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 145 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Kerr 1-17-01The police did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop of Kerr's vehicle. WillamowskiAllen 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8516
Wagner v. Kretz 1-17-24The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellees by applying the defense of primary assumption of the risk to Plaintiff-Appellants' claims. Judgment affirmed.ZimmermanAllen 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8517
State v. Ward 3-17-02The trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the definition of knowingly; the Defendant-Appellant's convictions for selling heroin and selling fentanyl were not subject to merger; and the trial court's imposition of maximum consecutive sentences was not in error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.ZimmermanCrawford 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8518
Garcia v. Parenteau 5-17-13The one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims begins to run at the time that the plaintiff becomes aware, through a cognizable event, that grounds for a medical malpractice claim exist. WillamowskiHancock 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8519
State v. Donegan 6-17-05Defendant-appellant's plea of guilty was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.ZimmermanHardin 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8520
New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Bueherer Group Architecture & Eng. Inc. 13-07-03Trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss on the pleadings when there is arguably a claim for breach of contract. The trial court erred in dismissing the surety when the principal is still a party.WillamowskiSeneca 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8521
New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Buehrer Group Architecture & Eng. Inc. 13-07-04Trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss on the pleadings when there is arguably a claim for breach of contract. However, the trial court correctly granted the motion to dismiss the estate when notice of the claim was not provided to the state within six months of the date of death.WillamowskiSeneca 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8522
New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Buehrer Group Architecture & Eng. Inc. 13-07-05The trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss the State of Ohio as a party when the State is not a real party in interest after the Certificate of Completion was issued.WillamowskiSeneca 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8523
Golan-Elliott v. Elliott 14-17-01The trial court did not err: in its spousal support award; in its valuation of marital assets; in its distributive award; in denying Appellant's request to add an expert witness; and by finding the parties antenuptial and separation agreements "inapplicable." Judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ZimmermanUnion 11/13/2017 11/13/2017 2017-Ohio-8524
Stocker v. Stocker 5-17-11The trial court's value of the marital home and the parties' business in the equitable division of property was not against the manifest weight of evidence or an abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to apply the $150,000 combined income level cap to the child support order. ShawHancock 11/6/2017 11/6/2017 2017-Ohio-8434
12345678910...>>