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 448 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State ex rel. Pacheco v. Indus. Comm. 15AP-1033Magistrate's findings of fact adopted in their entirety, and the conclusions of law as to relator's first and second objections adopted except as stated herein. Where, as a matter of law, there is no evidence in the record that the light-duty job provided to the injured worker was a legitimate good-faith job under Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-32(A)(6), the commission abuses its discretion in denying the injured worker a new period of temporary total disability. Consequently, injured worker's third objection to the magistrate's decision is sustained. Writ of mandamus granted; the commission is ordered to vacate its order denying reconsideration of the SHO order for the hearing held July 15, 2015 and mailed August 6, 2015. Because the commission maintains continuing jurisdiction over the claim, it is within the commission's discretion whether to grant TTD or to order a new hearing.BrunnerFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8971
State ex rel. Honda of Am., Mfg., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. 16AP-19Magistrate's decision adopted. The magistrate properly stated the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law to find that relator had demonstrated that the doctor's report on which the Industrial Commission's hearing officer had relied exclusively in awarding permanent total disability benefits was so internally inconsistent as to whether the injured worker was capable of sustained remunerative employment or was permanently and totally disabled that it did not constitute some evidence to support the PTD award. Limited writ of mandamus granted, ordering the commission to vacate its decision denying reconsideration and, in a manner consistent with this decision, to hold a new hearing and enter a new order that adjudicates the PTD application having corrected the deficiencies described in the decision.BrunnerFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8972
State ex rel. Coseno v. Indus. Comm. 16AP-151Coseno is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus as there is some evidence in the record to support the commission's denial of Coseno's TTD compensation request.Luper SchusterFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8973
Jennings v. Jennings 16AP-711Trial court did not err when it considered appellant's VA disability benefits as a source of income in determining a spousal support award pursuant to R.C. 3105.18. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay appellee attorney fees, expenses and costs related to the trial. Judgment affirmed.Dorrian, J.Franklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8974
Teamsters Local No. 436 v. Cleveland 16AP-714Trial court did not err by affirming SERB order dismissing union's request for recognition. Affording appropriate deference to SERB in the interpretation of Chapter 4117, the trial court did not err in concluding that SERB properly concluded that assistant directors of law in the Civil Division of the City of Cleveland Department of Law met the three elements of the exclusion contained in R.C. 4117.01(C)(9) and, therefore, were not within the definition of public employee for purposes of the public employee collective bargaining law.Dorrian, J.Franklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8975
State ex rel. Navistar, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. 16AP-776Absent clear and convincing proof that relator raised the issue of voluntary retirement, workforce abandonment, or Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(1)(d) to the staff hearing officer ("SHO"), relator cannot establish that the SHO abused her discretion in failing to address that issue in her opinion or that the commission had a clear legal duty to reopen the matter on relator's motion for reconsideration. Relator's request for a writ of mandamus on the question of voluntary abandonment of the workforce is denied, and the matter is returned to the magistrate to rule on the remainder of relator's complaint. Objection sustained; cause remanded.SadlerFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8976
State v. Mendoza 16AP-893Trial court did not err in overruling appellant's Batson challenge; appellant's conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.BrownFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8977
Swan Super Cleaners, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs. 17AP-185Cleaning Company waited until after a cleaning contract had been awarded before attacking the bidding process and seeking an injunction. By then the controversy was moot.TyackFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8978
Mims v. Univ. of Toledo Med. Ctr. 17AP-203Medical malpractice claim barred by res judicata; savings statute, R.C. 2305.19, does not permit the relitigation of a claim that would otherwise be barred by res judicataKlattFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8979
In re Estate of Robison 17AP-232Appeal dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. The judgment entry overruling appellant's objections to the magistrate's decision granting certain exceptions to the inventory clearly contemplated further action before approval or settlement of the final accounting. Appellant also could not directly appeal from a magistrate's order or decision.KlattFranklin 12/12/2017 12/12/2017 2017-Ohio-8980