Opinion Search

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:

Source:

Year Decided From:

Year Decided To:

Year Decided Range Warning:

The selected 'Year Decided To:' is less than the selected 'Year Decided From:'.  Please select a 'To:' year newer than or equal to the 'From:' year.

County:

Case Number:

Author:

Topics and Issues:

WebCite No:	-Ohio-	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:

Hide Topics and Issues column

This search returned 19 rows.

Rows per page:

Case Caption	Case No.	Topics and Issues	Author	Citation / County	Decided	Posted	WebCite
In re A.S.	L-25-00202, L-25-00203	Per Mayle, J., trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s request for a cognitive assessment. Father’s counsel was not ineffective by failing to request a continuance for father to undergo a cognitive assessment. Trial court was not required to make R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) finding on the record; finding in its judgment entry was sufficient. Trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.	Mayle	Lucas	1/28/2026	1/28/2026	2026-Ohio-244
State v. DeJesus	S-25-005	Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms the trial court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief as untimely.	Zmuda	Sandusky	1/23/2026	1/23/2026	2026-Ohio-215
Straley v. Morris	L-25-00007	Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded $9,000 in compensatory damages for noneconomic loss and no punitive damages where plaintiffs did not present compelling evidence of the extent of their injuries caused by the defendant’s conduct in shooting the plaintiff in the leg following a heated and racially charged confrontation over following Covid protocols.	Sulek	Lucas	1/23/2026	1/23/2026	2026-Ohio-213
Armstrong v. Nettles	L-25-00114	Appellant failed to appear at the small claims hearing despite notice. Appellant has no basis to contest that the trial court's decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court judgment is affirmed.	Osowik	Lucas	1/23/2026	1/23/2026	2026-Ohio-214
State v. Wilson	L-23-1154, L-23-1155	Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, find that trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for continuance to hire new counsel or excluding appellant’s alibi testimony. The record does not support appellant’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The state presented sufficient evidence for each of appellant’s convictions and they were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court erred when it failed to give appellant an indefinite sentence on his second-degree felony offense.	Zmuda	Lucas	1/23/2026	1/23/2026	2026-Ohio-216
State v. Robinson	L-25-00023, L-25-00024	Sulek, J. Trial court errs when it declines to review merits of motion to dismiss criminal indictment that asserts the criminal statutes are unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. This court will not usurp the role of the trial court and decide the issue for the first time on appeal.	Sulek	Lucas	1/23/2026	1/23/2026	2026-Ohio-217
State v. Gumm	E-24-046	No trial court error calculating jail-time credit. Judgment affirmed. Osowik.	Osowik	Erie	1/23/2026	1/23/2026	2026-Ohio-211
In re J.F.	H-25-003, H-25-004, H-25-005	No juvenile court error adjudicating minor children dependent and neglected and granting temporary custody to a maternal relative. Judgments affirmed. Osowik.	Osowik	Huron	1/23/2026	1/23/2026	2026-Ohio-212
State v. Cornelious	L-24-1057	Per Mayle, J., State presented sufficient evidence of complicity in shooting-related offenses and gang participation. Convictions were not against manifest weight of evidence. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to gang and cell phone experts’ testimony, social-media evidence, and competency of ten-year-old witness. Trial court committed plain error in sentences imposed for certain specifications but not in admitting supposed other-acts evidence.	Mayle	Lucas	1/16/2026	1/16/2026	2026-Ohio-151
Simmons v. Pierce	L-24-1243	The trial court had jurisdiction to enforce contempt sanctions it imposed against a nonparty prior to the dismissal of the underlying action. The court did not abuse its discretion by imposing additional sanctions in the dismissal order that related to the original contempt.	Sulek	Lucas	1/16/2026	1/16/2026	2026-Ohio-152
In re D.M.	E-25-013, E-25-014, E-25-015	Zmuda, writing for the majority affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court which determined termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children based on facts that included Mother’s criminal conviction for child endangering involving her children and Mother’s prison term that extended beyond the reasonable time contemplated for reunification.	Zmuda	Erie	1/14/2026	1/14/2026	2026-Ohio-105
State v. Fenderson	E-24-051	Per Mayle, J., despite defendant’s claims to the contrary, under a manifest-weight review, we must extend deference to the fact-finder’s credibility determinations and assign an interpretation of the evidence that is most consistent with the verdict. Applying this standard, we conclude that defendant’s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.	Mayle	Erie	1/13/2026	1/13/2026	2026-Ohio-94
State v. Grover	OT-25-016	Zmuda, J., writing for the majority consecutive sentences not contrary to law as cruel and unusual punishment, with the record demonstrating the imposition of consecutive sentences is not without support, pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).	Zmuda	Ottawa	1/13/2026	1/13/2026	2026-Ohio-95
State v. Moore	L-24-1180, L-24-1181	Per Mayle, J., State presented sufficient evidence of “trespass” and “purpose to commit a theft offense” elements of breaking and entering, and convictions were not against manifest weight of evidence. As to first count, defendant was apprehended in victim’s locked parking lot with various items that people commonly keep in vehicles. As to second count, electronic monitoring placed defendant in locked lot and video showed person matching his description rifling through vehicles.	Mayle	Lucas	1/13/2026	1/13/2026	2026-Ohio-96
State v. Prichard	WD-25-028	Per Mayle, J., Trial court erred in admitting document produced in discovery by defendant and offered by State because it was not properly authenticated. Implied authentication not appropriate under circumstances of this criminal case where rules of evidence apply. Even excising improper evidence, error was harmless because remaining evidence established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim relating to same evidence fails second element of Strickland.	Mayle	Wood	1/9/2026	1/9/2026	2026-Ohio-56
State v. Rahe	WD-25-023	The trial court’s judgment is affirmed where an appellate court, as a matter of law, is prohibited from reviewing the court’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 at sentencing. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729.	Sulek	Wood	1/9/2026	1/9/2026	2026-Ohio-59
Charlie's CDJR, L.L.C. v. Charlie's Toledo, Inc.	L-24-1120	Trial court properly granted summary judgments to appellees because appellees are entitled to judgments as a matter of law where there are no genuine issues of material fact. Judgments affirmed. Osowik.	Osowik	Lucas	1/6/2026	1/6/2026	2026-Ohio-18
State v. Haskins	L-24-1248	Officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain appellant because he did not match vague description of suspect. Court did not err by denying motion to suppress because evidence would have been inevitably discovered during search incident to lawful arrest. Officers’ testimony authenticated videos because they viewed videos on surveillance system at store. Court erred by sentencing appellant to three mandatory firearm specifications when statute requires only two mandatory sentences. Duhart	Duhart	Lucas	1/6/2026	1/6/2026	2026-Ohio-19
State v. Thomas	L-25-00049	Per Mayle, J., trial court did not err by admitting 911 calls. Statements in the calls were made to get help during an ongoing emergency, so they were nontestimonial and their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court’s inclusion of all possible terms of postrelease control in sentencing entry did not reflect notice that it gave at sentencing hearing, which can be corrected with nunc pro tunc entry.	Mayle	Lucas	1/6/2026	1/6/2026	2026-Ohio-20