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 69 rows. Rows per page: 
1234567
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Simmons 1-14-45Assignments of error are overruled where the defendant expressly agreed to proceed with sentencing without a new presentence investigation, agreed to the State's right to be heard as to sentencing, and did not object in the trial court to the alleged errors of which he now complains.WillamowskiAllen 4/27/2015 4/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1594
Welch v. Welch 14-14-05Trial court's decision dividing marital property and awarding spousal support is affirmed where husband failed to satisfy his burden of proving financial misconduct by wife and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the factors of R.C. 3105.18(C)(1).WillamowskiUnion 4/27/2015 4/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1595
Martinez v. Martinez 13-14-40The trial court correctly divided the marital portion of the pension by dividing it equally pursuant to the statute when no evidence was presented that this would be inequitable.WillamowskiSeneca 4/27/2015 4/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1596
State v. Pettaway 13-14-18Judgment affirmed where convictions for trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, and possessing criminal tools were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, trial counsel was not ineffective, the right to confrontation was not violated, the defendant did not show plain error with respect to admissibility of allegedly improper testimony, and no prejudice stemmed from the police officer's general comments about drug traffickers.WillamowskiSeneca 4/27/2015 4/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1597
State ex rel. Karr Revocable Trust v. Zehringer 10-14-16The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering respondents-appellants, under a writ of mandamus that the trial court previously granted, to deposit money in the amounts that respondents-appellants recited in their petitions for appropriation against relators-appellees.PrestonMercer 4/20/2015 4/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1495
State v. Fritz 13-14-31Sufficient evidence was presented to support conviction for Complicity to Assault and conviction was not against the weight of the evidence.ShawSeneca 4/20/2015 4/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1496
Wall v. State Bd. of Edn. 17-14-33The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reversing the Ohio State Board of Education's suspension of the plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant's teaching license because it was not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. Nor did the trial court did not err in reversing the Ohio State Board of Education's suspension of the plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant's teaching license because it was not in accordance with the law-specifically this court's holding in Freisthler v. State Board of Education, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-02-36, 2002-Ohio-4941. The trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant's motion for attorney fees because the Ohio Department of Education was substantially justified in initiating the disciplinary action against her.PrestonShelby 4/13/2015 4/13/2015 2015-Ohio-1418
State v. Harrison 8-14-16The trial court did not err in denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence. Even assuming the trial court abused its discretion by granting the State's for-cause challenge of a prospective juror, defendant-appellant failed to demonstrate how the error was anything other than harmless error. The trial court did not err when it accepted defendant-appellant's waiver of his right to testify on his own behalf. Defendant-appellant's conviction was not based on insufficient evidence. Plaintiff-appellee's counsel's improper remarks during closing argument did not prejudicially affect defendant-appellant's substantial rights and deprive him of a fair trial. Other remarks by plaintiff-appellee's counsel during closing argument were not improper. The trial court's jury instructions did not violate defendant-appellant's due-process rights. It was not error for the trial court to not give an expert-witness-specific credibility jury instruction and to instead give only a general jury instruction regarding the credibility of witnesses. Defendant-appellant was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant-appellant's motion to substitute counsel.PrestonLogan 4/13/2015 4/13/2015 2015-Ohio-1419
Clark v. Clark 7-14-13Plaintiff-Appellant, Tina Clark, n.k.a. Tina Daugherty, appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Henry County, Domestic Relations Division, approving the magistrate's decision to adopt the Child Support Enforcement Agency's ("CSEA") recommendations, which modified the child support payment of Defendant-Appellee, David Clark. Finding that the court's entry being appealed is not a final appealable order, the appeal is dismissed.RogersHenry 4/13/2015 4/13/2015 2015-Ohio-1420
State v. Pultz 7-14-17; 7-14-18The trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences is contrary to law because it is not discernable from the transcript of the sentencing proceeding whether the trial court engaged in the correct analysis relative to the required factors under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) which is necessary for a trial court to consider when imposing consecutive sentences. ShawHenry 4/13/2015 4/13/2015 2015-Ohio-1421
1234567