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 full-text search.
Opinion Text Search:    What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:   What is a Source?
Year Decided:   What is Decided?
County:   What is Decided?
Case Number:   What is Case Number?
Author:   What is Decided?
Topics and Issues:   What is Decided?
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 43 rows. Rows per page: 
12345
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Missler 6-14-06Defendant-appellant's convictions for breaking and entering, possessing criminal tools, safecracking, and tampering with evidence were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by allowing evidence suggesting that defendant-appellant had a parole or probation officer. Any abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing the admission of hearsay evidence relating to an investigating officer's out-of-court statement was harmless error because the remaining evidence constituted overwhelming proof of defendant-appellant's guilt. The trial court did not err by allowing testimony concerning threatening statements defendant-appellant made to a witness.PrestonHardin 3/23/2015 3/23/2015 2015-Ohio-1076
Nichols v. Young 12-14-08; 12-14-09The trial court did not err in granting appellee's petitions for protection orders against appellants because the decisions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. It was within the discretion of the trial court to allow appellee to reopen her case to present additional evidence after the appellants rested their cases.ShawPutnam 3/23/2015 3/23/2015 2015-Ohio-1077
State v. Stephens 13-14-28The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's motion to dismiss the repeat OVI offender specification in the indictment because appellant waived the issue by entering a guilty plea and by failing to file a motion to withdraw his plea.ShawSeneca 3/23/2015 3/23/2015 2015-Ohio-1078
State v. Waldock No. 13-14-22Defendant-Appellant, Bryan Waldock, appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Seneca County convicting him of aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated vehicular assault and sentencing him to a 48-month prison term. On appeal, Waldock argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress; (2) entering verdicts that were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence; (3) overruling his objections to State's Exhibits 19 and 21; and (4) refusing to grant a limiting instruction to the jury. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgment.RogersSeneca 3/23/2015 3/23/2015 2015-Ohio-1079
Smith v. Wyandot Mem. Hosp. 16-14-07The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees because there is no genuine issue of material fact since plaintiffs-appellants filed their claim well outside the four-year statute of repose. R.C. 2305.113 does not violate the equal-protection provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitutions because medical-misdiagnosis plaintiffs and retained-foreign-object plaintiffs are not similarly situated classes of plaintiffs.PrestonWyandot 3/23/2015 3/23/2015 2015-Ohio-1080
In re R.A.G. 1-13-24; 1-14-34The trial court did not err in denying motion for computer expert when court personnel were available to help counsel. Trial court did not err by failing to indicate which view was being observed during presentation of video when attorney was presenting the case. Verdicts were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in denying motion for post-conviction relief after evidentiary hearing.WillamowskiAllen 3/23/2015 3/23/2015 2015-Ohio-1081
State v. Schweitzer 2-14-10Sufficient evidence existed to convict defendant of domestic violence and conviction was not against the weight of the evidence.ShawAuglaize 3/16/2015 3/16/2015 2015-Ohio-925
State v. Moll 4-14-17; 4-14-18Defendant-Appellant, Timothy Moll, appeals the judgment of the Court of Commons Pleas of Defiance County convicting him of burglary and felonious assault and sentencing him to a four year prison term and five years of community control. On appeal, Moll argues that the trial court erred when it accepted his guilty pleas that were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, and when it denied his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgment.RogersDefiance 3/16/2015 3/16/2015 2015-Ohio-926
State v. Badertscher 12-14-06Convictions for various offenses were not allied and sentence to maximum consecutive sentences was supported by the record.ShawPutnam 3/16/2015 3/16/2015 2015-Ohio-927
Spearman v. Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. 6-14-13The trial court abused its discretion by granting defendants-appellees' motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings without first determining the physical dimensions of the easement at issue.PrestonHardin 3/16/2015 3/16/2015 2015-Ohio-928
12345