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 64 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Curtis CA2017-08-010Appellant's arguments pertaining to the trial court's imposition of his sentence for murder in 2009 were barred by res judicata where he could have, and should have, raised the arguments on direct appeal. Further, the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a de novo sentencing hearing where the trial court complied with this court's remand instructions by issuing a nunc pro tunc entry to correct errors contained in the court's 2009 sentencing entry.HendricksonBrown 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 2018-Ohio-911
State v. Cunningham CA2017-03-034Trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte give a limiting instruction regarding appellant's prior OVI conviction. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction regarding appellant's prior OVI conviction. Appellant was not denied his right of allocution simply because the record does not show he was afforded such right before he was sentenced.M. PowellButler 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 2018-Ohio-912
Oney v. Dixie Imports, Inc. CA2017-06-077Trial court did not err by denying a car dealership's motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, as the dealership waived its right to arbitration by participating in the litigation in a manner inconsistent with the right to arbitrate.RinglandButler 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 2018-Ohio-913
Fairfield v. Lopez CA2017-08-121Trial court erred in denying motion for relief from judgment where it granted a hearing on the motion, but did not provide an opportunity for the presentation of evidence.RinglandButler 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 2018-Ohio-914
State v. B.C.M. CA2017-01-008The juvenile court properly classified appellant a Tier III juvenile sex offender after determining that appellant was 16 years old at the time of the offenses.PiperWarren 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 2018-Ohio-915
State v. Evans CA2017-04-049Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress where appellant was not subject to a custodial interrogation requiring the issuance of Miranda warnings. Appellant's felonious assault and endangering children convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence where there was ample medical evidence that the three-week-old infant was abused, that the injuries occurred around the time appellant was left alone with the infant, and appellant admitted to harming the infant. Appellant did not receive ineffective representation by his trial counsel, and appellant's three-year prison sentence was supported by the record and was not contrary to law.HendricksonWarren 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 2018-Ohio-916
State v. Foster CA2017-07-108Anders no error.Per CuriamButler 3/5/2018 3/5/2018 2018-Ohio-796
Yunger v. Bracken CA2017-05-022The trial court did not err by ordering appellant to pay a portion of his yearly bonus to appellee where the trial court had jurisdiction to issue such an order upon correctly finding appellee had not waived the issue and upon properly determining res judicata did not bar such a claim since a portion of appellant's bonus accrued prior to when appellant's spousal support obligation terminated.S. PowellClermont 3/5/2018 3/5/2018 2018-Ohio-797
Hatfield v. Cornell CA2017-05-011The juvenile court's decision to order appellant to submit to hair follicle drug testing was proper where the record indicates there was a reasonable suspicion that appellant may have been using drugs, thereby necessitating appellant to undergo drug testing to ensure the best interest of their daughter was being met. In addition, the juvenile court's decision to terminate a shared parenting plan and grant appellee custody of their daughter was in their daughter's best interest given appellant's admitted prior drug use and presence at a house where law enforcement had recently executed a search warrant and arrested several people for possession of drugs.S. PowellFayette 3/5/2018 3/5/2018 2018-Ohio-798
State v. Isse CA2017-06-012The trial court's decision to deny appellant's motion to vacate his conviction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper where the state provided sufficient evidence that appellant, an immigrant from Africa, was at least the age of majority at the time the offenses occurred.S. PowellFayette 3/5/2018 3/5/2018 2018-Ohio-799