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 388 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Hinshaw 27985State’s appeal. The trial court erred in concluding that police officer did not lawfully enter the defendant’s residence, based on a misdemeanor arrest warrant, after observing the defendant in the residence. Judgment reversed and case remanded.FroelichMontgomery 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4226
State v. Arnett 2018-CA-3Appellant fails to show that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not filing a motion to compel, motion to suppress, or motion to dismiss based on unpreserved video evidence. Appellant has not shown that the potential video evidence was materially exculpatory or that it was destroyed in bad faith. Based on the record, it cannot be said that counsel acted unreasonably or that Appellant was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file the motions. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring in judgment only).HallMiami 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4227
State v. Bittles 2018-CA-15Defendant-appellant pleaded guilty to speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D)(4). The trial court, in addition to the imposition of a fine and court costs, suspended Defendant-appellant’s driver’s license for 30 days. Defendant-appellant appealed the license suspension but did not seek a stay of the license suspension. The suspension has been served, and the record does not suggest that Defendant-appellant will suffer any collateral legal disability as a result of the license suspension. This appeal, as a result, is moot, requiring dismissal of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.TuckerGreene 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4228
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Stanley 2018-CA-13The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Appellants’ Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a foreclosure judgment. Appellants did not demonstrate that they failed to answer or otherwise respond to Appellee’s complaint as a result of excusable neglect, nor did they allege operative facts warranting a hearing on the motion. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.)TuckerGreene 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4229
Hagar v. Sabry 27967The trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the spousal support award requiring Defendant-appellant to pay Plaintiff-appellee spousal support in the amount of $2,975 per month for a period of ten years. However, the trial court erred in the calculation of Defendant-appellant’s child support obligation, because the calculation did not account for the spousal support award. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court.TuckerMontgomery 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4230
Thomas v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. 27965The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant’s motion to amend her complaint, to include facts regarding her PTSD diagnosis and claims of racial and disability discrimination, eight months after she filed her administrative appeal from the termination of her teaching contract. The trial court did not consider Appellant’s prior discipline at another school when determining that she was subject to termination, and Appellant was not denied due process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant’s failure to enter third quarter final grades was good and just cause for termination. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4231
State v. Johnson 2018-CA-9The trial court correctly sentenced Johnson to consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2921.331(D), which requires that, if an offender is sentenced to a prison term for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, the offender shall serve the prison term consecutively to any other prison term imposed upon the offender. The imposition of maximum sentences for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and possession was neither contrary to law nor clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed. (Hall, J., concurs.)DonovanClark 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4232
Rauch v. Jefferson Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals 27743This case concerns the requested operation of a commercial compost facility, with such operation being a permitted, but conditional, use. The township, through the board of zoning appeals, approved the facility but imposed certain conditions upon its operation. The common pleas court, in a R.C. 2506.01 appeal, concluded that several of the imposed conditions were not supported by the record but that other conditions were so supported. Both parties appealed. The trial court, regarding the rejected conditions, did not abuse its discretion when determining that the conditions were not supported by the record. Further, the record did not support the contention that the trial court ignored or improperly discounted any witness’s testimony. Upon remand from the common pleas court ordering the BZA to issue a conditional use permit allowing the operation of the compost facility, the BZA had the authority to impose conditions upon the facility’s use following a hearing. Further, the conditions imposed were not barred by res judicata. Finally, the conditions relating to the BZA’s ability to review the facility’s operation were authorized by the township’s zoning code. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4233
Sullivan v. Willhoite 27968The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s petition for a civil stalking protection order. Review of Appellant’s arguments is limited because Appellant failed to file a transcript of the full civil protection order hearing. As a result, the regularity of the proceedings below is presumed, and the limited record for review does not affirmatively demonstrate error. The trial court also did not use an incorrect burden of proof in deciding the case. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 10/19/2018 10/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4234
State v. Barnett 27660The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting testimony at trial concerning Appellant’s prior violent behavior when the challenged testimony was not offered to prove that Appellant had bad character or that he acted in conformity with that bad character, but rather to assist in explaining why the victim delayed disclosing her abuse. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in excluding the contents of the victim’s sexually explicit text messages at trial when the actual content of the text messages was of no consequence to Appellant’s defense and would have served no purpose other than to portray the victim in a negative light. The fact that the DNA and seminal fluid tests were performed by forensic scientists other than the scientist who analyzed the test results and testified at trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the results of the tests performed by the other scientists were not offered for their truth, but used to help the testifying expert explain his own scientific conclusions, all of which were subject to cross-examination. Based on the evidence submitted at trial, there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s conviction for two counts of sexual battery and said conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Lastly, Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law and we find no clear and convincing evidence indicating that the record does not support Appellant’s sentence. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting.)WelbaumMontgomery 10/12/2018 10/12/2018 2018-Ohio-4133