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 139 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Black v. Hicks 105248Jurisdiction; jury trial; final appealable order; notice of appeal. The trial court entered the May 9, 2016, June 3, 2016, and July 7, 2016 orders, commenced a jury trial on May 25, 2016, and accepted the jury's verdict on May 31, 2016, while it was divested of jurisdiction because of pending appeals. These orders and the jury's verdict are null and void, and therefore, must be vacated.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 2/22/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-680
State v. Campbell 105488Abuse of discretion, presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the appellant continued with pleading guilty after being allowed to recite his version of the facts.MaysCuyahoga 2/22/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-681
Cleveland v. Kalish 105557Motion to suppress; reasonable suspicion; traffic stop; field sobriety tests. Trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress results of field sobriety tests where, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had a reasonable suspicion after a valid traffic stop that the defendant was driving while intoxicated, sufficient to extend the initial stop and administer field sobriety tests.KeoughCuyahoga 2/22/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-682
State v. Curry 105638Preindictment delay; commencement of prosecution; summons; Crim.R. 6(F); R.C. 2901.13(F); manifest weight; sufficiency of the evidence; rape; aggravated robbery; kidnapping; allied offenses. A summons was issued on the final day of the statute of limitations, commencing the action for the purposes of R.C. 2901.13(F). The defendant did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the preindictment delay because the lost or missing DNA evidence did not pertain to his guilt or innocence, only that of the unknown accomplice. There was sufficient evidence in support of the convictions, and the trier of fact did not lose its way so as to create a manifest injustice.GallagherCuyahoga 2/22/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-683
State v. Stewart 105649Guilty plea; right to counsel; motion to withdraw as counsel; motion to withdraw guilty plea; Crim.R. 32.1; competency evaluation; R.C. 2945.37; due process; abuse of discretion; Crim.R. 11. Appellant was not denied his constitutional right to counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's counsel's motions to withdraw as counsel or appellant's requests for new counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion and requests to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant stipulated to the court psychiatric clinic's report, and thus, his due process rights were not violated with respect to the results of the report.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 2/22/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-684
Vuyancih v. Jones & Assocs. Law Group, L.L.C. 105727Ohio Consumer Sales Practices (CSPA); R.C. 1345.09(B)/class actions; R.C. 1345.05(B)(2)/prior notice. Appellants failed to establish that, either by legislation or a publicly available court decision, appellees had prior notice that appellees' actions were in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.JonesCuyahoga 2/22/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-685
State v. Taylor 105775Sentence contrary to law. The trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant to 24 months incarceration because the sentence was not contrary to law.MaysCuyahoga 2/22/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-686
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Franko 105832Foreclosure decree; standing; assignment; R.C. 1303.38; Civ.R. 56; material alteration; personal knowledge; affidavit. Summary judgment in favor of financial institution is affirmed because a mortgagor lacks standing to challenge the assignment of a mortgage, a missing allonge does not constitute a material alteration of the instrument, and the opposing party failed to demonstrate that an affiant lacked personal knowledge for the purposes of demonstrating genuine issues of material fact.GallagherCuyahoga 2/22/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-687
State v. Williams 105873Vacate; void; judgment; firearm specifications; Crim.R. 32(B); former R.C. 2929.71(B); R.C. 2941.25; allied offenses; direct appeal; postconviction; untimely; res judicata. Affirmed trial court's decision that denied appellant's motion to vacate void judgment, which made a blanket assertion that the judgment of conviction did not conform with Crim.R. 32(B), and which claimed that the trial court violated R.C. 2929.71(B) when it imposed consecutive sentences for firearm specifications and that the offenses constituted allied offenses of similar import pursuant to R.C. 2941.25. The trial court correctly construed appellant's motion as a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 and found it was untimely and otherwise barred by res judicata.GallagherCuyahoga 2/22/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-688
In re Da.B. 105886Motion for extension of temporary custody, abuse of discretion, R.C. 2151.353, R.C. 2151.415, permanent custody, R.C. 2151.414, clear and convincing evidence. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied father's motion to extend temporary custody. Further, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it granted CCDCFS permanent custody of father's three children because the children could not be placed with father and permanent custody was in the children's best interests.BoyleCuyahoga 2/22/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-689
12345678910...>>