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 97 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Main v. Lima 1-14-42The trial court did not err in granting defendant-appellee's motion to dismiss plaintiffs-appellants' amended complaint against defendant-appellee and another defendant's cross-claim against defendant-appellee, based on immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.PrestonAllen 6/29/2015 6/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2572
State v. Shafer 8-14-28Defendant-Appellant, Raymond Shafer, appeals the judgment of the Bellefontaine Municipal Court, finding him guilty of one count of assault, one count of resisting arrest, and one count of obstructing official business, and sentencing him to 30 days in jail. On appeal, Shafer argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying him the right to counsel; and (2) violating his speedy trial rights. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgment.RogersLogan 6/22/2015 6/22/2015 2015-Ohio-2469
Temple v. Temple 9-14-26The trial court did not err in determining that Appellant converted Appellee's bank account for his own personal use or that there was no valid delivery of the deed from Appellee to Appellant.ShawMarion 6/15/2015 6/15/2015 2015-Ohio-2311
Dailey v. Masonbrink 2-15-02Defendant-Appellant, Auglaize County Board of Commissioners ("the County"), appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Auglaize County granting Plaintiff-Appellee, David Dailey, a new trial on the issue of pain and suffering damages. On appeal, the County argues that the trial court erred by (1) granting Dailey's motion for a new trial on damages; (2) failing to offset the damages award pursuant to R.C. 2744.05(B)(1); and (3) questioning the jury foreman after the jury had reached its original verdict. Based on the following, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.RogersAuglaize 6/8/2015 6/8/2015 2015-Ohio-2207
Sandys v. Sandys 4-14-20Plaintiff-Appellant, Tisha Sandys ("Tisha"), appeals the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Defiance County, Domestic Relations Division, which modified custody of P.S. and designated Defendant-Appellee, Eric Sandys ("Eric"), as the residential and custodial parent of P.S. On appeal, Tisha argues that the trial court erred by conducting an in-chambers, off-the-record interview with Joy Fruchey, the children's therapist. Tisha also argues that the trial court erred by not appointing a new guardian ad litem ("GAL") after the GAL's report designated that her recommendations were clearly against the children's wishes. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.RogersDefiance 6/8/2015 6/8/2015 2015-Ohio-2208
State v. Pritt 13-14-39The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding sexual-gratification evidence because sexual gratification is not an element of R.C. 2907.323(A)(2), and sexual-gratification motive is not a is not a proper purpose under R.C. 2907.323(A)(2)'s proper-purpose exception.PrestonSeneca 6/8/2015 6/8/2015 2015-Ohio-2209
State v. Murphy 13-14-25There was some competent, credible evidence that the $463 of U.S. currency-seized in the amounts of $20, $20, $181, and $242-was proceeds of drug-related offenses. There was some competent, credible evidence that the $20, $20, $181, and $242 were derived directly or indirectly from drug-related offenses because the bills were found during the execution of a search warrant, which yielded the discovery of other drug-related contraband and the arrest of the defendant-appellant and her sister for drug-related crimes.PrestonSeneca 6/8/2015 6/8/2015 2015-Ohio-2210
In re E.C. 5-15-01The trial court did not err in granting the Agency's motion for permanent custody and terminating mother-appellant's parental rights.ShawHancock 6/8/2015 6/8/2015 2015-Ohio-2211
Stolzenburg v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. 2-15-01The common pleas court erred in dismissing appellant/cross-appellee's appeal for lack of justiciability.PrestonAuglaize 6/8/2015 6/8/2015 2015-Ohio-2212
Roychoudhury v. Roychoudhury 14-14-19The trial court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning its spousal support award.ShawUnion 6/8/2015 6/8/2015 2015-Ohio-2213
12345678910