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 49 rows. Rows per page: 
12345
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Jeffries C-170176JURIES: The trial court’s decision overruling the defendant’s Batson challenge was not clearly erroneous where the state offered the race-neutral explanation that the prospective juror had been pulled over for OVI, the same offense for which the defendant was being tried.MyersHamilton 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 2018-Ohio-2010
Ronald J. Solomon, D.D.S., Inc. v. Davisson C-170403CONTRACTS – R.C. 1343.03(A) – PREJUDGMENT INTEREST – PROCEDURE/RULES – CIV.R. 53(D)(4)(c): Where the parties entered into a contract specifying a rate of interest to be charged when money owed under the contract became due and payable, plaintiff, as the prevailing party, was entitled to the contractual rate of interest rather than the statutory rate pursuant to R.C. 1343.03(A). Where no objections were filed to the magistrate’s decision, Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c) required the trial court to review the decision for errors of law and defects evident on its face; and where the trial court failed to correct a clear error in the magistrate’s award of late charges from a certain date, the cause must be remanded for correction of the error.ZayasHamilton 5/23/2018 5/23/2018 2018-Ohio-2011
Stroud v. Four E Properties, Inc. C-170215APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - CIV.R. 15 - PROCEDURE/RULES: Where appellant failed to transmit all parts of the record necessary to resolve an assignment of error, appellant was unable to demonstrate that error, and the appellate court presumed the regularity of the proceedings below and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Where the trial court had entered a final judgment, appellant's Civ.R. 15 motion for leave to file an amended complaint was a legal nullity.MillerHamilton 5/16/2018 5/16/2018 2018-Ohio-1910
State v. Owens C-170413SENTENCING - MANDATORY FINE - INDIGENCY: Even though defendant did not file an affidavit of indigency under R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) to avoid the imposition of mandatory fines, defendant did not waive his right to challenge on appeal the imposition of mandatory fines where the trial court's insistence on defendant's submission of five years of tax returns before it would consider whether he was indigent made clear that the filing of an affidavit of indigency would be of no consequence and a futile act. The trial court's imposition of mandatory fines pursuant to R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) was contrary to law where the court required as a prerequisite to a finding of indigency the submission of five years of defendant's tax returns.MyersHamilton 5/11/2018 5/11/2018 2018-Ohio-1853
McLaughlin v. Andy's Coin Laundries, L.L.C. C-170198NEGLIGENCE - PRODUCTS LIABILITY: Where plaintiff was injured in a laundromat when he forced open the door on a malfunctioning washing machine with a screwdriver and then reached into the rotating drum to retrieve a comforter the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for negligence, because the danger posed by the rotating washing machine drum was open and obvious and defendant laundromat owner owed no duty of care to the plaintiff to protect him from such danger. Because plaintiff's actions of forcing open a locked washing machine door with a screwdriver while the machine's drum was rotating, and then reaching into the rotating drum to remove a comforter, constituted misuse of the product and were not foreseeable, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiffs' products liability claims. [See CONCURRENCE: While plaintiff's act of reaching into the rotating washing machine drum was foreseeable, summary judgment was nonetheless appropriately granted to defendants on plaintiffs' products liability claims, because plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily reaching into the rotating washing machine drum.]MyersHamilton 5/9/2018 5/9/2018 2018-Ohio-1798
State v. Robinson C-170473DRUGS - EVIDENCE - PLEAS: Where defendant entered a no-contest plea to possessing drug-abuse instruments under R.C. 2925.12, which applies only where the instrument involved is a hypodermic or syringe, and the state's explanation of the circumstances showed that defendant possessed a crack pipe, the state failed to establish all of the elements of the offense, and the trial court erred in finding defendant guilty of possessing drug-abuse instruments.DetersHamilton 5/9/2018 5/10/2018 2018-Ohio-1315
Loveland City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trustees C-170407; C-170419APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL - PROCEDURE/RULES - TAX - TOWNSHIPS - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - CONTINUOUS-VIOLATION DOCTRINE - DELAYED-DAMAGE RULE - DISCOVERY RULE: Because the township did not seek to change the judgment being appealed, its use of a "cross-appeal" to assert its arguments was improper and its "cross-appeal" was dismissed. Former R.C. 5715.27(F) did not provide the school board's exclusive remedy to challenge the tax exemptions granted as part of the amendment and expansion of the township's tax-increment fund ("TIF"), because the statute applied to a property owner seeking a real-property tax exemption. The two-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.14 for actions against a political subdivision did not apply in an action where the school board challenged the township's amendment and expansion of the TIF, because the essence of the school board's claims was not money damages, but equitable relief. The statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.07 for liability created by a statute applied to the school board's action against the township relating to the amendment and expansion of the TIF, because the township could not have enacted the resolutions amending the TIF without the statutes specifically authorizing it to do so. The school board's cause of action accrued in 2003 when the township amended the TIF and allegedly improperly expanded the scope of the public improvements funded by the TIF, because that was when the alleged statutory violation had occurred. The continuous-violation doctrine did not apply because all of the alleged tortious activity was completed in 2003; the township's acts after that time were merely a continuation of the effects of the 2003 TIF amendment, and the school board knew or should have known about the amendment. The appellate court declined to apply the delayed-damage rule where R.C. 2305.07 applied; even if the rule had applied, the damage occurred in 2003 when the amendment to the original TIF had been made. The discovery rule did not apply where by at least 2004 the school board had information sufficient to put it on notice of the possibility of wrongdoing that gave it a duty inquire into the matter.MockHamilton 5/4/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1731
State v. Steelman C-170337CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - FIFTH AMENDMENT - EXCITED UTTERANCE - CONFRONTATION CLAUSE - PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT - PLAIN ERROR - HARMLESS ERROR: Where the state presented evidence of defendant's silence and his refusal to talk to police as probative of defendant's guilt his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated; however, there was no plain error because, absent the tainted evidence, there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting a witness's statement under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule where the statement did not relate to the startling event, was clearly self-serving, and was not the type of reactive statement contemplated by Evid.R. 803(2); but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where, even without the statement, there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. The prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by commenting on defendant's silence as evidence of his guilt and stating that the prosecutor knew several things "for a fact"; but there was no plain error where the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming.MillerHamilton 5/4/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1732
In re B.M. C-170103SELF-DEFENSE - EVIDENCE: The juvenile court erred in determining that the juvenile did not establish each element of the affirmative defense of self-defense using deadly force where she had stabbed her step-father in the arm and leg with a kitchen knife to free herself from his chokehold.MillerHamilton 5/4/2018 5/4/2018 2018-Ohio-1733
State v. Daniels C-170145CRIM.R. 48(A) - COUNSEL - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - R.C. 2919.25(A) - EVIDENCE - PHYSICAL HARM: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the state's Crim.R. 48(A) motion to dismiss the complaint, because the state did not establish good cause where the complaint was sufficient to charge a domestic-violence offense, the victim was present to testify, and the only explanation given by the state for the motion was that the victim, defendant's wife, had indicated that the charge stemmed from a heated argument with defendant. Defendant failed to show ineffective assistance of trial counsel where counsel's decision to try the case to the court was trial strategy, counsel's failure to object to certain evidence was not outcome determinative, and counsel's eliciting of allegedly prejudicial testimony from the victim was an attempt to impeach the witness. Defendant's conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim testified that the injury inflicted by defendant caused her pain, and the trial court found the victim to be more credible than defendant.ZayasHamilton 5/2/2018 5/2/2018 2018-Ohio-1701
12345