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 403 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Westfield Ins. Group v. Pure Renovations, L.L.C. 18AP-854Summary judgment for defendant reversed; disputed issues of material fact concerning the proximate cause for the fire that potentially implicate defendant's negligent conduct preclude summary judgment for the defendant.KlattFranklin 11/21/2019 11/21/2019 2019-Ohio-4773
State ex rel. Mango v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 18AP-945The court sustain's relator's objection to the magistrate's decision that this court should grant respondent's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court remands relator's request for a writ of mandamus and motion to the magistrate for further proceedings.DorrianFranklin 11/21/2019 11/21/2019 2019-Ohio-4774
In re J.W. 19AP-122 & 19AP-144 The trial court did not err by granting the motion of Franklin County Children Services for permanent custody. Further, the trial court did not commit reversible error by not allowing counsel to present closing arguments as doing so would not have changed the outcome. Competent, credible evidence supported the trial court's finding that granting the motion was in the child's best interest.Beatty BluntFranklin 11/21/2019 11/21/2019 2019-Ohio-4775
Jackson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. 19AP-131The department would not be liable as an employer for negligence by its independent contractor or inmate workers in these circumstances. So appellant’s “res ipsa loquitur” theory that the accident would not have happened but for someone’s negligence does not establish that the department is liable. And appellant failed to show that the department was on notice of an unreasonable risk in the conveyance of ductwork against which it had a duty to protect him. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate’s decision recommending judgment for the department. Judgment affirmed.NelsonFranklin 11/21/2019 11/21/2019 2019-Ohio-4776
Roush v. Roush 19AP-246The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining on these facts that an overpayment of child support should be addressed at the end of the support period through early termination of the support obligation. And the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding partial attorney fees to the party who successfully opposed the motion immediately to impound those child support funds. Judgment affirmed.NelsonFranklin 11/21/2019 11/21/2019 2019-Ohio-4777
State v. Lopez-Tolentino 19AP-280The trial court record did not contain a certified transcript and appellant did not submit any of the record pursuant to App.R. 9(C). Therefore, the court presumes regularity regarding the issues of qualification of and interpretation by the interpreter. Furthermore, without the transcript, the court is not able to review the trial court's colloquy at the plea or sentencing hearings. Nevertheless, having reviewed the entry of guilty plea and notice of prison imposed forms signed by appellant and his attorney contained in the record, the court determines the trial court did not err in denying appellant's post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Accordingly, this court overrules appellant's assignments of error and affirms the trial court entry.DorrianFranklin 11/21/2019 11/21/2019 2019-Ohio-4778
State v. Brown 19AP-40Trial court did not err in denying motion to suppress evidence where totality of circumstances demonstrated specific, articulable facts warranting detention and subsequent pat-down search of defendant. Trial court did not err in denying motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to bring defendant to trial within 180 days of his demand for final disposition pursuant to R.C. 2941.401. Trial counsel not ineffective in regard to speedy trial motion. Trial court erred in awarding defendant 150 days of jail-time credit to which he was not entitled.KlattFranklin 11/19/2019 11/19/2019 2019-Ohio-4753
State v. C.D.D. 19AP-130Because expungement applicant was not an “eligible offender” under the statute, the trial court erred in granting expungement. The applicant had been convicted of two felonies, and his misdemeanor domestic violence conviction constituted an “offense of violence” as defined in the Revised Code. An argument that the code provisions do not “make sense” does not empower the court to rewrite the legislative product; the “absurdity canon” does not permit the judiciary to reorder substantive choices the General Assembly has expressed. Judgment reversed; cause remanded.NelsonFranklin 11/19/2019 11/19/2019 2019-Ohio-4754
Brigner v. Mount Carmel Health Sys. 19AP-500Trial court order denying an indefinite stay of proceedings in civil matter pending resolution of criminal proceedings involving one civil defendant was not a final appealable order.Luper SchusterFranklin 11/19/2019 11/19/2019 2019-Ohio-4755
Bexley v. State 17AP-465On the state's appeal of a trial court judgment finding Senate Bill ("S.B.") 331 violated the single-subject rule contained in Article II, Section 15(D) of the Ohio Constitution, the state's argument pertaining to the micro wireless facility provisions is moot where the micro wireless facility provisions were repealed or replaced by later legislation. The trial court erred by severing portions of S.B. 331, including those related to the minimum wage statute and employer-employee relations that appellees did not challenge as unconstitutional in their lawsuit. Judgment vacated.SadlerFranklin 11/14/2019 11/14/2019 2019-Ohio-4688