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 534 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Perez 104888Rejection of a plea. The trial court abused its discretion in rejecting the plea set forth on the record without explaining its reasons for the rejection. Gallaghercuyahoga 7/12/2018 7/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2724
Brobst v. Lyndhurst 105849Summary judgment; ordinance; home occupation; retail store; sale of goods; abuse of discretion; statutory construction; unambiguous, clear meaning; expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the city. The trial court’s finding is not supported by the broad definition of a “home occupation” set forth in L.C.O. 1150.09(c)(73). However, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the city’s motion to submit additional evidentiary materials in support of its motion for summary judgment. # 105849 - Paul J. Brobst, Et al. v. Lyndhurst Gallaghercuyahoga 7/12/2018 7/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2725
AIDS Taskforce of Greater Cleveland v. Ohio Dept. of Health 105971Preliminary injunction; final appealable order; meaningful or effective remedy; R.C. 2505.02(B)(4); substantial likelihood of success; irreparable harm; abuse of discretion. Because appellant would be deprived of a meaningful and effective remedy if it could not have appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion for preliminary injunction before a final judgment, the trial court’s order is a final, appealable order. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for preliminary injunction where the injunction factors weighed in favor of denial.McCormackCuyahoga 7/12/2018 7/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2727
1229 Summit, L.L.C. v. Cater 106007#106007 Because appellant would be deprived of a meaningful and effective remedy if it could not have appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion for preliminary injunction before a final judgment, the trial court’s order is a final, appealable order. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for preliminary injunction where the injunction factors weighed in favor of denial. The trial court’s judgment and opinion are supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not improperly deny the appellant’s demand for judgment of ejectment because they are not the lawful owners of the property in question. The trial court did not improperly disregard the parties’ liquidated damages agreement by issuing an order to the breached party to make them whole. The trial court’s reconsidered opinion was issued pursuant to the appellate court directive. Mays Cuyahoga 7/12/2018 7/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2728
State v. Green 106116R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), consecutive sentences, sentencing, nunc pro tunc. The trial court made the correct findings in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court sentenced the appellant to nine years imprisonment, but stated at the sentencing hearing that he was sentenced to eight years. The journal entry reflected the mistake the trial court made by stating the appellant was sentenced to eight years, but the aggregate sentence was actually nine years. A nunc pro tunc order can only be used to correct what the trial court actually did.MaysCuyahoga 7/12/2018 7/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2729
State v. Turner 106123Revocation of community control, allied offenses, res judicata, sentencing anew. Appellant’s allied offense challenge was barred on appeal from his community-control-revocation hearing by res judicata. The trial court erred by failing to sentence appellant anew following the revocation of his community control. GallagherCuyahoga 7/12/2018 7/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2730
Lakewood v. Tate 106153municipal court jurisdiction, Ohio Uniform Traffic Ticket, driving under financial responsibility law suspension, limited driving privileges. The municipal court had jurisdiction over a uniform traffic ticket. The evidence did not support the driving under suspension conviction; appellant had limited driving privileges and the record demonstrates that he was driving within the privileges.JonesCuyahoga 7/12/2018 7/12/2018 2018-Ohio-2731
State v. Carty 106218,106302OVI; guilty plea, Crim.R. 11; ineffective assistance of counsel; Veterans Treatment Court. Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Defense counsel was not ineffective. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s request for a transfer to Veterans Treatment Court when the defendant was subject to mandatory prison time and has a lengthy criminal record, including several OVIs.KilbaneCuyahoga 7/12/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2739
Shingler v. Provider Services Holdings, L.L.C. 106383Dismissal of complaint; motion for judgment on pleadings; common-law tort for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; Greeley claim; unlicensed practice of nursing; R.C. 4723.03; reporting; Ohio Board of Nursing; retaliatory discharge; R.C. 4723.341; R.C. 4113.52; jeopardy; adequate statutory remedy. Trial court did not err in dismissing employee’s complaint for failure to state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where jeopardy element of claim was not satisfied. Adequate statutory remedy existed under R.C. 4723.33 and 4723.341 — incorporating the rights and duties granted “whistleblowing” employees under R.C. 4113.52 — that addresses society’s interest in protecting employees who report violations of R.C. Chapter 4723. Employee’s failure to comply with the requirements for statutory relief for wrongful discharge did not render statutory remedy inadequate. GallagherCuyahoga 7/12/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2740
Ceasor v. East Cleveland 106544Summary judgment; wrongful death; R.C. 2744.02; R.C. 2744.03; immunity; willful and wanton misconduct; wanton or reckless manner; final appealable order; motion to strike. The trial court’s denial of summary judgment for the city was appropriate because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the city was immune from liability for the decedent’s death. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the city’s motion to strike.McCormackCuyahoga 7/12/2018 7/13/2018 2018-Ohio-2741
12345678910...>>