought to obtain (and presumably admit) extrinsic evidence to substantiate the alleged rape and to show that he had committed voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, because the rape had caused him to act in sudden passion or fit of rage. He also sought an expert’s evaluation of his state of mind at the time of the shooting. The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in concluding that, because defendant had learned of the alleged rape four months prior to the shooting, and because he had had a “cooling off” period of more than eight minutes between the time of his first altercation with the victim and the shooting of the victim, he was not entitled to argue that he had committed voluntary manslaughter rather than murder and was not entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Based on this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that an expert’s report regarding defendant’s subjective state of mind (which was not made a part of the record) was inadmissible because defendant’s actions were not objectively and/or subjectively reasonable. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2326
State v. Ogletree, Jr. 27767The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motion to suppress. The record establishes that the police did not unreasonably extend appellant’s detention beyond what was reasonably necessary to resolve the issues associated with the traffic stop and to issue a traffic citation. The appellant did not receive ineffective assistance when his counsel failed to ask the arresting officer additional questions regarding the time it took him to complete appellant’s traffic citation. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2327
Brown v. Burnett 2017-CA-86The trial court’s entry overruling objections and adopting a magistrate’s decision is not an appealable order under Bennett v. Bennett, 2012-Ohio-501, 969 N.E.2d 344 (2d Dist.). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of the appellant’s arguments. Appeal dismissed.HallClark 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2328
State v. Weaver 27579Defendant-appellant, following the merger of a number of counts, was convicted and sentenced on one count of murder under R.C. 2903.02(B) and R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), one count of endangering children under R.C. 2919.22(A), and one count of obstructing official business under R.C. 2921.31(A). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by the admission of a cruiser camera video recording or by overruling Defendant-appellant’s objection to a portion of a witness’s testimony. Defendant-appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and they are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct during the State’s opening statement or closing argument, and the trial court did not improperly restrict Defendant-appellant’s closing argument. The trial court did not commit plain error by allowing Defendant-appellant and his wife to be tried together. Finally, Defendant-appellant’s attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2329
State v. Jones 27506; 27507The appellant’s convictions on two counts of felonious assault are supported by legally sufficient evidence and are not against the weight of the evidence. Although the number of shell casings recovered at the crime scene did not match the number of shots allegedly fired by the appellant, the jury reasonably could have concluded that not all of the casings were recovered in the dark and that enough shots were fired for the appellant to have fired at three people. The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant’s motion to suppress a pretrial photo identification where the photospread was not unduly suggestive. Any question about whether an eyewitness identified Jones as the shooter or merely as someone he had seen in the neighborhood went to the weight and significance of the identification rather than its admissibility. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 2018-Ohio-2330
12345678910...>>