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 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:   What is Year Decided?
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 76 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Phillips 1-15-43Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel did not object to certain statements made at trial identifying Appellant as the person who shot and killed the victim. Trial counsel's handling of voir dire and allegations of juror misconduct did not prejudice Appellant or fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.ShawAllen 5/23/2016 5/23/2016 2016-Ohio-3105
State v. Cunningham 1-15-61The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing defendant-appellant's second petition for postconviction relief. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant-appellant's motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial. The trial court did not err in denying defendant-appellant's motion for funds to employ an investigator.PrestonAllen 5/23/2016 5/23/2016 2016-Ohio-3106
In re B.L. 1-15-65; 1-15-66; 1-15-67; 1-15-68The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motions to intervene and amended motions to intervene.PrestonAllen 5/16/2016 5/16/2016 2016-Ohio-2982
State v. Kegley 3-15-20The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without making the statutorily required findings.WillamowskiCrawford 5/16/2016 5/16/2016 2016-Ohio-2983
State v. Kramer 4-15-14The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendant-appellant's self-representation request because it was not clear and unequivocal. The defendant's involuntary-manslaughter conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant did not establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.PrestonDefiance 5/16/2016 5/16/2016 2016-Ohio-2984
State v. Nolan 9-15-48R.C. 955.22(C). The trial court did not err in imposing a thirty-day jail term suspended upon Appellant's compliance with community control sanctions which bore a relationship to the offense at issue (failure to confine her dog), were related to the rehabilitation of Appellant, and were created to prevent future offenses. The trial court erred in ordering Appellant to pay restitution to Appellee for building a rear perimeter fence. The neighbor's subsequent decision to build a fence did not constitute an economic loss suffered as a direct and proximate result of Appellant's failure to confine her dog.ShawMarion 5/16/2016 5/16/2016 2016-Ohio-2985
State v. Cunningham 13-15-31Convictions supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.ShawSeneca 5/16/2016 5/16/2016 2016-Ohio-2986
State v. Hari 14-15-25Trial court's decision not to take judicial notice of radar utilizing Doppler effect in stationary mode reversed; however, acquittal of defendant not impacted.ShawUnion 5/16/2016 5/16/2016 2016-Ohio-2987
State v. Ritchey 1-15-80Defendant-Appellant, Tyler Ritchey, appeals the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County convicting him of one count of sexual battery and sentencing him to 30 months in prison. On appeal, Ritchey argues that the trial court erred by declaring Ohio's sex offender registration statute constitutional as applied to the crime of sexual battery, specifically R.C. 2907.03(A)(2). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgment.RogersAllen 5/9/2016 5/9/2016 2016-Ohio-2878
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Allen 11-15-09The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Appellees' motion to stay the foreclosure proceeding and compel arbitration and by ordering Appellant's counterclaims to be bifurcated and arbitrated. However, the trial court erred in setting the foreclosure action for trial and in failing to stay the proceeding pending arbitration. The trial court also erred in modifying the parties' written agreement to arbitrate by creating new terms for the arbitration to proceed not contained the arbitration provisions of the parties' written agreements.ShawPaulding 5/2/2016 5/2/2016 2016-Ohio-2766
12345678