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 234 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Buck v. Buck F-17-012Trial court determination of marital property was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and determinations of property division, spousal support, and attorney fees were not an abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. Divorce, marital property,OsowikFulton 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3704
State v. Ciboro L-17-1038, L-17-1039Appellant’s rape convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record demonstrates that appellant engaged in fellatio, cunnilingus, and anal intercourse with an individual under the age of 13.JensenLucas 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3705
State v. Bigelow L-17-1306Judicial sanction for violation of post-release control was properly imposed upon conviction for new offense in 2012. Appellant’s 1997 sentencing entry complied with then-existing law concerning imposition of post-release control. Trial court did not have jurisdiction to resentence appellant in 2010, therefore, 1997 sentencing entry controlled. State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19, 2017-Ohio-2927, 85 N.E.3d 700, is not to be applied retroactively.MayleLucas 8/31/2018 8/31/2018 2018-Ohio-3508
State v. Clinton E-17-069Trial court did not strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C) because it completely failed to orally inform defendant of his constitutional right to require the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant’s guilty plea was, therefore, invalid.MayleErie 8/31/2018 8/31/2018 2018-Ohio-3509
Gibsonburg Health, L.L.C. v. Miniet S-17-015An Ohio court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a subpoena issued by another state under the Uniform Depositions and Discovery Act. civilSingerSandusky 8/31/2018 8/31/2018 2018-Ohio-3510
In re K.Z. WD-17-057No abuse of discretion in denying parental companionship where it was in best interest of child pursuant to R.C. 3109.051(D).SingerWood 8/31/2018 8/31/2018 2018-Ohio-3511
In re M.O.E.W. OT-17-022Trial court’s decision denying father’s motion for reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities is not an abuse of discretion where father fails to demonstrate that there has been a change in circumstances.PietrykowskiOttawa 8/31/2018 8/31/2018 2018-Ohio-3512
State v. Jones S-17-038Appellant’s felony sentence was not based upon findings not supported by the record or otherwise contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.OsowikSandusky 8/31/2018 8/31/2018 2018-Ohio-3513
McClelland v. Catholic Charities Diocese of Toledo L-17-1270Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. Judgment affirmed. Adoption, putative father, consent, relief from judgment, abuse of discretion, fraud, fraud upon the court, civilOsowikLucas 8/31/2018 8/31/2018 2018-Ohio-3514
Wray v. Sandusky 250-Perkins, L.L.C. E-17-049Trial court abuses its discretion where it states that based on its personal knowledge it finds that the witness is a “good witness.”PietrykowskiErie 8/31/2018 8/31/2018 2018-Ohio-3515
12345678910...>>