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 117 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re A.B. C-190327, C-190328, C-190329JUVENILE ADJUDICATION – APPELLATE REVIEW — MOOTNESS:CrouseHamilton 7/31/2020 7/31/2020 2020-Ohio-3904
B&J Elec., Co. v. Cincinnati C-190368MUNICIPAL – TAX – EQUAL PROTECTION – RIGHT TO MARRY: The trial court did not err in rejecting plaintiff corporation’s claim that a city ordinance violated the fundamental right of its owner to marry and in upholding the denial of the application for recertification of the corporation as a small business enterprise: the corporation failed to negate a rational basis for the city’s ordinance requiring that both spouses’ assets be used to determine whether the corporation qualifies as a small business for purposes of renewal of its small business enterprise certification under the city’s code.BergeronHamilton 7/29/2020 7/29/2020 2020-Ohio-3869
Jonas v. Durrani C-180457; C-180458MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – STATUTE OF REPOSE – SAVING STATUTE: The trial court did not err in dismissing one plaintiff-patient’s medical malpractice claims where they were filed outside the four-year window of the statute of repose and the savings statute did not operate to extend the repose period; but the court erred in in dismissing another plaintiff-patient’s claims where that plaintiff-patient’s initial complaint had been filed within the time limit of the statute of repose as to the 2010 surgery, because the savings statute saved the subsequent complaint. The trial court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaints where the trial court denied leave on futility grounds, and amendment was futile because the claims were timed-barred by the medical-malpractice statute of repose and failed to properly state a civil claim under the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act.BergeronHamilton 7/22/2020 7/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3787
In re Feagan C-190544CONTEMPT: The evidence was insufficient to support the contemnor’s conviction for indirect criminal contempt where the contemnor had not committed any affirmative act to constitute contempt and where the conviction was based solely on the conduct of another and the contemnor’s status as a designated trial attorney in several cases, who was responsible for all proceedings in the cases: the contemnor could not be held vicariously liable for another’s contempt.MockHamilton 7/22/2020 7/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3788
Schuster v. Durrani C-180687MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – STATUTE OF REPOSE – SAVING STATUTE: The trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings where the saving statute had properly been invoked by plaintiff-patient seeking judgment for medical malpractice against a doctor and other medical defendants beyond the expiration of the medical malpractice statute of repose. The trial court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint where the sole ground for denying leave was that amendment of the complaint was futile because the claims were time-barred by the statute of repose.MockHamilton 7/22/2020 7/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3789
Deck v. Durrani C-180685MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – STATUTE OF REPOSE – SAVING STATUTE: The trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings where the saving statute had properly been invoked by plaintiff-patient seeking judgment for medical malpractice against a doctor and other medical defendants beyond the expiration of the medical malpractice statute of repose. The trial court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint where the sole ground for denying leave was that amendment of the complaint was futile because the claims were time-barred by the statute of repose.MockHamilton 7/22/2020 7/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3790
In re S. Children C-200168, C-200169CHILDREN – CUSTODY – R.C. 2151.414: Where the trial court’s finding that the children cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time was not supported by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court erred in granting permanent custody of the children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services.MyersHamilton 7/22/2020 7/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3791
State v. Spurling C-190629POSTCONVICTION—JURISDICTION: The common pleas court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction defendant’s postconviction “Motion to Vacate Void Judgment,” challenging his cocaine-possession conviction on grounds that it violated his constitutional right to an indictment and his R.C. 2945.75 right to be sentenced for the least degree of the offense: the right-to-indictment claim was reviewable under the postconviction statutes, but did not satisfy the R.C. 2953.23 jurisdictional requirements for entertaining a late postconviction claim; the R.C. 2945.75 claim was not reviewable under any postconviction statute or rule; and the judgment of conviction could not be corrected under the jurisdiction to correct a void judgment, because it was entered by a court having personal and subject-matter jurisdiction.ZayasHamilton 7/22/2020 7/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3792
State v. Criswell C-190531JURISDICTION—POSTCONVICTION—POSTRELEASE CONTROL: The common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain the postconviction motion seeking relief on the ground that sentences were not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing postrelease control: the motion was not reviewable under any postconviction proceeding provided by statute or rule; and the sentences were imposed by a court having personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and thus not correctable under the jurisdiction to correct a void judgment. The appeal from the judgment overruling the postconvictionMockHamilton 7/22/2020 7/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3793
Ohio Dept. of Taxation v. Gingrich C-190455APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL – MOOTNESS: Where the appellant failed to obtain a stay of execution or post a supersedeas bond, and the underlying judgments against her were satisfied, the appeal is moot, and therefore, it must be dismissed.CrouseHamilton 7/22/2020 7/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3794
12345678910...>>