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 368 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re L.C.C. 18AP-167Because appellant, the biological mother of L.C.C., failed to argue in the trial court that the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Ohio and United States Constitutions require appointment of counsel to an indigent parent in a private adoption proceeding, appellant waived all but plain error for purposes of appeal. Trial court did not commit plain error when it did not appoint counsel for appellant in the private adoption proceeding because not doing so is not an obvious violation of equal protection or due process under the current state of Ohio and federal law, nor was structural error committed. The trial court did not commit plain error by adopting magistrate's conclusion that appellant's consent to the adoption was not required, nor did the trial court abuse its discretion when it sustained appellee's objections to the magistrate's decision and concluded that the child's adoption by appellee, the child's maternal aunt, was in the child's best interest. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4617
State v. Anderson 18AP-103The trial court's order of restitution in a felony case was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where record evidence demonstrated the trial court considered appellant's present and future ability to pay restitution under R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) and 2929.18(A)(1). Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4618
Grove City v. Sample 18AP-30The record failed to support appellant's claim that his guilty plea to a misdemeanor assault charge was not knowingly and voluntarily made due to his alleged understanding restitution would not be imposed. However, the trial court committed plain error by ordering restitution when the record did not contain competent, credible evidence establishing the amount of loss sustained by the victim pursuant to R.C. 2929.28. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part; cause remanded.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4619
Groveport Madison Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision 17AP-693In a tax appeal case involving two competing appraisals that differed on issues surrounding present use, highest and best use, choice of comparable properties, and capitalization rates, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was reasonable and lawful under R.C. 5717.04 in determining the Board of Education presented the most credible, competent, and probative indication of the subject property's value. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4620
Dublin City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision 17AP-692In a tax appeal case involving two competing appraisals that differed on issues surrounding present use, highest and best use, choice of comparable properties, and capitalization rates, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was reasonable and lawful under R.C. 5717.04 in determining the Board of Education presented the most credible, competent, and probative indication of the subject property's value. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4621
South-Western City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision 17AP-691In a tax appeal case involving two competing appraisals that differed on issues surrounding present use, highest and best use, choice of comparable properties, and capitalization rates, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was reasonable and lawful under R.C. 5717.04 in determining the Board of Education presented the most credible, competent, and probative indication of the subject property's value. Judgment affirmed.SadlerFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4622
Vallejo v. Haynes 17AP-372Judgment affirmed. Our de novo review shows that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment because appellants introduced no relevant evidence to show that the trial court erred in finding that appellee was a landlord, and not the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog, nor was she negligent. Appellants failed to set forth speci?c facts, by affidavit or by other appropriate evidence, showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.HortonFranklin 11/15/2018 11/15/2018 2018-Ohio-4623
State v. Watters 18AP-140The trial court erred in imposing a prison sentence on the firearm specification accompanying Watters’ conviction of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle.Luper SchusterFranklin 11/13/2018 11/13/2018 2018-Ohio-4565
State v. Wallington 17AP-246Evidence supported the jury verdicts of guilty of murder and aggravated robbery. Given the links between two murder situations, joining the two for trial was not reversible error.TyackFranklin 11/13/2018 11/13/2018 2018-Ohio-4566
Wright v. Wright 18AP-521Trial court judge had no basis for ordering spousal support other than the amount agreed upon by the parties to an uncontested divorce. Award will not be overturned on appeal.TyackFranklin 11/6/2018 11/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4507
12345678910...>>