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
To search on full text click here
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 9 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Bledsoe-Baker v. Trotwood 28052The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motion for summary judgment on its political subdivision immunity. The appellees adduced evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the appellant was negligent for the manner in which it chose to clear the blockage from the sewer line which allegedly resulted in a sewage backup in the appellees’ basement. Furthermore, the appellant’s decision to force water into the sewer line with the Jet-Vac truck was not a discretionary decision pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(5), because the appellant provided no evidence of any specific decision that it made regarding its alleged negligence that involved weighing alternatives or a high degree of official judgment or discretion. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that genuine issues of material fact exist and that the appellant was not entitled to summary judgment as to the issue of immunity. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 2019-Ohio-45
State v. Brady 27763The trial court did not err by overruling either of Appellant’s motions to suppress. There was no Miranda violation, because Appellant was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Rather, he was lawfully detained for investigatory purposes. Appellant’s consent to search his car was valid. When the officer asked for the consent, Appellant was being detained lawfully. The officer did not need a particular reason to search the car. Brady did not establish a violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), because he failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit supporting the warrant to search a USB drive contained a false or misleading statement. The affidavit provided a substantial basis to find probable cause that the USB drive contained evidence of sexual assault. The 77-year aggregate prison sentence imposed by the trial court was not contrary to law. The sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, because each individual prison sentence was within the authorized statutory range. The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. Videos found on a USB drive show Appellant raping his daughter on numerous occasions. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.) (Donovan, J., concurring in both the majority opinion and the concurring opinion.)HallMontgomery 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 2019-Ohio-46
State v. Farris 2018-CA-55After reviewing the entire record as prescribed by Anders, we find no issues with arguable merit. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 2019-Ohio-47
Fayette Drywall, Inc. v. Oettinger 28059Upon motion, a trial court, under R.C. 2711.02(B), must stay litigation when the movant establishes that it is a party to a written contract which includes an arbitration provision, that an issue presented by the litigation is referable to arbitration, and that the movant is not in default in proceeding with the arbitration. The motion before the trial court met these requirements. Further, the presence of claims or parties that are not subject to the arbitration provision is not a basis upon which a trial court may deny a stay as to such claims or parties. Thus, the trial court erred when it did not stay the litigation as to claims and parties not subject to the arbitration provision. Judgment reversed and remanded. (Hall, J., concurring in judgment only.)TuckerMontgomery 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 2019-Ohio-48
State v. Roberts 2018-CA-27The appellant’s statutory maximum sentence for improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation is not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Contrary to the appellant’s argument, the record does not demonstrate that the trial court failed to satisfy its obligation to consider the “seriousness” and “recidivism” factors in R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 2019-Ohio-49
Scaccia v. Fid. Invests. 2018-CA-5The trial court committed plain error by vacating a default judgment in Appellant’s favor, and reversal is required under the plain error doctrine. Appellee’s motion to vacate (urging Civ.R. 60(B) relief) was filed before the trial court entered the final default judgment. The court, therefore, should have considered the motion as one for reconsideration or as a Civ.R. 6(B) motion for enlargement of time to object to the magistrate’s decision. Once the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision and entered final judgment, the pending motion no longer existed and was presumed to have been denied. Appellee then appealed from the final default judgment and raised the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate. However, that appeal was dismissed as untimely, and a final judgment existed, resolving all claims between the parties. Judgment reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion to set aside the default judgment.WelbaumGreene 1/11/2019 1/11/2019 2019-Ohio-50
Smith v. Cbert Properties, L.L.C. 28058The trial court erred by entering summary judgment for Appellee on Appellant’s claims for negligence and conversion. Appellant’s own affidavit is sufficient to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to both claims. The trial court did not err by entering summary judgment for Appellee on Appellant’s claim that Appellee violated R.C. 5321.04(A)(8). This statutory provision did not apply, and Appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.HallMontgomery 1/4/2019 1/4/2019 2019-Ohio-12
State v. Evans 27881The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion to dismiss. Contrary to Appellant’s claim otherwise, the statute governing Appellant’s charge for failing to stop after an accident, R.C. 4549.02, does not violate Appellant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Appellant suffered actual prejudice as the result of pre-indictment delay. Appellant also failed to establish that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request such a hearing, as Appellant did not demonstrate any resulting prejudice. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 1/4/2019 1/4/2019 2019-Ohio-13
State v. Pack 27890The record establishes that the police did not extend appellant’s detention beyond what was reasonably necessary to resolve the issues associated with the traffic stop and to issue a traffic citation. The approximate 30-minute time period between when the officer began writing the citation and when the canine unit alerted on appellant’s vehicle was therefore reasonable under the facts presented in the instant case. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 1/4/2019 1/4/2019 2019-Ohio-14