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 22 rows. Rows per page: 
123
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re A.J.O. C-180680CHILDREN – CUSTODY: The juvenile court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s decision granting permanent custody of two children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where the decision was supported by ample competent and credible evidence, and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The juvenile court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s decision granting permanent custody of two children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where mother continued an abusive relationship despite domestic-violence concerns, failed to adequately understand and manage her children’s developmental delays and behavior issues, and failed to advance beyond the most restrictive level of supervised visitation with the children. The magistrate’s decision allowing the children’s In re Williams attorney to withdraw at the beginning of the permanent-custody hearing was not plain error because at the time of the withdrawal the children’s wishes were aligned with the guardian ad litem’s recommendation of a grant of permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services, and the hearing did not develop evidence of a conflict between the children’s wishes and the guardian ad litem’s recommendation.CrouseHamilton 3/22/2019 3/22/2019 2019-Ohio-975
In re M.W. Children C-180623CHILDREN – CUSTODY – EVIDENCE/WITNESS/TRIAL: When a parent is a party to a permanent-custody proceeding, his or her right to a reasonable opportunity to be present at trial must be balanced against the juvenile court’s ability to manage its docket. While the juvenile court has a strong interest in the timely resolution of permanent-custody motions and in the speedy resolution of the issue of a child’s custody, those interests must be balanced against a parent’s constitutionally protected interest in the care, custody, and control of his or her children. The parent-child bond is an extremely important one, and when the state attempts to permanently terminate the relationship between a parent and child, the parent must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection including a due-process right to be present at permanent-custody hearings. While there is no mechanical test for deciding when the juvenile’s court’s denial of a parent’s request to testify violates due process, when, in light of the importance of the parent-child bond, the record reflects that only a short delay was occasioned by a parent’s single request for a continuance, the parent’s presence at trial was necessary, and the juvenile court could have easily remedied the harm by permitting the parent to testify at the objections hearing, the court erred in overruling the parent’s objections without taking additional evidence.ZayasHamilton 3/20/2019 3/20/2019 2019-Ohio-948
Parker v. Ford Motor Co. C-180070APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL – CIV.R. 12(B)(6) – APPELLATE JURISDICTION – FINAL ORDER – EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE: Where plaintiff could not plead her claims any differently to state a claim for relief, the trial court’s entry granting defendant’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted was a final, appealable order. Where plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege that defendant, the employer of her deceased husband, had deliberately intended to cause injury or death to her husband, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.MyersHamilton 3/15/2019 3/15/2019 2019-Ohio-882
State v. Payne C-180001GUILTY PLEA – CRIM.R. 11 – APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – COUNSEL – SENTENCING: Where the trial court conducted a thorough Crim.R. 11 colloquy prior to accepting defendant’s guilty plea, which included informing defendant of the maximum sentence he faced, defendant’s plea was not rendered involuntary by the trial court’s later imposition of the maximum sentence. The appellate court is unable to determine on appeal whether trial counsel was ineffective where the allegations of counsel’s ineffectiveness are based on facts outside the record. The trial court’s imposition of a maximum sentence was not contrary to law where the sentence fell within the available sentencing range and where the record reflected that the court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the factors in R.C. 2929.12.MyersHamilton 3/13/2019 3/13/2019 2019-Ohio-848
In re J.G.S. C-180611; C-180619CHILDREN – CUSTODY – RES JUDICATA – PLAIN ERROR: R.C. 2151.414(A)(1), which states that the adjudication that a child is an abused, neglected or dependent child shall not be adjudicated at the permanent-custody hearing, does not preclude the trial court from considering evidence elicited in the adjudicatory hearing at a permanent-custody hearing. Because the juvenile court is vested with continuing jurisdiction to review and, if necessary, modify its dispositional orders, the doctrine of res judicata does not prohibit the litigation of issues relative to a motion for permanent custody even though the same or similar issues may have been considered in a prior action under R.C. Chapter 2151. The trial court did not commit plain error in permitting excerpts from the child’s voluminous medical records into evidence where father failed to specify which statements he alleged were inadmissible hearsay and the medical records were cumulative to the witnesses’ testimony. Because the juvenile court was required to independently review the magistrate’s decision and was free to disagree with the magistrate’s conclusions, the juvenile court did not err in finding that the 12-of-22 condition in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) had been met even though the magistrate had found that the child could not or should not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable amount of time pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). The parents’ compliance with the case plan did not preclude the trial court from awarding permanent custody to a children services agency.MockHamilton 3/8/2019 3/7/2019 2019-Ohio-802
In re W. Children C-180620CHILDREN – CUSTODY: The juvenile court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s decision granting permanent custody of three children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where the decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.MyersHamilton 2/27/2019 2/27/2019 2019-Ohio-690
In re M Children C-180564CHILDREN – CUSTODY – RIGHT TO COUNSEL: In a permanent-custody case, where a guardian ad litem had been appointed for mother, and where mother had informed the magistrate that she had retained new counsel, the magistrate erred in finding that mother had waived her right to counsel without engaging in an inquiry to determine whether mother was in fact competent to do so and whether mother was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving that right, either expressly or by inference.MyersHamilton 2/13/2019 2/13/2019 2019-Ohio-484
State v. Robinson C-170147CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – DUE PROCESS – MIRANDA – SELF-INCRIMINATION – COUNSEL – EXPERT WITNESS – EVIDENCE – ALLIED OFFENSES – R.C. 2941.25: Where the record demonstrates that the evidence against defendant was overwhelming, limited references to his post-Miranda silence did not violate defendant’s right to due process or his right to remain silent. [But see DISSENT: The state violated defendant’s right against self-incrimination when it used defendant’s silence as substantive evidence of his guilt, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because the evidence of defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming.] Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment where none of the evidence seized was consequential to the material issues at trial. Any prejudice defendant suffered due to the state’s failure to correct testimony from a forensic expert about gunshot stippling on the shooting victim, who may have been wearing a sweatshirt about which the expert was unaware and which would have affected the expert’s opinion, was cured when defense counsel addressed the issue with the witness during cross-examination. Because the murder of one victim and the felonious assault of another victim were the sole aggravating harms in the aggravated-burglary and aggravated-robbery counts related to each victim, the three offenses related to each victim were allied offenses of similar import. Aggravated-burglary counts that have as their aggravating factors the physical harm of different victims are not allied offenses of similar import, because the harms are separate and identifiable. An aggravated-burglary count predicated on defendant’s possession of a firearm is not an allied offense of similar import to an aggravated-burglary count relating to the same breaking and entering but aggravated by physical harm to a victim, because the harms are separate and identifiable.MockHamilton 2/8/2019 2/8/2019 2019-Ohio-387
W. & S. Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of New York Mellon C-170476CONTRACTS – POOLING SERVICES AGREEMENT – DUTIES OF TRUSTEE – DAMAGES – STANDING: Under New York law, where a pooling services agreement states that, prior to an event of default, the duties and obligations of the trustee shall be determined solely by the express provisions of the agreement, the trustee has no implied duties. Prior to an event of default, the trustee’s duties were limited to those specifically set out by the pooling services agreement and the trustee had no implied duty to supervise or enforce the duties of other parties to the agreement. General allegations of a breach of a representation or warranty are insufficient to provide notice to a trustee: a trustee only discovers the breach of a representation or warranty upon actual knowledge of a violation of a specific breach as to a specific loan. Sampling is an inappropriate way to establish breaches of representations and warranties, because breaches must be loan-specific and sampling does not show loans with material breaches. Where the pooling services agreement required notice to be provided to the master servicer to trigger an event of default, and no notice was provided, there was no event of default. Where the pooling services agreement required notice to the trustee for the trustee’s duties to be elevated to those of a prudent person under the circumstances, and no notice was given, the trustee’s duties were not elevated. Plaintiffs were not entitled to damages where no breach of contract was established. Under New York or Ohio law, once a holder of certificates transfers them, it loses standing to bring claims arising out of the certificates.ZayasHamilton 2/8/2019 2/8/2019 2019-Ohio-388
Cincinnati v. Bench Billboard Co. C-170668; C-170690RES JUDICATA – CLAIM PRECLUSION – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL – STANDING: Where the city sued defendant company, which provided advertising benches in the city’s rights-of-way, the trial court did not err in entering a judgment in favor of the city that ordered defendant to pay fines, penalties and costs for 55 violations of the city’s municipal code, upheld 75 additional violations, and denied defendant’s counterclaims, because all of defendant’s claims were adjudicated against it in a prior case between the parties or could have been raised in the prior case, and defendant’s asserted injury due to alleged violations of defendant’s constitutional rights could not be redressed because it had not otherwise complied with the requirements of the city’s municipal code.ZayasHamilton 2/6/2019 2/6/2019 2019-Ohio-362
123