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 64 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Adams 2017-CA-7Appellant's conviction for domestic violence is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Contrary to Appellant's claim otherwise, the weight of the evidence establishes that Appellant was the primary aggressor during the physical altercation in question and that Appellant was not acting in self defense. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-604
State v. Ball 2017-CA-54Defendant's conviction for burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant's sentence of three years in prison was not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.FroelichClark 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-605
Heard v. Daytonview Commons Homes 27706Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to apartment owner on tenant's personal injury claim. Although tenant claimed that his neck pain and/or injury was caused by his fall on the threshold of his apartment because the pain started after the fall, the owner offered tenant's deposition testimony about his medical records, which acknowledged pre-existing neck problems. The tenant did not offer any expert opinion or other evidentiary materials that created a genuine issue of material fact that his neck pain and/or injury was caused by the fall. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-606
State v. Haynes 27538The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's motion to suppress an incriminating statement he made while being handcuffed after officers found a firearm in a car in which he had been a passenger. The appellant was lawfully detained at all times leading up to his incriminating statement because police were completing an investigation of the driver by confirming her identify and the validity of a warrant for her arrest and arresting her. In addition, a dog's free-air sniff around the driver's car, which occurred contemporaneously with her arrest, gave police probable cause to search the car. The search resulted in the discovery of the loaded handgun, which the appellant promptly admitted owning. Although the appellant had not been Mirandized when he made the admission, it was not the product of police "interrogation." Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting.)HallMontgomery 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-607
State v. Henderson 27559The doctrine of res judicata applies to the trial court's calculation of jail time credit, since Appellant did not appeal from the denial of his initial pro se motion for jail time credit, filed October 4, 2016, prior to filing his subsequent pro se motion for jail time credit on April 3, 2017, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-608
State v. Ivkovich 27465The trial court, following a no-contest plea, found Defendant-appellant guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide under R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)(a) for causing the death of another as the proximate result of the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A). The trial court did not err by overruling Defendant-appellant's motion seeking to suppress the result of a blood test. The securing, testing, and retention of Defendant-appellant's blood substantially complied with the applicable Ohio Administrative Code requirements, and Defendant-appellant consented to provide samples of his blood for toxicological analysis. The trial court informed Defendant-appellant that a prison term was mandatory; thus, it cannot be asserted that the plea was less than knowing and voluntary on this basis. Finally, the sentence imposed by the trial court is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring in judgment only.)TuckerMontgomery 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-609
State v. Norris 2017-CA-7Appellant's conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not lose its way by finding that Appellant failed to establish the affirmative defense that he reasonably believed he was allowed to use his employer's vehicle for personal matters. Judgment affirmed.HallMiami 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-610
Williams v. Williams 2017-CA-47The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting Defendant-appellee a one-half interest in a timeshare the parties acquired during the marriage, by granting Defendant-appellee a one-half interest in the Plaintiff-appellant's annuity pension benefit which was acquired during the marriage, and by ordering Plaintiff-appellant to pay Defendant-appellee's attorney fees. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-611
State v. York 27521Defendant-appellant was convicted by a jury of murder as a proximate result of felonious assault. Defendant-appellant asserts that the cumulative effect of a number of errors committed by the trial court deprived him of a fair trial. We conclude that Defendant-appellant has failed to demonstrate any error making a cumulative error analysis unnecessary. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-612
State v. Baker 27379The trial court did not err in imposing restitution, upon remand, in a written entry after a hearing, rather than in open court; Baker had notice that restitution would be imposed. The trial court did not abuse it discretion in imposing restitution in the amount of $2,800.00 to the victim. Whether or not the victim abandoned his property, after Appellant destroyed it, has no relation or relevance to his right to restitution. Appellant's vandalism conviction was previously affirmed on her direct appeal, and she is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from asserting that her vandalism conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 2/9/2018 2/9/2018 2018-Ohio-511