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 192 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Brook Park v. Wright 105003Speedy trial rights, R.C. 2945.71(B)(2). The trial court violated appellant's speedy trial rights, according to R.C. 2945.71(B)(2) when it waited more than 18 months to bring appellant to trial.Laster MaysCuyahoga 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 2018-Ohio-953
State v. Jones 105279Motion to vacate guilty plea, nunc pro tunc, R.C. 2967.191, modify final orders. The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion to vacate his guilty plea because the plea was not induced by a threat or promise. The trial court erred by issuing a nunc pro tunc order to withdraw credit for jail-time served. A nunc pro tunc order may be used only to correct authentic clerical errors and not to effect what the judge intended to do or should have done. A defendant is not entitled to any jail-time credit for incarceration which arose from facts separate and apart from those facts on which his or her current sentence is based. A trial court has no authority to sua sponte vacate or modify its final orders.Laster MaysCuyahoga 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 2018-Ohio-954
State v. Rieves 105386Search warrant; affidavit; Fourth Amendment; "trash pull"; "tear offs"; anonymous tip; probable cause; motion to suppress; drug trafficking; no contest plea; effect of the plea; prejudice; Crim.R. 32.1. The trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to suppress. When looking at the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit supporting the search warrant provided a substantial basis for the issuing judge to conclude that there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of drug trafficking would be found in the home. The affidavit was based on two anonymous tips that were sufficiently corroborated by evidence of drug trafficking found in defendant's trash. Defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's failure to inform him of the effect of his plea. The trial court did not violate defendant's due process rights when it did not permit him to withdraw his plea because he did not receive the sentence that he thought he was going to receive and there was nothing in the record establishing that the trial court had agreed to sentence the defendant to a particular sentence.BoyleCuyahoga 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 2018-Ohio-955
State v. West 105568R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), maximum sentence, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), consecutive sentences, court costs. The trial court's imposition of a maximum sentence was supported by the record and was not contrary to law, and the record supported the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. Further, because the lower court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, we do not need to remand this case for the appellant's assignment of error relating to court costs.BoyleCuyahoga 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 2018-Ohio-956
State v. Christian 105601 & 105602Terry stop; reasonable suspicion; motion to suppress; hand-to-hand drug transaction. The detectives articulated a reasonable suspicion that the defendants were engaged in criminal conduct justifying the initial encounter and detention, and therefore, the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence based on its conclusion regarding the validity of the initial stop.GallagherCuyahoga 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 2018-Ohio-957
Cleveland v. Collins 105804OVI; R.C. 4511.19; traffic stop; marked lane violation; ALS suspension; reasonable suspicion; totality of circumstances; motion to suppress; field sobriety tests; NHTSA standards; substantial compliance; speedy trial; tolling events; R.C. 2945.72. The trooper's observing appellant's vehicle cross the marked lane on the roadway at 1:00 a.m. provided the trooper with reasonable and articulable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. Where the trooper then discovered the driver was under an ALS suspension for a prior OVI refusal and the trooper smelled alcohol on the driver's breath, under the totality of the circumstances, the trooper reasonably suspected the driver was intoxicated and he was justified in extending the scope of the detention to perform field sobriety tests. The trooper substantially complied with NHTSA standards in administering the field sobriety tests. The appellant's motion to suppress was therefore properly denied. Appellant's right to a speedy trial was not violated due to numerous tolling events.McCormackCuyahoga 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 2018-Ohio-958
Blain's Folding Serv., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. 105913Statute of frauds; third party; breach of contract; lost profits. A nonparty to a contract cannot raise the defense of statute of frauds because it is an affirmative defense that is personal to a party to the contract. Plaintiff's breach of contract claim for lost profits failed because it failed to prove the existence of any contract that had been breached. What plaintiff claimed was an oral, three-year contract was a series of work orders that were separately quoted and billed. Expert opinion on lost profits using the plaintiff's gross profit margin for the preceding 13 years did not establish a claim of lost profits to a reasonable degree of certainty because it did not differentiate unrelated types of work performed for different customers.StewartCuyahoga 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 2018-Ohio-959
Lakewood v. Dobra 106001Misdemeanor; petty offense; sentence; abuse of discretion; no contest; plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory range for defendant's first-degree misdemeanor conviction. The trial court was not required to specifically state its findings related to the overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing under R.C. 2929.21 and the required misdemeanor sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.22.KilbaneCuyahoga 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 2018-Ohio-960
State v. Eaddie 106019Consecutive sentences; judicial bias. Trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences, and sentence was not tainted by judicial bias.BlackmonCuyahoga 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 2018-Ohio-961
In re A.F.R. 106047Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(i) plainly states that a magistrate's decision must be "filed," not "journalized." The filing date of a magistrate's decision starts the time period for objecting, and filing is signified by the clerk's stamp "Received for Filing," not the date the decision is postmarked.StewartCuyahoga 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 2018-Ohio-962